Stupidest things you have ever seen written (about ancient history)

[anubis88]

So i was reading the most popular website of the national tv channel of my country, and there was that piece on "mystical" historical cities, like El Dorado, Karakurum, Ys etc... Among those there was Carthage as well; Here is what was written under the picture of modern day carthage in a rough translation;

... It was a most powerfull city state, and the main rival of Rome in the 3rd century BC. Her strenght came from it's killer phoenican fleet and an army of elephants, which controlled mountain ranges under Hannibal. Even tought her nickname was the Shining city, it did not survive for long, as it was taken by Rome and destroyed.

I mean Christ, how could someone write this on the most read webpage in the country? :dizzy2: I guess it's time for me to start writing something about nano-technology and publish it somewhere, since it seems people can write just about anything these days...

Did you ever read such bull**** in your native web pages, or for worse, in books?

[Populus Romanus]

300.

[fomalhaut]

sometimes ancient history is more useful in its forced parrallels and morals (or wonderous feats) than in telling of the factual events. I know that's obvious but it does console me when watching things like "Ultimate Warrior", "300", "300 Spartans", etc. but i don't think you mean entertainment media but rather 'factual' nonsense.

i'm not sure where you live OP but if you get the history channel then just about anything mentioned, ancient history or not, is usually laughably wrong or exaggerated. It teaches the type of history that forms our cultural heritage rather than facts.

but definitely, PopulusR, 300 is one of the worst offenders but that is almost trite to mention that novel now.

[Duguntz]

300 is an awesome movie... AWESOME. you hear me?

[fomalhaut]

No one is contesting the perceived entertainment value of said piece of media! just its historical accuracy which is clearly not its goal in any way, but rather to use a particular point in ancient history to explore certain modern themes!

to many myself included the work is Frank Miller creating a us vs. them dichotomy to justify wars abroad or reinforce xenophobia of the first decade of the 21st century. Notice the perfect white males fighting the aggressive foreigners from the east who are implied to be homosexuals. The perfect white males are through their superior elan and culture of the west overcome these aggressive homosexuals until a physically handicapped person turncoats and destroys them.

Hmm, what were you trying to tell us, Frank Miller?

[mlc82]

(seen on a forum post today, paraphrased)

"Hannibal (Barca) and Cleopatra were black. They were from Africa."
http://weeseeyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/kpq_hannibal.jpg

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

...Lorica Segmentata.

[jirisys]

...Lorica Segmentata.

On a camillan trairii.

Really.. My eyes burn on those shows. At least asterix's passable cause it's a comic.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

I don't know about you guys but if I'm getting paid to work as a history consultant, and my advice isn't taken seriously but rather twisted, I could care less. Puts the bread on the table, so to speak. Peoples should grow their critical analytical skills in order not to take silly exhibitions at face value.

[jirisys]

I don't know about you guys but if I'm getting paid to work as a history consultant, and my advice isn't taken seriously but rather twisted, I could care less. Puts the bread on the table, so to speak. Peoples should grow their critical analytical skills in order not to take silly exhibitions at face value.

You're welcome for the idea.

Problem is when things are not supposed to be silly... Oh the madness/sparta

~Jirisys ()

[Lazy O]

I dont think you can put 300(the parody) in this category,it was purely fictional and meant for entertainment. The 300 Spartans however was utter b:daisy:t.

[Andronikos]

Many of those myths, like those that were created sometimes in romanticism which connect modern nations to absolutely unrelated ancient cultures and claim to be their descendants. Yes, perhaps these myths had some use in that era, but nowadays we need more critical approach to history. For example, some of the top are: as I come from Slavic country, I have read many claims that Slavs lived in antiquity where they live today, that they were by far the most developed people in the world (they had everything from advanced metallurgy, wireless communication - because no cables have been excavated to warp powered spaceships :laugh4: , come on, yes we Slavs are awesome and so we don't need this crap), that migrations are false theory, because whole nations simply can't migrate, that men do not originate from Africa, but from Eurasia, that history is some kind of manipulated western (Anglo-Saxon) propaganda and so on. Unbelievable what you can find on the internet.

