View Full Version : Go tell the spartans, strangers passing by, that here obedient to there laws we lie
It's probably been discussed to death, revived, and discussed to death again. but he.
-anybody tell me who's qoute it is, and what it means(sorta quiz.~;))
-will EB's spartans fight in the same style as thei thermopylan predecesors or will they be more like the Iphicraten ones?
-i know the spartans wont be CA's juggernauts(luckily) but hwo will they compare?
-since Sparta has bled to death, what number will be one unit (like: normal ones are 40..wiht how many will teh spartans be?)
-will they get two hitpoints?(wich brings me to my next topic)
curufinwe_91
09-06-2005, 20:05
i think its just the writing on a plaque written over the spartan's grave at thermopylae that celebrates the spartan's bravery in defending the path for 3 days. the "laws" just mean that sparta had a law that no man could run away in battle.
i could be rambling and completely wrong, so i apologise if i am.
indeed, i just looked it up.
i primiraly got it form Steven Pressfield. but the line is form simonides.
thanks for the bump!
RandyKapp
09-06-2005, 20:21
300 Spartans didnt hold the path for 3 days thats a myth. It was a largish army of united Greeks most of whom retreated after holding the pass for some days. The Spartans stays behind like the strongheaded fools they were and were annihilated by skirmishers since the Persians didnt want to engage them head on (with good reason)
yup,,that's right..with their allies they held the pass for 7 days total, wasn't it? of those 7, the 300 only did the last day 'by themselves'.
didn't know they were out-skirmished tough, but a sensible strat for the persians..
Reverend Joe
09-06-2005, 20:33
Thank you for clarifying that. I have always despised the legend of the Spartans who fought for a whole day to allow their allies to retreat- no general with any common sense would send wave after wave of men to their death.
Teleklos Archelaou
09-06-2005, 21:02
The univ. that I'm at now has a big monument with that greek phrase on it. It has to do with a lot of university students being killed in battle and honoring them. It's cool to be able to point students toward it and explain it to them - they rarely know anything about it even though it's smack-dab in the middle of campus. I'll not say what war it was...
hmm...tell me about that...
do you actually live in sparta? wich war? what is there to 'know' about it?
Thank you for clarifying that. I have always despised the legend of the Spartans who fought for a whole day to allow their allies to retreat- no general with any common sense would send wave after wave of men to their death.
Uhhh....
Uhhh....
yeah..it indeed wouldn't be teh first time..
cannae..well basically every battle the Pre-marian romans lost was because of sheer arrogance an overconfidence in numbers...
Thermopyale seems to fit that row.
Gaugamela is also a nice one in this row.
Teleklos Archelaou
09-06-2005, 21:21
hmm...tell me about that...
do you actually live in sparta? wich war? what is there to 'know' about it?Nah, in the U.S. - it's a civil war monument actually.
Nah, in the U.S. - it's a civil war monument actually.
ahh, ok..
sorry, i confused you with Idomedas...
It's probably been discussed to death, revived, and discussed to death again. but he.
-anybody tell me who's qoute it is, and what it means(sorta quiz.~;))
-will EB's spartans fight in the same style as thei thermopylan predecesors or will they be more like the Iphicraten ones?
-i know the spartans wont be CA's juggernauts(luckily) but hwo will they compare?
-since Sparta has bled to death, what number will be one unit (like: normal ones are 40..wiht how many will teh spartans be?)
-will they get two hitpoints?(wich brings me to my next topic)
1) Huh?
2) They will fight with underhand spears. Spartiates will probably be the best KH unit, though not juggernauts.
3) On Large, probably 60 or 80
4) probably not
Reverend Joe
09-06-2005, 21:28
cannae..well basically every battle the Pre-marian romans lost was because of sheer arrogance an overconfidence in numbers...
Thermopyale seems to fit that row.
Gaugamela is also a nice one in this row.
As I said, no general with any sense . After several days of slaughtering your men on a forest of spear-points, even the worst general will realise it's rime for a change of pace. However, what I always learned was that the tactics did not change, even when it was only the Spartans defending the pass.
As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance. If the Roman generals had seen the trap lain before them , I doubt they would have sent their men to die en masse.
What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...
I know, it's sad. :embarassed:
What about the entirety of World War I up until the closing 100 days or so?
Reverend Joe
09-06-2005, 21:38
Look, forget I said anything. The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy. That's why I hate the Greeks. I think it's an obsession that began with "The Charge of the Light Brigade"- when I first read it, it struck me as a load of crap. Noone should glorify the butchering of perfectly good elite soldiers, regardless of the outcome of the battle. It's sick. That's what cannon fodder is for.
Okay, rant over. I hope you don't take this personally- it's just that I hate Alfred Lord Tennyson.
King of Atlantis
09-06-2005, 21:44
No, you guys are telling me the Spartans didnt hold it by themselves. My dream is crushed... :embarassed:
I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans. Also, there were, in fact two survivors of the 300, both of whom were disgraced and one of whom committed suicide. As far as skirmishers and whatnot, the pass at Thermopylae isn't exactly a wide open space, it's not like the Spartans had flanks to harrass at that point.
well, if it looked like i was personal, i was sorry..it was more meant of a (sarcastic)joke.
and about the glory of being butchered is, in a way, indeed dumb. but it's somehow heroic, i personally found it breathtakign to read how spartans(&allies)stood up against such a force, each man taking 10 persians with him. but at Thermopylae it was mostly a neccesity to atke that stand..dunno how futile it was in your book.
about gaugamela. it was a Victory of Alexander on Darius, on open field. alexander being outnumbered 1:2 or even 1:3 (Alex had 47.00 inf, and 7.00 cav. Darius is guessed between 100.00 and even 500.00). what actually happened isn't know. the dust was kicked up rapidly. and nobody coudl really notice what was goign on everywhere.
quite possibly Alexanders strategy of an echelon-phalanx with light cav on the left. and heavy cav+alexander on teh right.
it's not really a typical case of alex slaughtering teh Persians. Alexander didn't win, Darius just lost: Darius himself fled, and with him, a lot of his army. probably one section of darius his line refused, creating a gap in wich Alexander rushed to get to Darius. maybe soembody else can get it better..
I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans. Also, there were, in fact two survivors of the 300, both of whom were disgraced and one of whom committed suicide. As far as skirmishers and whatnot, the pass at Thermopylae isn't exactly a wide open space, it's not like the Spartans had flanks to harrass at that point.
2? i only know of the squire(Xeo). and as far as i know teh spartans retreated to a 'hill' and teh persians didn't try to get to them. the just archered them to death...
i believe skirmish also means archery, and not just harrassing with javelinmen, dunno exact.