[Lazy O]

Or in government published schoolbooks in my case

[anubis88]

Let's drop the 300 discussion, since it has been done to death, but i was thinking on focusing on examples like the one i put as an example.

If we are already mentining Slavs, there's a book in my country, the tiltle being; The Etruscans were Slavs . I mean wth.... The guy tries to prove using ancient Etruscan texts, that they can be paraprhased as ancient slovenian and slavic (which doesnt exist as a written languge). He uses his translations as proof, which end up sometimes like this;

Holding a horse, you can drink wine.

Absurd. Pseudo-science sucks

[DeathFinger]

There's a lot - a lot of stupid things written about history.
Some wikipedia articles are really bad, like some internet articles are too, but knowing the guys who posts them it cannot really be took into consideration. What's worse is when they are specialists. I took some weeks ago a book of the ancient marxists' universities, you know when they wanted to show that Parthians vs Romans was a classes war (and I better not to speak about Germanian invasions on this subject). Shame that I don't remember the book's title btw.

But to me the worse is the "New Chronology" thing. See the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29) on this, it's enough. for example, a certain Dr. Ranajit Pal had argues that Diodotos of Bactria and Ašoka were the same.... There was a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-128907.html) on this btw ^^

[Randal]

At my university's ancient history faculty, a decade or so back, we had this rather... spirited debate between two of the more eminent professors. (One from a rival university.)

It was about This book. (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Was-Caesar-Christianity-Investigative/dp/9059113969) I think this is (http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html) the full text, I haven't read so I can't be sure.

Anyway, the book claims that Flavius Josephus invented christianity and the person of Jesus, and that he's actually based on Julius, i.e. Julius Caesar. And Galilee was Gaul, Judas was Brutus, etc.

Now taken by itself it seems like pretty ordinary crackpot-ism. What made it truly stupid is that when the thing got picked up by the media, even one ancient history professor started defending it. When the flames started coming in (This debate took place in newspaper editorials and letters and opinion pieces, but those are really just the precursors of internet fora) he quickly back-tracked and the argument was about whether it was scientifically permissible to dismiss this book as arrant nonsense -before- reading it or whether you had to actually read it first.

I didn't read it and am convinced it's nonsense, so I guess you all know which side I was on. ;-)

EDIT: Deathfinger posted while I was checking some facts for this, so I didn't see his post before. But that New Chronology stuff is very similar to this.

[anubis88]

There's a lot - a lot of stupid things written about history.
Some wikipedia articles are really bad, like some internet articles are too, but knowing the guys who posts them it cannot really be took into consideration. What's worse is when they are specialists. I took some weeks ago a book of the ancient marxists' universities, you know when they wanted to show that Parthians vs Romans was a classes war (and I better not to speak about Germanian invasions on this subject). Shame that I don't remember the book's title btw.

But to me the worse is the "New Chronology" thing. See the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29) on this, it's enough. for example, a certain Dr. Ranajit Pal had argues that Diodotos of Bactria and Ašoka were the same.... There was a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-128907.html) on this btw ^^

Yeah, i've heard about that. Imagine how shocked i was when i learned Kasparov was a supporter of this, since i'm very fond of chess... That's when he stopped being my idol :laugh4:

Interesting; i didn't know Jesus = Caesar :clown:

I've already written about this a few years back, but since we are mentioning professors; Our ex middle-ages proffesor told the whole class, that if we want to know how a typical battle of Romans vs Barbarians was fought, we should just watch the first battle in Gladiator, as it is 100% correct. LOL

[Olaf The Great]

"The Byzantine Empire"

[Fluvius Camillus]

On a camillan trairii.

Really.. My eyes burn on those shows. At least asterix's passable cause it's a comic.

~Jirisys ()

Triarii? Didn't they have 2nd Cent AD LS legionaires from 5th BC till 5th AD?~D

~Fluvius

[The_Blacksmith]

i think the most silly thing ive read wa that Africa was named after Scipio Africanus...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

"What the Romans did is, they brought order to the Barbarian chaos.." David Dimbleby shamelessly - and with a straight face - espousing the Roman version of history, handed down to us by...Roman propogandists in the BBC series Seven Ages of Britain (not to be confused with the much better, imo, Channel 4 series, Seven Ages of Britain).

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

i think the most silly thing ive read wa that Africa was named after Scipio Africanus...

No.....not really? Surely not?

[antisocialmunky]

The Aeneid.

[Zarathustra Baktrios]

The Aeneid.
This is more about mythology than ancient history, antisocialmunky. I don't believe romans took it as facts, but they celebrated their own version(/copy) of Iliad and Odyssey, created this time by a roman about Rome. This is another way to see how romans used greek culture to build their own. It was a matter of entertainement and its obvious purpose is to glorified the roman society by giving it heroic and divine roots ; it's a tale.
At the same times, The Ovid's Metamorphoses had the same purpose.

[fomalhaut]

This is more about mythology than ancient history, antisocialmunky. I don't believe romans took it as facts, but they celebrated their own version(/copy) of Iliad and Odyssey, created this time by a roman about Rome. This is another way to see how romans used greek culture to build their own. It was a matter of entertainement and its obvious purpose is to glorified the roman society by giving it heroic and divine roots ; it's a tale.
At the same times, The Ovid's Metamorphoses had the same purpose.

Yes this is correct exactly. It was fabricated history as cultural background not as collection of facts. It was literally state created propaganda (Augustus was Virgils patron i believe) with a purpose to give the same sense of solidarity to the Romans as the Hellenes had for 800 years.

[A_Dane]

There's a lot - a lot of stupid things written about history.
Some wikipedia articles are really bad, like some internet articles are too, but knowing the guys who posts them it cannot really be took into consideration. What's worse is when they are specialists. I took some weeks ago a book of the ancient marxists' universities, you know when they wanted to show that Parthians vs Romans was a classes war (and I better not to speak about Germanian invasions on this subject). Shame that I don't remember the book's title btw.

But to me the worse is the "New Chronology" thing. See the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29) on this, it's enough. for example, a certain Dr. Ranajit Pal had argues that Diodotos of Bactria and Ašoka were the same.... There was a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-128907.html) on this btw ^^

oh the horror... Stuff like this reminds me just why I've lost my faith in humanity...

[Zarax]

On a tunisian "history" website: "After Zama, Hannibal rode out east with 100 knights and lived happily ever after".

Wish I still had the link as it had an excellent comedy value :P

EDIT: Although nothing and I say absolutely nothing can beat some indian ones, with vedic "power plants" and atomic bombs in the 2nd millenium BC :laugh4:

[Andronikos]

I have heard that one about Slavs and Etruscans.


EDIT: Although nothing and I say absolutely nothing can beat some indian ones, with vedic "power plants" and atomic bombs in the 2nd millenium BC :laugh4:

Oh, yes, this and things like lost wisdom of the ancients, that lost civilisations posessed technology advanced when compared to ours, psychic powers and so on. This stuff makes fantastic sci-fi and fantasy stories, but not in RL please.

[antisocialmunky]

I have heard that one about Slavs and Etruscans.



Oh, yes, this and things like lost wisdom of the ancients, that lost civilisations posessed technology advanced when compared to ours, psychic powers and so on. This stuff makes fantastic sci-fi and fantasy stories, but not in RL please.

Oh yeah, the fringe Vedic stuff is pretty out there like the claims that part of India have weird levels of radiation due to some sort of historic nuclear war.

[Ibrahim]

(seen on a forum post today, paraphrased)

"Hannibal (Barca) and Cleopatra were black. They were from Africa."
http://weeseeyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/kpq_hannibal.jpg

even though Cleopatra was a Macedonian woman with not much Egyptian (let alone "African" in her, and Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian, and from there a semite and accordingly similar to a guy from the Levant or North Africa (i.e." white"-a meaningless term, since it gradates to "blackness", and from there, we're all Africans..)?

god this stuff is stupid.

*end emo diatribe"




Interesting; i didn't know Jesus = Caesar :clown:


oh, you did not know? this was all figured out by this guy https://www.youtube.com/Calpurnpiso :clown:

Jesus IS Ceasar :clown:

yeah...listen to the sane penis obsessed guy who thinks crucifixion is a mythical punishment, never used by the Romans.

yeah, there really are people , who are this...undeveloped.