Look, forget I said anything. The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy. That's why I hate the Greeks. I think it's an obsession that began with "The Charge of the Light Brigade"- when I first read it, it struck me as a load of crap. Noone should glorify the butchering of perfectly good elite soldiers, regardless of the outcome of the battle. It's sick. That's what cannon fodder is for.
Okay, rant over. I hope you don't take this personally- it's just that I hate Alfred Lord Tennyson.
umm... the spartans were wiped out, they lost the battle of Thermopylae, and it was only the first day of fighting that the spartans werent right at the front. and not all 300 were killed, 1, a man named Aristodemus survived and returned to Sparta where he was shunned and dishonoured for abondoning his post. He reclaimed his honour a year later by dying in battle against the Persians
Simetrical
09-07-2005, 01:26
Nah, in the U.S. - it's a civil war monument actually.In which case the only question is, which side. Not that I really have to ask, seeing where you live . . .
Reverend Joe
09-07-2005, 03:27
umm... the spartans were wiped out, they lost the battle of Thermopylae, and it was only the first day of fighting that the spartans werent right at the front. and not all 300 were killed, 1, a man named Aristodemus survived and returned to Sparta where he was shunned and dishonoured for abondoning his post. He reclaimed his honour a year later by dying in battle against the Persians
True, but my point was that they were left to be slaughtered (almost) to a man. The greeks should have pulled up any auxiliaries- if they had any- and told them to hold the pass. This would have saved the lives of 300 Spartan soldiers, who could have been used at another battle, possibly eve to defend Athens.
Anyway, my main point is that the glorification of such a slaughter is a twisted military obsession with honor and glory which I despise. My hatred of Tenysson also got thown in; but that is partly because I dislike most English poets (Chaucer and Colerige are definite exceptions.)
Actually, I seem to have lost my own train of thought. Well, as long as we are on the subject, I like cottage cheese.
Teleklos Archelaou
09-07-2005, 03:35
Well there was a military point and a "religious" point to it as well, though they might not outweigh the tactical importance of having those men available later - no one can really answer that question: their success while killing off a lot of the innumerable Persians also arguably frightened the Persian soldiers much more when at the end of the episode--did it make a difference at Plataea? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd wager the average Persian didn't know much about them before Thermopylae, but knew a lot more and didn't want to meet any more of them after it. Also, at least after the fact an oracle from Delphi was passed around that it was prophesised that a Spartan king must die for the Spartans to defeat the Persians. To us it seems like pure fantasy, and I'm not saying the omen was true, but did it inspire the Spartans and the other Greeks then at Plataea and Salamis too even? It's quite possible - they believed much much more than modern cultures that magic and omens and especially the oracular responses of Apollo did actually carry weight and affect things. Just some points to think about...
Cottage cheese is revolting.
Mr Jones
09-07-2005, 07:40
i was under the impression that the theban band of lovers also died at thermopylae (although not at the same time or place as the spartans). weren't they guarding the pass that led around behind the greek fortifications? and didn't they all get killed in their sleep or sumthing? this is just wat my history teacher told me dunno if it is true or not.
caesar44
09-07-2005, 10:20
[QUOTE=meatwad]
As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance.
Not Hannibal genius's ?
Cottage cheese is revolting.
I ask not how much Cottage cheese is there, just where is it! ~:cheers:
Let us be crushing this revolt! :charge: :charge: :charge:
Es Arkajae
09-07-2005, 15:01
For any here looking for information on the Battle of Thermopylae in a brief and easily digestible form then go here to the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
What the Greeks and especially the Spartans did there was incredible and is worth every bit of admiration that has been heaped on that battle.
Incidently I heard they're making a movie based off of the novel 'Gates of Fire', and it mentions it at that link.
Es Arkajae
09-07-2005, 15:14
Correction, the movie being made is based off of Frank Millers graphic novel '300'.
As an aside, how in the hell does one edit ones post?, did they remove the edit button or something because I'm pretty sure thre used to be one???
Steppe Merc
09-07-2005, 16:04
about gaugamela. it was a Victory of Alexander on Darius, on open field. alexander being outnumbered 1:2 or even 1:3 (Alex had 47.00 inf, and 7.00 cav. Darius is guessed between 100.00 and even 500.00). what actually happened isn't know. the dust was kicked up rapidly. and nobody coudl really notice what was goign on everywhere.
No way could Darius forces be that big. Don't trust ancient historian's numbers or modern historians that go by their numbers. 100,000 is quite unlikely, 500,000 is impossible.
Ellesthyan
09-07-2005, 16:19
No way could Darius forces be that big. Don't trust ancient historian's numbers or modern historians that go by their numbers. 100,000 is quite unlikely, 500,000 is impossible.
But why? We know the Persians had, at that time, the biggest army in the world. We know they were extremely good with logistics. We know they needed a double bridge made of ships to get the army to Europe. We know that they had problems keeping it together. We know that they conquered Thrace only to organise supplies. We know that they needed a whole fleet to supply their army. We know that they had the resources both in recruits as in gold to support it.
Coupled with quite a few ancient historians talking about numbers in the millions, wich are probably overestimated, but still; it get's pretty likely the army was unusual huge, and that 100,000 would be small, while 500,000 is topping it, but still possible. Further more, it could be that many thousands were non-combatans, getting the score even higher. Lastly, the Persians in battle used massed, but weak infantry forces, mostly archers, backed by the 10,000(!) elite immortals and powerful cavalry. With such a strategy it is not unlikely for the immortals to be 10%, most certainly less, of the total army, making 100,000 nearly a given. One could argue that the Persian army (because of the difficulty of accepting high numbers) consisted almost only of immortals and cavalry, but that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?
But why? We know the Persians had, at that time, the biggest army in the world. We know they were extremely good with logistics. We know they needed a double bridge made of ships to get the army to Europe. We know that they had problems keeping it together. We know that they conquered Thrace only to organise supplies. We know that they needed a whole fleet to supply their army. We know that they had the resources both in recruits as in gold to support it.
Coupled with quite a few ancient historians talking about numbers in the millions, wich are probably overestimated, but still; it get's pretty likely the army was unusual huge, and that 100,000 would be small, while 500,000 is topping it, but still possible. Further more, it could be that many thousands were non-combatans, getting the score even higher. Lastly, the Persians in battle used massed, but weak infantry forces, mostly archers, backed by the 10,000(!) elite immortals and powerful cavalry. With such a strategy it is not unlikely for the immortals to be 10%, most certainly less, of the total army, making 100,000 nearly a given. One could argue that the Persian army (because of the difficulty of accepting high numbers) consisted almost only of immortals and cavalry, but that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?