[anubis88]

I was afraid someone would mention the "forbidden archeology"... I mean wth is that? The Dakkara bird or whatever... It is definetly a plane, there's just no other explanation... So it's either aliens or there were super evolved civilizations before us...

It also amazes me that people actually think the avarage greek was waaaay more stupid than the avarage present day man :S...

But that's a whole other story... Those are more claims than written things in the modern media (altough i must say that it seems 99% of people from my country, based on comments on various forums, believe in a supreme cover up by the worlds goverments of an extremly advanced past... With the Illuminati and Opus Dei, and the Jews running most goverments... What can i say, i live in a land where there are many "wierd" people :D)

[Tanit]

#1)My Women's Studies prof, who claimed to have a Classics degree, said that there were no lesbians in ancient Sparta.

#2)Underestimation of mankind: Humans couldn't build the pyramids, we never went to the moon, etc....

[athanaric]

#1)My Women's Studies prof, who claimed to have a Classics degree, said that there were no lesbians in ancient Sparta.[bolding mine]

The existence of such a discipline at all is testament to human failure. Whenever I've heard someone mention something in that direction, it's some retarded pseudo-scientific PC crap.

[Dutchhoplite]

In "The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy"

Besides the fact this is one of the worst books i bought and read the last years...The author writes that Romans were armed with machetes....horrible crap!

[vartan]

The existence of such a discipline at all is testament to human failure. Whenever I've heard someone mention something in that direction, it's some retarded pseudo-scientific PC crap.
Women's Studies can be rather important if one is willing enough to open up to a wide-enough interdisciplinary approach to problems. Good thing about WS is that it isn't just about "women".

[fomalhaut]

[bolding mine]

The existence of such a discipline at all is testament to human failure. Whenever I've heard someone mention something in that direction, it's some retarded pseudo-scientific PC crap.

you can't be serious? western history is undeniably told through the patriarchal and more recently nationalist perspective. Seeing you comparing Women's Studies to pseudo-science is really quite scary.

[Tollheit]

No, we don't need "science" with an agenda to counter another agenda.

[antisocialmunky]

Those tends of fields tend to examine historic activities through a very narrow lense and make certain assumptions based on the subjectivities of the participants (IE Contextualize everything as "men oppressed women" + assume "there must be a feminized reading of everything" => get something not particularly objective).

That being said, these narrow lense studies may be used to tease out something interesting and true but nto so dramatic if taken with a variety of other narrow lenses as well as the original context.

[vartan]

ASM the WS reference was off-topic and not at all to do with history or WS as a historical lens. Sorry you misunderstood.

P.S. WS is not quote "men oppressed women" and "there must be a feminized reading of everything". Just to clear things up.

[M to the A]

I have family in Macedonia so I've read my fair share of funny stuff on those "truth" websites from Macedonians, Greeks and Albanians.

[athanaric]

you can't be serious? western history is undeniably told through the patriarchal and more recently nationalist perspective. Seeing you comparing Women's Studies to pseudo-science is really quite scary.

Sorry but we're alread past that. If there is any agenda in modern historical science, it's "don't make connections", "be ultra-specific", and so on. Also, why do you say "Western history"? Other parts of this world have a history too and they're no less "patriarchal" and "nationalist" than us. Also, what Tollheit said.

[vartan]

Sorry but we're alread past that. If there is any agenda in modern historical science, it's "don't make connections", "be ultra-specific", and so on. Also, why do you say "Western history"? Other parts of this world have a history too and they're no less "patriarchal" and "nationalist" than us. Also, what Tollheit said.
Thank you atha. I do not know what various institutions have to say, but thankfully, attending a world-famous research institution, I unlearned the imperialism-filled toxins of traditional U.S. "social sciences".

[Populus Romanus]

That 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Ironically, this stupidity was started by an ancient historian. To make matters even worse, no ancient was stupid enough to buy that crap, but now 2 and 1/2 millenia after, we are all suddenly believing it.:wall:

[jirisys]

That 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Ironically, this stupidity was started by an ancient historian. To make matters even worse, no ancient was stupid enough to buy that crap, but now 2 and 1/2 millenia after, we are all suddenly believing it.:wall:

2 millions... I think 70k is feasible due to the fact it was a grand campaign, led by the king.

But two millions? That's 200 times a regular army back then.

~Jirisys ()

[antisocialmunky]

ASM the WS reference was off-topic and not at all to do with history or WS as a historical lens. Sorry you misunderstood.

P.S. WS is not quote "men oppressed women" and "there must be a feminized reading of everything". Just to clear things up.

Meh, maybe its just the fact that my ancient mythology professor liked to fall back on Feminist and Homosexual interpretations of primary sources instead of just trying to look at them in an actual historical context.

[fomalhaut]

those narrow lenses can help us find new understandings on a subject. not to say they are the end all but they all contribute to a whole

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

The 'Rome: Total War' design documents.

[antisocialmunky]

those narrow lenses can help us find new understandings on a subject. not to say they are the end all but they all contribute to a whole



ME:

That being said, these narrow lense studies may be used to tease out something interesting and true but nto so dramatic if taken with a variety of other narrow lenses as well as the original context.


Read what I posted first: Useful for looking at certain aspects of history as part of the whole but not useful for teaching it as history in isolation.

[Shade]

I have a hypothesis that Rome: Total War takes place in some sort of alternate history timeline.

- Massive and pointless wars during the early Iron Age lead to many of the cultures of northern Europe being devasted, and creating a few powerful tribes that have lost much of their oral and written history.
- Mysticism and cults are much more prevalent in Rome, leading to bizarre techniques and technologies.
- Ptolemy I Soter suffered a severe case of malaria, ultimately becoming brain damaged during a coma. Believing himself to be the reincarnation of the ancient Egyptian rulers, he set about recreating it as much as possible.

I'm sure that there is more to it.

[antisocialmunky]

You could go on for days about RTW. :p

[vartan]

2 millions... I think 70k is feasible due to the fact it was a grand campaign, led by the king.

But two millions? That's 200 times a regular army back then.

~Jirisys ()
By the 8th century BCE we already have upwards of 70k armies (see Assyria). By the 5th century BCE the Achaemenids far surpass this capability, by at least double. The supporting non-militants can easily make the numbers of the people (warrior and other) in the invading army reach 200-250k and beyond.

[jirisys]

By the 8th century BCE we already have upwards of 70k armies (see Assyria). By the 5th century BCE the Achaemenids far surpass this capability, by at least double. The supporting non-militants can easily make the numbers of the people (warrior and other) in the invading army reach 200-250k and beyond.

Yes, I seem to have forgotten a 0 in there.

700 thousand I meant.

~Jirisys ()

[Ca Putt]

nah, that's just exaggeration.

claiming that an army was made mostly of elephants whereas they maybe had one on 1000 humans and claiming that an army counted two million soldiers whereas it only counted 70k men are two pairs of shoes.

compare: one Fisherman claims he cought a Unicorn and one claims he cought a fish that was 60 feet long.
one is a bloody liar the other one is just exaggerating.

[Populus Romanus]

Yes, I seem to have forgotten a 0 in there.

700 thousand I meant.

~Jirisys ()
The absolute maximum Greece could have supported was 250,000 men. Absolutely no more could be supported by the countywide. It would be physically impossible to have an army any larger than that.

[Biowulf]

Except I'm pretty sure he was talking about Persia.

[Poulp']

compare: one Fisherman claims he cought a Unicorn and one claims he cought a fish that was 60 feet long.
one is a bloody liar the other one is just exaggerating.

Or he could have caught a narval, in which case he's just ignorant.

[jirisys]

The absolute maximum Greece could have supported was 250,000 men. Absolutely no more could be supported by the countywide. It would be physically impossible to have an army any larger than that.


Except I'm pretty sure he was talking about Persia.

Yes


Or he could have caught a narval, in which case he's just ignorant.