You have to understand ancient logistics. The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men. Even this army, in home territory, was notoriously under-supplied. This is with the Roman supply system and the relatively lush terrain of italy. There is simply no way that they could have fielded such an army.
Steppe Merc
09-07-2005, 17:33
Persian infantry did not suck. It was different. They were excellent archers and skirmishers. The whole Iranian foot soldiers suck isn't true, they are just different style from Greeks and Romans.
And Urnamma explained it excellently, it is he who helped me realize how impossible large armies were.
LorDBulA
09-07-2005, 18:13
Wow interesting i always fought that Thebans stayed with Spartans to fight to the end. And this site says it was Thespians, and Thebans defected to persians ... interesting.
I must agree with Urnamma there is no way that 500000 strong army can support itself. I mean few trains a day could do the trick but they where in short supply back then i guess.
The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy.
Did you read about polish cavalry charge at Samosierra passage in 1808 November 30?
You would love it :)
Squadron of cavalry (supported by other cavalry units including Napoleon personal quards) routed whole Spanish army. It was much better then RTW chain routs. But yea the casualties where terrible.
Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?
Just some things to keep in mind... ~:)
It's not that the ancient historians are unreliable. It is just unreliable to take anything for granted without analizying the context in which it was created.
Just like anything else, to do a good analisis of history. An historian (and every other scientist for that matter) has to always keep in mind who wrote it? Why he wronte it? What were his agendas?o whom he Twas writing...etc...etc..etc.
In this particular case, you always want to keep in mind that this was written by Greeks, for Greeks to read.
I once did a paper analysing the differences between the history of the War of Paraguay written in Brazil and the history of this same war written in Paraguay. For brazilian historians, it was a great war, full of remarkable heroes and generals, memorable battles and of course it was a war agains the tirany of enemy of freedom. In Paraguay the history of that war is very different. It was unfair, uncalled for. A total genocide.
In the end are any of those sides wrong? No, they just cannot be understood out of the context.
Not agreeing with any scientific fact doesn't mean that you are ignoring it. In fact there is no way to disagree and ignore at the same time. To disagree you have to take what you are disagreeing with into consideration.
~:)
Historians aren't scientists. ~;p
conon394
09-07-2005, 20:07
You have to understand ancient logistics
I must agree with Urnamma there is no way that 500000 strong army can support itself. I mean few trains a day could do the trick but they where in short supply back then i guess.
But no historian said it was. The Persian army was depending on its fleet for supply. That was the whole point of Themistocles' strategy: without the fleet Persia could not support an army large enough to defeat the size of army that the Greeks could field.
The 5th century Greeks were hardly at the forefront of ancient logistics, but managed to field a fleet the required something like 60,000 men. A million man army, or 500,000 sure exaggerations. But I don't have difficulty believing Persia, the largest, wealthiest empire on the planet could organize a 100,000 plus army. Republican Rome of circa 200 BC is simply not a good comparison, the Republic did not have the kind of administrative experience that the Persian had, or the Roman Empire would have.
caesar44
09-07-2005, 20:12
[QUOTE=Urnamma] The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men.
At a single battle !
The Romans had 28 Legions in the Augustan age -
28 * 5,500 infantry = 154,000
28 * 300 cavalry = 8,400
28 * 5,500 Allies infantry = 154,000
9 Praetorians Cohors * 1,000 - 9,000
3 Vigilum Cohors * 1,000 = 3,000
6 Urban Cohors * 1,000 = 6,000
The Classis (navy) = 10,000
Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .
Steppe Merc
09-07-2005, 20:27
No, they couldn't have. Persia probably had more troops than most places, because of the large amount of land they owned, and the quality troops they recruited from those lands.
But they could never have all those soldiers in one place, probably not even in one satrapy. That would be impossible.
But no historian said it was. The Persian army was depending on its fleet for supply. That was the whole point of Themistocles' strategy: without the fleet Persia could not support an army large enough to defeat the size of army that the Greeks could field.
The 5th century Greeks were hardly at the forefront of ancient logistics, but managed to field a fleet the required something like 60,000 men. A million man army, or 500,000 sure exaggerations. But I don't have difficulty believing Persia, the largest, wealthiest empire on the planet could organize a 100,000 plus army. Republican Rome of circa 200 BC is simply not a good comparison, the Republic did not have the kind of administrative experience that the Persian had, or the Roman Empire would have.
And where did you get the army figures? From Greek historians.
At a single battle !
The Romans had 28 Legions in the Augustan age -
28 * 5,500 infantry = 154,000
28 * 300 cavalry = 8,400
28 * 5,500 Allies infantry = 154,000
9 Praetorians Cohors * 1,000 - 9,000
3 Vigilum Cohors * 1,000 = 3,000
6 Urban Cohors * 1,000 = 6,000
The Classis (navy) = 10,000
Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .
And where do you get those numbers? From Roman historians.
You can't believe historians. Almost all were not soldiers, and they either inflate the numbers to give props for their size for being so powerful, or inflate the enemies to make a victory more impressive, or to explain away a defeat.
From what I know of the battle of Thermopylae, holding up the Persians was a valuable thing, it wasn't as if the Spartans were needlessly used as 'cannon fodder'. Their sacrifice shouldn't be dishonoured, there are many other examples throughout history where I could draw an analogy, take the battle of britain speech 'so few' by Churchill for example to show how the actions of a small fraction of a nations armed forces can have such a deep impact.
[QUOTE=meatwad]
As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance.
Not Hannibal genius's ?
well yeah..that;s what i said, that's what meatwad agrees.
the romans didn't use any kind of strategy..just a large block of men+little cav at teh sides. Hannibals 'trap' was nice, but had the romans 'echeloned' or even a mainple, that would have bene almost enough..
versus a more capabale general hannibal would have lost a lot more men, or even lost...
sorry for getting off-topic on my own topic.
about teh numbers Ceaser stated on teh roman unit-count. It might have been teh real numbers, but of of 1 army in 1 place.. but 'all' soldiers scattered abotu Italy.
Steppe Merc
09-07-2005, 20:38
In addition, few legions or armies are ever exactly their proper strength. It's often more of a guidline, due to deaths, deserstions and lack of soldiers.
True, but my point was that they were left to be slaughtered (almost) to a man. The greeks should have pulled up any auxiliaries- if they had any- and told them to hold the pass. This would have saved the lives of 300 Spartan soldiers, who could have been used at another battle, possibly eve to defend Athens.
Anyway, my main point is that the glorification of such a slaughter is a twisted military obsession with honor and glory which I despise. My hatred of Tenysson also got thown in; but that is partly because I dislike most English poets (Chaucer and Colerige are definite exceptions.)