Nice :laugh4:

~Jirisys ()

[Tanit]

Could Persia have supported an army of 2 million? - Maybe
Is it likely? - No
Is it fun to imagine? - big time

[vartan]

Could Persia have supported an army of 2 million? - Maybe
Is it likely? - No
Is it fun to imagine? - big time
Producing a film remotely resembling the Battle of Thermopylae (480BCE): 65.000.000 USD
Maintaining the armies in said battle: upwards of 12.500 mnai
Tanit's wittiness: priceless

[Tanit]

HA! LOL. Thank you Vartan.

[jirisys]

That hoplites fought underarm and that spears in a classical phalanx formations were useless and the swords too, so they both would have been faded out.

~Jirisys ()

[Harkilaz]

That hoplites fought underarm and that spears in a classical phalanx formations were useless and the swords too, so they both would have been faded out.

~Jirisys ()

It might not be so ridiculous in regards to fighting underarm. A friend on another site brought this to my attention in a thread I am writing about Hannibal's army. In the Anabasis, Xenophon says:

The latter, on their side, came forward eagerly to meet the charge, both the cavalry and the mass of the Bithynians; and these turned the peltasts. But when with counter-wave the phalanx of the heavy infantry rapidly advancing, faced them, and at the same time the bugle sounded, and the battle hymn rose from all lips, and after this a loud cheer rose, and at the same instant they couched their spears;--at this conjuncture the enemy no longer welcomed them, but fled. Timasion with his cavalry followed close, and, considering their scant numbers, they did great execution. It was the left wing of the enemy, in a line with which the Hellene cavalry were posted, that was so speedily scattered. But the right, which was not so hotly pursued, collected upon a knoll; 28 and when the Hellenes saw them standing firm, it seemed the easiest and least dangerous course to go against them at once. Raising the battle hymn, they straightway fell upon them, but the others did not await their coming. Thereupon the peltasts gave chase until the right of the enemy was in its turn scattered, though with slight loss in killed; for the enemy's cavalry was numerous and threatening.

But when the Hellenes saw the cavalry of Pharnabazus still standing in compact order, and the Bithynian horsemen massing together as if to join it, and like spectators gazing down from a knoll at the occurrences below; though weary, they determined to attack the enemy as best they could, and not suffer him to recover breath with reviving courage. So they formed in compact line and advanced. Thereupon the hostile cavalry turned and fled down the steep as swiftly as if they had been pursued by cavalry.


Couching their spears suggests some sort of underarm charge and also that they appear to have been in a rather looser formation making them much more maneuverable. Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting find!

[anubis88]

Yeah, i don't really understand how you can compare your claim of the hoplites with mine of Hannibal controlling mountains with armies of elephants and Carthage not being prosperous for long :clown:

[Arjos]

Couching their spears suggests some sort of underarm charge and also that they appear to have been in a rather looser formation making them much more maneuverable. Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting find!

Reading talks a lot about cavalry, even pottery shows hoplitai using underarm grip against cavalry...
In the end is a game of physics, strong forward thrust to kill infantry (overarm), steady lever to withstand cavalry charges, piercing them in the process (underarm)...

[Myth]

That hoplites fought underarm and that spears in a classical phalanx formations were useless and the swords too, so they both would have been faded out.

~Jirisys ()

Link one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4) Link two. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc)

This isn't a political debate forum but to the guy laughing at the information about the NWO and the Iluminatti - do your research before you speak.

[Harkilaz]

Reading talks a lot about cavalry, even pottery shows hoplitai using underarm grip against cavalry...
In the end is a game of physics, strong forward thrust to kill infantry (overarm), steady lever to withstand cavalry charges, piercing them in the process (underarm)...

Exactly.