Actually, I seem to have lost my own train of thought. Well, as long as we are on the subject, I like cottage cheese.
Well they werent really left to be slaughtered at all, they decided to stay. What the spartans achieved at Thermopylae was to slow down the persians for a short time allowing the other greek cities to prepare and also the effect those 300 had on the persians was to completely destroy their moral, They were an army used to easy victory but had been stopped in their tracks by a miniscule force. As to bringing up auxiliars etc. it would have been a senseless waste of life, once the spartans were outflanked there was no way to defeat the persians, there was simply too many of them. As to glorifying the death of the 300, why not? they died for what they believed, they were following a code of honour that had been instilled in them since birth. Remember, it was the code the produced these amazing fighters in the first place
jup, 'the code' gives, and teh code takes it away ~;)
also the 'records' state that the army of 300 killed about 5000 men (1:20 was given by one historian, 1:10 by another, i think this is a reasonable number). so make up for yourself if it was futile. maybe they could have killed more in a full army, at plateae perhaps.
it's all a mix of honor, training, codes and a prophesy "Sparta will lose a king or their city" was about it.
Kagemusha
09-07-2005, 20:51
The Spartans and Thebans were ordered to stay as a vanguard at thermopylai by Leonidas,after the Creeks found out that the persians were encircling them.The Thespians refused to leave with other Creeks and stayed with Spartans and Thebans.
Herodotos claims that the Thebans surrendered during the battle and after that the Spartans and Thespians were surrounded on a hill and killed by javelins and arrows.Here is a link (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/logos7_22.html) with some maps and a photograph of the supposed hill of the last stand of the Spartans.
I totally agree with Wishazu, who knows maybe if the greeks hadn't been able to muster their armies in time, and suffered a little bad luck, maybe the gateway to europe could have been smashed open by the Persians. I think we owe alot to the ancient greeks, europe could have been a very different place.
Steppe Merc
09-07-2005, 21:16
And that would have been bad, if the Persians had won?
i think it would be bad, after the greeks who could have stopped them deciding they were going to push on through the western med. World history would be totally different. Definately none of us would be here to debate the matter :)
Steppe Merc
09-07-2005, 21:26
Why not? Persians weren't in the practice of decimating local populations, and I'm not sure how large their empire could have extended without splintering off anyway.
But I digress. ~;)
Teleklos Archelaou
09-07-2005, 21:47
And that would have been bad, if the Persians had won?No comedies. Forgetting about all the other stuff they did, just the ability to make fun of your equals and the most powerful men in your state and your religion in a sometime erudite and sometime crass way is enough for me to be thankful. ~D
greece was at a point completely conquered, by the romans. still alot of ancient greek thought were kept. how woudl this be different? empires coem and go, greece wasn't a constant...the renaissance reintroduced them to us, this woudl porbably have happened as well when teh persians conquered it.
i was under the impression that the theban band of lovers also died at thermopylae (although not at the same time or place as the spartans). weren't they guarding the pass that led around behind the greek fortifications? and didn't they all get killed in their sleep or sumthing? this is just wat my history teacher told me dunno if it is true or not.
The Theban sacred band were destroyed at the battle of Chaeronea in august 338bc. Im not sure they were even in existence at the time of the persian wars. Anyways you have Alexander the Great and his father, Phillip the One Eye to thank for the Sacred Bands destruction.
greece was at a point completely conquered, by the romans. still alot of ancient greek thought were kept. how woudl this be different? empires coem and go, greece wasn't a constant...the renaissance reintroduced them to us, this woudl porbably have happened as well when teh persians conquered it.
thats not really a decent comparison, Persia and Rome were two completely different Cultures. The romans didnt really preserve Greek thought, they were practically Greek themselves. In fact its probably more correct to refer to Roman culture as Greaco-Roman. Anyways its all ancient history :book:
conon394
09-07-2005, 22:15
Im not sure they were even in existence at the time of the persian wars
Nope, they were formed in the early 4th century. Thebes was in fact picking up on an ideal that the Argives had pioneered in the last quarter of the 5th century. Around that time the Argives had created a 1000 man force of professional hoplites. Like the Sacred Band they were intended to be used as a spearhead force that could defeat the Spartan Equals.
Dux Corvanus
09-07-2005, 23:04
About Gaugamela, it seems, according to sources, that the things were really balanced, and even inclining to the Achemenid Persian's side, when Alexander remembered his Issos actions, and made a risky but decisive movement, again trying to behead the Persian side by directly conducting a convergent attack against Darius and his guard, who was again present at the battle in a by then exposed situation.
Remember that in Issos, Alexander's companions saved the day by managing to break thru Darius's bodyguard and even wounding his auriga, forcing the Great King to flee and leave the field in a rush. In the confusion, most Persian troops thought their king was dead or wounded, which, joined to the fact that many Persian contingents were formed by levied and demotivated yet troops, signified a huge impact on Persian morale and inclined the battle to Macedonian side, after a Persian massive rout. That's how's depicted in that Pompeia mosaique.
In Gaugamela, things seemed to happen in a rather similar way, with a Persian army trying timid and irresolutive actions, whilst Macedonians fought in a much more dinamic and agressive way.
No obstant, I also doubt the exorbitating numbers of ancient propaganda.
Nope, they were formed in the early 4th century. Thebes was in fact picking up on an ideal that the Argives had pioneered in the last quarter of the 5th century. Around that time the Argives had created a 1000 man force of professional hoplites. Like the Sacred Band they were intended to be used as a spearhead force that could defeat the Spartan Equals.
Thanks for clearing that up mate. The Argive Thousand were all Aristocrats that came to prominence during the Peloponnesian War where they fought alongside and sometimes against the Spartans i believe.
Productivity
09-08-2005, 05:53
Correction, the movie being made is based off of Frank Millers graphic novel '300'.
As an aside, how in the hell does one edit ones post?, did they remove the edit button or something because I'm pretty sure thre used to be one???
Do you have any warning levels?
Es Arkajae
09-08-2005, 07:41
Do you have any warning levels?
Two ~D
If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.
----------------------
Anyway on topic as regards the size of the Persian host, Herodotus I believe estimated the size of the Persian host going by how many generals it had, one historian I've read has suggested that amongst other things Herodotus misunderstood the Persian army's divisional system i.e. how many troops were under each generals command. The Persians worked on a decimal system and so Herodotus probably unintentionally added an extra '0' for the Persian numbers, thus we should detract that zero (which leaves us with an initial Persian invasion army of around 300,000 men which is perfectly reasonable I think.
About 20,000 of these were killed at Thermopylae, leaving him with around 280,000 men. After Salamis the Persian supply train by sea was no longer safe and the bad weather season was also coming. This made Xerxes supply situation untenable in enemy territory with such a large number of troops. Also after news of the Greek victory at Salamis reached the empire the threat of unrest and revolts back in Persia neccessitated Xerxes' return with much of the army. So keeping these things in mind Xerxes withdrew to Persia taking the bulk of his troops with him (mostly levee troops in any case) and leaving the cream of his army behind under Mardonius to complete the invasion.
Mardonius probably had a bit over 30,000 men with him mostly ethnic Persians who could be relied upon, he was later joined by Artabazus with 6,000 other handpicked Persians who had just finished escorting Xerxes back to the Hellespont (and who trashed the Cheronese region on their way back). This army was still enormous as far as traditional Greek armies were concerned, but it could also be maintained in Greece with the aid of local Persian allies (Boetia and Thebes) far longer without the need for a vulnerable naval supply train.
It was this army along with the armies of Xerxes Greek allies (mainly Boetia and Thebes) who fought the Greek Alliance at Platea.
At Platea the Spartans alone managed to field an army of around 40,000, mainly Helots and subject allies but including 5,000 Spartiate citizens (seven for each Spartan). They brought so many Helots as much as to get them out of Laconia so they couldn't cause any trouble in the absence of the bulk of the Spartan army as for the help they would bring in battle ~;) The Athenians provided 8,000 hoplites (who knows how many auxillaries) the Megarans 3,000 etc. all up the Greek army including auxillaries probably reached around 100,000 men.
The Boetians and especially the Thebans can also have been expected to have provided many troops as they had made their cause strogly with the Persians and would suffer if it failed. The King of Macedon was also at the battle so Macedon too would have contributed troops as would have other northern Greek city states, Mardonius's army also probably had around if not more than 100,000 men.
So thats 200,000 men under arms in a small area of Greece with neither side recieving supplies by sea.
I think 300,000 for the initial Persian Host a Host raised by an empire of many millions with troops drawn all the way from India to Ethiopia to Thrace and which initially had naval superiority is perfectly reasonable.
Es Arkajae
09-08-2005, 07:49
Keep in mind also that Xerxes had made exhaustive preparation for the invasion years ion advance in some cases, forging alliances, making plans, cutting canals and finally building boat bridges etc. He had also established enormous supply dumps along his army's line of march to keep it fed in addition to his supply chain by sea. Once the initial host arrived in Greece it also would have recieved much aid from its Greek allies as well as from scrounging off the land.
Es Arkajae
09-08-2005, 07:58
Bah!, Thebes is the main city IN Boetia (though it doesn't consist of all of it so there would have been 'Boetians' present that weren't Thebans).
I'd edit that into my posts, except my 'edit' button has been rather stupidly stolen. Just thought I'd get that in before someone else here pointed it out~D
Productivity
09-08-2005, 08:12
Two ~D
If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=893450&postcount=78
So yeah - that is the cause.
caesar44
09-08-2005, 08:46
[QUOTE=Steppe Merc]
And where do you get those numbers? From Roman historians.
Are you saying that there was no 28 legions ? are you saying that 5,500 man in a legion is not common knowledge ? please explain .
caesar44
09-08-2005, 08:55
"The Army of Augustus - the 'classic' legion
The army as operated from the time of Augustus can generally be referred to as the 'classic' legion......Under Julius Caesar, the army had become a highly efficient and thoroughly professional body, brilliantly led and staffed.
To Augustus fell the difficult task of retaining much that Caesar had created, but on a permanent peace-time footing. He did so by creating a standing army, made up of 28 legions, each one consisting of roughly 6000 men. Additional to these forces there was a similar number of auxiliary troops. Augustus also reformed.....As a unit, a legion was made up of ten cohorts, each of which was further divided into six centuries of eighty men, commanded by a centurion.......
1 Contubernium - 8 Men
10 Contubernia 1 Century 80 Men
2 Centuries 1 Maniple 160 Men
6 Centuries 1 Cohort 480 Men
10 Cohorts + 120 Horsemen 1 Legion 5240 Men *
*1 Legion = 9 normal cohorts (9 x 480 Men) + 1 "First Cohort" of 5 centuries (but each century at the strength of a maniple, so 5 x 160 Men) + 120 Horsemen = 5240 Men
Together with non-combatants attached to the army, a legion would count around 6000 men.
The 120 horsemen attached to each legion were used as scouts and dispatch riders. They were ranked with staff and other non-combatants and allocated to specific centuries, rather than belonging to a squadron of their own......"
This is a modern analysis , not an ancient one , you can see it on every book or net site on the subject .
If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.
It is to prevent people from insulting other members and then editing their posts before the moderators see it. To prevent this, known offenders have their edit button removed so they cannot hide behind it.
What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...
Alexander the Great inflicted a chrusing and final defeat on Darius III. I thought it was a tribute to Darius' incompetence as well as Alex' greatness, but Kraxis recently explained that history has been rather too harsh on Darius. Both at Issos and at Gaugamela his plans were sound, but he was no match for the Macedonian Mastermind. You can find his post here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=901313&postcount=35).
A short summary of the battle of Gaugamela would be that Darius has chosen flat ground for his elephants and scythed chariots and to envelop the Macedonians. He then had his army stay up all night because he expected a sneak attack. Alexander's army had a good night of rest, and marched fit 'n fresh onto the battlefield to face their sleepy opponents.
Alexander used a double line and flank denial to protect himself from envelopment by the superior numbers of the Persians. He destroyed the Persian left flank cavalry with his Companions, and then flanked the Persian centre that had been pinned by his phalanx. Darius was caught between them and fled. Like Dux Corvanus said: Alexander kept the initiative during the whole battle, while Darius was reactive. That said, the quality of Darius army probably did not allow a more daring strategy.
Es Arkajae
09-08-2005, 11:07
It is to prevent people from insulting other members and then editing their posts before the moderators see it. To prevent this, known offenders have their edit button removed so they cannot hide behind it.
Aye, I started a thread about the matter in the watchtower forum so I'll not spend anymore time on it here where it risks a thread hijack, suffice to say it is incredibly silly and for the record I'm not the type to hide behind anything especially when insulting someone~D
Alexander the Great inflicted a chrusing and final defeat on Darius III. I thought it was a tribute to Darius' incompetence as well as Alex' greatness, but Kraxis recently explained that history has been rather too harsh on Darius. Both at Issos and at Gaugamela his plans were sound, but he was no match for the Macedonian Mastermind. You can find his post here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=901313&postcount=35).
A short summary of the battle of Gaugamela would be that Darius has chosen flat ground for his elephants and scythed chariots and to envelop the Macedonians. He then had his army stay up all night because he expected a sneak attack. Alexander's army had a good night of rest, and marched fit 'n fresh onto the battlefield to face their sleepy opponents.