[fomalhaut]

why do they have to fight either or? aren't their tactical situations where both grips are useful

[jirisys]

It might not be so ridiculous in regards to fighting underarm. A friend on another site brought this to my attention in a thread I am writing about Hannibal's army. In the Anabasis, Xenophon says:

The latter, on their side, came forward eagerly to meet the charge, both the cavalry and the mass of the Bithynians; and these turned the peltasts. But when with counter-wave the phalanx of the heavy infantry rapidly advancing, faced them, and at the same time the bugle sounded, and the battle hymn rose from all lips, and after this a loud cheer rose, and at the same instant they couched their spears;--at this conjuncture the enemy no longer welcomed them, but fled. Timasion with his cavalry followed close, and, considering their scant numbers, they did great execution. It was the left wing of the enemy, in a line with which the Hellene cavalry were posted, that was so speedily scattered. But the right, which was not so hotly pursued, collected upon a knoll; 28 and when the Hellenes saw them standing firm, it seemed the easiest and least dangerous course to go against them at once. Raising the battle hymn, they straightway fell upon them, but the others did not await their coming. Thereupon the peltasts gave chase until the right of the enemy was in its turn scattered, though with slight loss in killed; for the enemy's cavalry was numerous and threatening.

But when the Hellenes saw the cavalry of Pharnabazus still standing in compact order, and the Bithynian horsemen massing together as if to join it, and like spectators gazing down from a knoll at the occurrences below; though weary, they determined to attack the enemy as best they could, and not suffer him to recover breath with reviving courage. So they formed in compact line and advanced. Thereupon the hostile cavalry turned and fled down the steep as swiftly as if they had been pursued by cavalry.


Couching their spears suggests some sort of underarm charge and also that they appear to have been in a rather looser formation making them much more maneuverable. Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting find!

Most of those are secluded cases. I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME and because "there was less reach if you grabbed the spear overarm".

Granted I know some fought underarm (Syracusan for example), but I mean a classical phalanx formation (normally).


Link one. Link two.

This isn't a political debate forum but to the guy laughing at the information about the NWO and the Iluminatti - do your research before you speak.

Bogus, Bogus.

Here's why: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134178-The-Pushing-Match

The other. Isn't the first a conspiracy? And the second a dead organization like the freemasons (with a lot of buzz in THC... for obvious reasons).

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

why do they have to fight either or? aren't their tactical situations where both grips are useful
No. Everything in this universe is either black or white. There are no grey areas. There is no room for variation and adaptation. It's a binary world we live in.





-----------------------------------------------------
:balloon2: party :balloon2: party :balloon2: party :balloon2: it's yo birthday, yea!

[fomalhaut]

there is no room for 0's in a land of 1's and 2. i see you planescape

[Azi Tohak]

The conventional history of the battle of the Granicus. Really? Persians decided to defend the edge of a river with cavalry, while their heavy infantry mercenaries sat on their hands back a ways? And then Alexander decided to perform a frontal assault right into the teeth of said stupid defensive formation? Please. I read Peter Green's book which devotes a large amount of space to what he thinks happens, and it makes a darned sight more sense than the traditional view. I wrote up the "Revisionist History" section of the wiki article on the battle myself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Granicus#Revisionist_view

[fomalhaut]

when i read that passage, i really didn't understand it. The Persian Empire wasn't run by complete and total idiots, but it seems his propagandists wants you to think that while at the same time considering Alexander the greatest tactician by overcoming them? eh

[antisocialmunky]

To establish how much naturally better the Greeks were. Its not unlike what happens today.

[Vaginacles]

"romans would swear an oath holding their testicles"

where the hell did this come from and why can't i find it...

[fomalhaut]

To establish how much naturally better the Greeks were. Its not unlike what happens today.

well not to mention the need to denigrate Parmenio at literally every.single.instance possible because of his alleged(?) participation in some plot or another. Parmenio proposes so many good ideas, the night attack at granicus included, yet Alexander always (in Arrian's anabasis) has to say how foolish and old Parmenio is for such a suggestion.

I think there is even a direct quote "ah, that is what Parmenio would do. but I am Alexander"

[Ibrahim]

"romans would swear an oath holding their testicles"

where the hell did this come from and why can't i find it...

well, I know that one poem by Catullus alludes to people hacking off their testicles part of some wierd cult. don't remember which one though

[fomalhaut]

knowing catullus he was probably making fun of weird cults?

[Atraphoenix]

I reaaly do not know whther it is true or not but the conquest of egypt by persian by using cats was the most stupid one.
according to that legend persians knew cats are treated as wholy creatures in egypt and they collected them and released them against the egyptian army. they retreated not to press and kill them by accident and persians conquered egypt.