Alexander used a double line and flank denial to protect himself from envelopment by the superior numbers of the Persians. He destroyed the Persian left flank cavalry with his Companions, and then flanked the Persian centre that had been pinned by his phalanx. Darius was caught between them and fled. Like Dux Corvanus said: Alexander kept the initiative during the whole battle, while Darius was reactive. That said, the quality of Darius army probably did not allow a more daring strategy.
I've heard some Yanks calling Gaugamela the 'Battle of Arbela' for some reason, he may be used to the battle under that name and the use of its correct name of Gaugamela may have thrown him off. ~;)
cunctator
09-08-2005, 12:29
[QUOTE=Urnamma] The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men.
Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .
I don`t see your point. As mentioned before the whole imperial roman army with its ca. 400.000 soldiers was never concentrated on a single place. But spread over half of europe and the lands around the mediterenean sea. The fact that even the roman empire at its high with all the infrastructure, superior logistic and a population of 60 million++ could not field more soldiers is the best proof that single armies with several 100.000 soldiers were hardly possible.
No roman historian I`ve read yet could report the number of soldiers serving in the whole army. The number and position of all legions was the best. The figures commonly found are calculated from aercheological and literal evidence. The number of auxilia units and legions from all sources of a period is collected and than the theoretical strength of them counted. Some units did surely not have their theoretical strengh but many did not see any combat for decades and were stationed at fixed places, so they were probably mot far away from their proper strengh.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-08-2005, 14:53
Ideal strengths have always been the basis for calculating unit size, as well as total troop strengths, but these are rarely realized. Consider:
Reasons why a force is below ideal numbers:
1. Battle casualties -- as RTW itself shows, units very often cannot/do not replace all casualties, particularly if the fight is a recent one.
2. Non Battle casualties -- Even with Roman sanitation, it was not until the time of the 2nd World War that battle casualties exceeded those inflicted by training accidents, disease, off-duty brawling, or falling down a set of stairs type accidents. RTW doesn't really reflect this, but an army of 300,000 can virtually guarantee X number of accidental deaths per week and will probably have hundreds who are ill on any given day.
3. Corruption -- throughout history, particularly when stationed in some far off corner of the faction's territory, commanders have been known to "forget to notify" central command of the death of soldiers under their command, particularly those deaths in #2 above. Central command thinks these soldiers are alive, doesn't replace them, but sends forward their pay (which is then pocketed by their commander as a "bonus"). Some garrisons, historically, were horribly understrength for such reasons. I have often wondered how much of this may have aided the Barbarian Invasion success against Rome.
4. Leaves/Temporary Duty and the like -- soldiers may be on strength, but not actually present for a number of such reasons.
It is, historically, quite rare for any unit to be fighting at optimum strength.
Seamus
anonymous_joe
09-08-2005, 17:26
Arbela might be nearer the battle site than Gaugemela. They're both in the area. One's named after a camel.
Darius' plans make sense, a mixture of luck and genius gave Alexander victory. (Not to mention a professional heavy infantry force)
caesar44
09-08-2005, 20:03
[QUOTE=caesar44][B]
I don`t see your point. As mentioned before the whole imperial roman army with its ca. 400.000 soldiers was never concentrated on a single place. But spread over half of europe and the lands around the mediterenean sea. The fact that even the roman empire at its high with all the infrastructure, superior logistic and a population of 60 million++ could not field more soldiers is the best proof that single armies with several 100.000 soldiers were hardly possible.
No roman historian I`ve read yet could report the number of soldiers serving in the whole army. The number and position of all legions was the best. The figures commonly found are calculated from aercheological and literal evidence. The number of auxilia units and legions from all sources of a period is collected and than the theoretical strength of them counted. Some units did surely not have their theoretical strengh but many did not see any combat for decades and were stationed at fixed places, so they were probably mot far away from their proper strengh.
Please read my post again , I have said before - 80,000 men in a single battle ! just look at the post . the conclusion is - 400,000 men in the Roman army , so the Persians could have 500,000 in theirs , so 100,000 to 200,000 in one battle (and the most important battle ever for the Persians) is a logical conclusion .
I hope you can see my point now .
Steppe Merc
09-08-2005, 21:15
No, it is not possible. :wall:
Iranian farmlands were good. However, even with their good lands and with supply trains, one satarpy could not support over 100,000 people in an army. That would just be impossible.
caesar44
09-08-2005, 22:05
And I thought that I am stubborn...
"The Persians are harder to quantify. From Arrian we have a fairly complete order of battle, mentioning the following (mostly from 3.8.3-6 and 3.11.3-7):
On the left wing:
The Indians bordering the Bactrians, under Bessos
Bactrians under their satrap Bessos
Sogdians also under Bessos
Dahai Scythians
Arachotians under their satrap Barsantes
Indian Hillmen under Barsantes
Persian mixed foot and horse
Medes under Atropates (probably the same as the above Persians)
Persian Susians
Kadusians marshalled with the Medes
In front of the left wing:
Sakai Scythian horse archers, under Mausaces, on armoured horses
1000 more Bactrians
100 Scythed chariots
In the centre:
Greek mercenaries under Patron the Phokian
The Kinsmen under Darius
The Persian apple-bearer footguards
More Greek mercenaries under Glaukos the Aitolian
Indians
Karian deportees
Mardian archers
Behind the centre:
Various Red Sea tribes under Orontobates, Ariobarzanes and Orxines
Babylonians under Bupares
Sittakenians marshalled with the Babylonians
Uxians and Susianians under Abulites
In front of the centre:
15 (?) Elephants
50 Scythed chariots
On the right wing:
Albanians and Sakesinians 'marshalled with the Medes' next to the centre
Medes (said to be to the right of the Syrians, but it seems left is meant) - possibly the 'Persian' cavalry that attacked the baggage with some Indian cavalry
Syrians (Koile and Mesopotamians) under Mazaios
Areians under their satrap Satibarzanes
Parthian, Hykcanian and Topeirian horse under Phrataphernes
Other Sakai
In front of the right wing:
50 Scythed chariots
Armenians under Orontes and Mithraustes
Kappadokians under Ariakes
Arrian gives a total of 40 000 horse, and a grossly exaggerated 1 000 000 foot (3.8.6); other foot totals are also incredibly huge: Didoros gives 800 000 (17.53.3), Justin 400 000 (11.12.5) and Curtius 200 000 (4.12.13). Curtius gives a possible 45 000 horse, but Didoros (200 000) and Justin (100 000) figures as incredible as their foot numbers.
The levy foot marshalled behind the Persian line played no part in the battle, so their exact numbers are not really relevant - they will be graded Hd (O). The Persian foot guards were 1000 strong in Herodotos' time, and I shall assume they remained so at this time. After the battle, 2000 Greek mercenaries escaped with Darius along with a 'few' of these guards (Arrian, 3.16.2); clearly the mercenaries were much more numerous (they were posted against the Macedonian phalanx specifically to oppose it); as Curtius mentions 4000 escaped Issos with Darius (4.1.1-3) so would have been at least that strong, but probably no more - darius would have had diificulty recruiting more mercenaries now that Alexander after Issos. Mazaios had a few days earlier commanded 3000 horse and an unknown number of foot, including 2000 Greek mercenaries (Arrian, 3.7.1, Curtius instead gives 6000 horse), so this would fit in well with each of the two Greek mercenary contingents being 2000 strong.
Let us assume that Arrian's total of 40 000 horse is correct, and that the Persian foot totalled 100 000 including all the levy rabble (their exact numbers have little effect at 2000 men per ee). The Persians, at the usual 250 men per element (but 1000 per Horde), can then be conjectured as:
Bessos' command - 86 ee
4 x Irr Cv (S) - Mausaces' Scythians
4 x Irr LH (S) - 1000 Bactrians
4 x Irr Exp (O) - 100 scythed chariots
1 x Reg Cv (S) Sub-general - Bessos
5 x Irr Cv (S) - Bessos' Bactrian heavy cavalry
8 x Irr LH (S) - Bessos' other Bactrians
6 x Irr LH (O) - Parapamisadai Indians under Bessos
8 x Irr LH (F) - Bessos' native Sogdians
8 x Irr Cv (I) - other Sogdians under Bessos
8 x Irr LH (F) - Dahai
6 x Irr LH (O) - Barsantes' Arachotians
6 x Irr Ax (X) - Barsantes' Indian Hillmen
8 x Irr Cv (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian horse
4 x Irr Ax (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian takabara
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian supporting foot archers
20 x Irr Hd (O) - Persian Susians and Kadusians
Darius' Command - 76 ee
1 x Irr El (O) - Indian Elephants
2 x Irr Exp (O) - 50 scythed chariots
8 x Reg Sp (O) - Patron's Greek mercenaries
1 x Reg Cv (O) CinC - Darius in his chariot
2 x Reg Kn (F) - Persian Kinsmen rearmed in the Macedonian fashion
4 x Reg Sp (O) - Persian apple-bearers
8 x Reg Sp (O) - Glaukos' Greek mercenaries
8 x Reg Sp (I) - Karian deportees
4 x Irr Bw (S) - Indian mercenaries
8 x Irr Bw (I) - Mardian archers
66 x Irr Hd (O) - Babylonians, Uxians, Susianians, Sittakenians and Red Sea peoples
Mazaios' Command - 98 ee
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Sakesinians
4 x Irr Ps (S) - Albanian javelinmen
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Albanian archers
16 x Irr LH (F) - Orontes' and Mithraustes' Armenians
12 x Irr LH (O) - Ariakes' Kappadokians
2 x Irr Exp (O) - 50 scythed chariots
4 x Irr Cv (I) - Indian cavalry
11 x Irr Cv (O) - Median and Persian cavalry
1 x Reg Cv (O) Sub-general - Mazaios
16 x Irr Cv (I) - Mazaios' Syrians and Mesopotamians
8 x Irr Cv (I) - Satibarzanes' Areians
8 x Irr LH (F) - Phrataphernes' Parthians
4 x Irr Cv (I) - Phrataphernes' Topeirians
4 x Irr Cv (S) - Phrataphernes' Hyrkanians
4 x Irr LH (F) - other Sakai
This totals 250 ee and 1281 AP.
References:
Alexander of Macedon, P. Green, Uni.Cal.Press, 1991
Diodorus Siculus, esp. book 17
Plutarch's Life of Alexander
Justin 's Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Translated by J.C.Yardley, American Philological Association, Classical Resources Series, Scholars Press, Atlanta GA, 1994, ISBN 1-55540-951-2. Introduction and Notes by R.Develin.
Arrian's History of Alexander
Polyainos' Strategems and Excerpts. Translated by Peter Krentz and Everett Wheeler, Ares Publishers, 1994, ISBN 0-89005-503-3
Quintus Curtius' History of Alexander
:book:
caesar44
09-08-2005, 22:40
More - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexander.htm
http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Macedonians/GaugamelaScenario.htm
http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=94&WID=46
http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/09.shtml
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/BattleView.cfm?BID=94
http://www.fanice.com/articles/Battle_of_Gaugamela
The Persians had between 100,000 to 200,000 men , most of them were poor soldiers
Steppe Merc
09-08-2005, 23:57
Caesar, why would I take those numbers as anything close to fact? It's from an ancient historian who was not at the battle, nor was he a soldier. Why would we assume that the 40,000 horse is correct?
Do you have any idea how much it takes to support good horses? Even if most were derived from steppe ponies and similar breeds, it would still be incredibly difficult in a settled land.
Also, if he said they had a million infantry, why would his horse number be correct?
In addition, Persian infantry did not stink! They were just different from Greeks and Romans. Yeah, the shield and spear levies weren't great, but most were decent to good.
Besides, this reasoning is flawed:
The Persians, at the usual 250 men per element (but 1000 per Horde), can then be conjectured as:
Almost all ancient groupings were an ideal, not exact numbers. In reality, groups could be less or even larger than their commonly accepted numbers.
Caesar, this is getting agitating... Not one single modern, credible historian believes the ancient numbers. They're vastly inflated. What's worse, you're quoting wargaming numbers as if they actually meant something.
C'mon, man. Next you're going to tell me atlantis exists because Plato eluded to it...
so steppe merc is discounting ancient historians because they werent actually at the battle and urnamma would rather go along with modern historians who are living a couple of millenia after the battle, with all the intervening mysts of time etc. wierd lol i`ll go with the 100,000 persian inf and 30,000 - 40,000 persian cav. Seem perfectly realistic to me, afterall the persian empire was fabulously wealthy and even though the persian kings werent great military strategists they were exceptional organisers.
Simetrical
09-09-2005, 00:44
I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans.Yes, but you can't put that in iambic pentameter as easily.
Gŏ téll thĕ Spártăns, strángĕr pássĭng bý,
Thăt hére ŏbédiĕnt tó thĕir láws wĕ líe.Of course, you have to fudge obedient as three syllables instead of four, but it still works. You'd have to recast it entirely to work in Lacedaemonians, that's an extra three feet.