If it is true it must be the most stupid battle ever made...

[Ludens]

well, I know that one poem by Catullus alludes to people hacking off their testicles part of some wierd cult. don't remember which one though

Cybele. I have no idea how weird it was, but it seems to have fairly wide-spread and long-lasting for a Cult.

[moonburn]

If it is true it must be the most stupid battle ever made...

it took the romans over 100 years to conquer northern ulterior lusitania because they assumed the (currently lima) river would make them forget who they where the river of oblivion or something like that

beliefs and superstitions are always extremly important when leading many men since you can´t loose 30 minutes reasoning with each one

[Populus Romanus]

Every single independent Greek city was allied to one another.

[Ca Putt]

hrr hrr^^
tho I stick with herodotus on the Egyptian matter. and honestly, think of it, It's not like the mighty persian empire would need silly tricks to defeat the Egyptians who were led by an unexperienced Commander and after all are better known for their architecture than their Army(just fought a costom battle in Rise of persia with Egyptians against Indians to check how units look and noticed that I hat not one unit that could not have been beaten by their levy units :(, not that that mod is 100% historical just a general tendancy)

[antisocialmunky]

it took the romans over 100 years to conquer northern ulterior lusitania because they assumed the (currently lima) river would make them forget who they where the river of oblivion or something like that

beliefs and superstitions are always extremly important when leading many men since you can´t loose 30 minutes reasoning with each one

Well they did have to fight like a 200 year long counter insurgency campaign...

[Ibrahim]

knowing catullus he was probably making fun of weird cults?

exactly. I think he referred to a rock or a pot-sherd being used.

that guy always cracks me up reading his more satirical material. he was a genius.


Cybele. I have no idea how weird it was, but it seems to have fairly wide-spread and long-lasting for a Cult.

well, if it involves self castration, then I guess it can be safely counted as "weird"-even for a Roman. I see the practice according to this article being used on the more ecstatic male followers.

[Ca Putt]

it may just be spam but either way I was quite amused:

pop up add:
choose the helmet used by the roman empire -
a corinthean, a kabuto(ok I did not know that but I looked it up: the samurai helmet) and a wiking helmet with those silly horns on both sides.

even more hillarious than the weapon question with crossbow sword and axe.

[WinsingtonIII]

Link one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4) Link two. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc)

Not to bring up the hoplite over-arm/under-arm debate, but some of the logic this guy uses is a bit flawed. I'm namely bothered by his contention that we cannot learn anything about how hoplites fought from vases depicting them because these vases would have been painted by artisans who do not know anything about fighting.

He exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the hoplite system here because in reality, a decent number of those artisans would have been of the hoplite class, and thus they would have experienced at least military training or perhaps even warfare. Thus, they would have certainly known how to hold their spear.

[moonburn]

it may just be spam but either way I was quite amused:

pop up ad:
choose the helmt used by the roman empire -
a corinthean, a kabuto(ok I did not know that but I looked it up: the samurai helmet) and a wiking helmet with those silly horns on both sides.

even more hillarious than the weapon question with crossbow sword and axe.

don´t know about wiking but vikings didn´t used horns on their helmets it was something priests and monks used to try and demonize the heathens stealling from monestary´s

[Ca Putt]

sorry about the w It's spelled with w where I live. but anyway I know that they were not used, which is why I added "silly" otherwise one could say those were used in the roman empire - by germanic auxillaries that is ;)

I'm on the boards for long enough to know a few things about history ;)

[athanaric]

even more hillarious than the weapon question with crossbow sword and axe.

Technically the Romans used all three, though the axe was actually a tool for them and the crossbow only a late thing.

When in doubt, always go with spear, because that weapon was used by all cultures. Likewise the shield - even the Japanese used shields during earlier periods.

[Ca Putt]

which is why I thought it hillarious - there beeing no one right answer

and It was spam why should I click spam, it's not like I'd get my money(or harddrive) back when I complain that my answer was correct they just suck at history. it would however been more hillarious when one option had been a spear.