Edit: From Wikipedia, the actual text was
ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
(O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti täde)
κείμεθα τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
(keimetha tois keinon rhämasi peithomenoi.) and a literal translation is
Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words.I doubt you could make a much more literal rhyming couplet in iambic pentameter out of those lines.
so steppe merc is discounting ancient historians because they werent actually at the battle and urnamma would rather go along with modern historians who are living a couple of millenia after the battle, with all the intervening mysts of time etc. wierd lol i`ll go with the 100,000 persian inf and 30,000 - 40,000 persian cav. Seem perfectly realistic to me, afterall the persian empire was fabulously wealthy and even though the persian kings werent great military strategists they were exceptional organisers.
For some reason I think you and Caesar have not read my post back there. I won't repeat myself. It is not about discounting anything. It is about taking things in the context they were created. Please read my post.
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 01:51
I've heard some Yanks calling Gaugamela the 'Battle of Arbela' for some reason, he may be used to the battle under that name and the use of its correct name of Gaugamela may have thrown him off. ~;)
No, I always knew it was Gaugamela, I have just spent most of my time on Hannibal. He is my personal favorite.
Arbela?! How the hell do you come up with that?
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 01:54
a literal translation is
Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words.I doubt you could make a much more literal rhyming couplet in iambic pentameter out of those lines.
Let's go with that one... I hate English. And it's all I was ever taught, besides a smattering of French- and the French was an elective! :wall:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-09-2005, 03:23
No, I always knew it was Gaugamela, I have just spent most of my time on Hannibal. He is my personal favorite.
Arbela?! How the hell do you come up with that?
Well, I'm a yank (and probably older than you) and I was 11 or 12 before I heard/read it was the battle of Gaugamela. Prior to that I had learned it as the battle of Arabela.
Seamus
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 03:36
Well, I'm a yank (and probably older than you) and I was 11 or 12 before I heard/read it was the battle of Gaugamela. Prior to that I had learned it as the battle of Arabela.
Seamus
No idea of your age, but I am 19... I guess there have been some changes to the educational cirriculum. ~D
the_handsome_viking
09-09-2005, 04:02
As I said, no general with any sense . After several days of slaughtering your men on a forest of spear-points, even the worst general will realise it's rime for a change of pace. However, what I always learned was that the tactics did not change, even when it was only the Spartans defending the pass.
As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance. If the Roman generals had seen the trap lain before them , I doubt they would have sent their men to die en masse.
What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...
I know, it's sad. :embarassed:
why wouldnt that have happened? I mean think about what the zulus were like at Rorke's Drift.
common sense isnt always that common.
and in the end the spartans lost.
O_Stratigos
09-09-2005, 05:32
"Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words."
I am not so sure that “τοις κεινων ρημασι πειθωμενοι” translated as “obeying their words” is correct..
I believe “practicing their convictions” might be closer, but I defer to Teleklos for a more accurate translation.
O_Stratigos :bow:
Look, forget I said anything. The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy. That's why I hate the Greeks. I think it's an obsession that began with "The Charge of the Light Brigade"- when I first read it, it struck me as a load of crap. Noone should glorify the butchering of perfectly good elite soldiers, regardless of the outcome of the battle. It's sick. That's what cannon fodder is for.
Okay, rant over. I hope you don't take this personally- it's just that I hate Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Well, ever heard of the Bir Akeim battle ? It took place in 1941 when the Afrika Corps ran through the allied (mostly british though) line of defence in Lybia... Every english strongpoint yelded and retreated in front of the enemy (with good reason) but the southermost point of defense, held by the 13th half Brigade of the french foreign legion was ordered to hold the enemy. And they held 10 days. Rommel tried to have them surrender but was answered "Nous sommes venus nous battre, pas nous rendre" 'wa come here for fighting, not surrendering." Hitler ordered the prisonners to be executed on the spot like terrorists and De Gaulle ordered the same ; the next day Hitler ordered the prisonners to be treated according to Geneve's convention (wich gives you an idea of the beating the germans were receiving.) The germans were not able to overcome their enemy. Roughly a quarter of the Afrika corps was engaged because the british, seeing this as an advantage tried to break the encirclement to rescue the men in Bir Akeim and to turn the situation to their advantage. The Afrika corps lost a great amount of munitions, heavy weaponry, panzers and men while trying to break the resistance of the french who, deeply entrenched in sand, concrete and stone, were anxious to see a relief force coming to help them. In the end, after the germans freed 500 indian ghurkas to the defenders (wich was smart, the french were roughly 400, 500 more men to feed was a serious problem to solve when water reserves were thin) the english command decided he was neither able to relieve the fort nor to bring supplies in time (the RAF did not control the sky yet) and ordered the defenders to retreat ... and they did. They sallied with their vehicles by night and took the safe way through their own mine field. I don't know the exact number but some suicided themselves in a frontal attack of the german lines, shattering them in the process and allowing their comrades to leave the field with no damage.
Don't mess with the foreign legion.
On the field it was obviously a defeat. On a larger scale it stopped the german onslaught dead in its tracks and gave the allies time to regroup and prepare their defenses. Most of the defenders survived.
More importantly, they proved that De Gaulle was right in his recommandations about "modern" warfare and they proved that "blitzkrieg" tactics could be countered. It caused a shift in the allies tactivs in north Africa that, in the end, lead to the result we all know.
As you can see, all this kind of actions are not necessarily a waste of human life (though war in general is an awful waste.)
Interestingly, a pararell with the thermopylai was made at the time of the battle (hey, i managed to stay in the topic !)
conon394
09-09-2005, 06:17
Steppe Merc
No, it is not possible.
Iranian farmlands were good. However, even with their good lands and with supply trains, one satarpy could not support over 100,000 people in an army. That would just be impossible.
Do you have any idea how much it takes to support good horses? Even if most were derived from steppe ponies and similar breeds, it would still be incredibly difficult in a settled land.
Actually I do have an ideal how much horses need to eat. And I don’t know that steppe ponies are better than the Persian stock. In any case they are a different ball game, depending on grazing they could not be readily switched to grain fodder. But as to farmland you’re making a logical mistake in suggesting Iran as the source of Persian supply. The Persians directly controlled Egypt, and indirectly the Black sea grain exporting regions (are we still taking about Xerxes or Darius III anyway?). The Black sea region alone could supply enough grain to feed something like half of the 300,000 or 400,000 people of 5th century Athens (and other city states as well). With 2 of the breadbaskets of the ancient world why is it so difficult to believe the Persians could support a 100,000 man army?
Edit: oops sorry Steppe, I was tired and didn't notice the point was discussion had firmly moved to just Alexander's battles and associated Persian numbers at them...
But you really cannot use the not a soldier argument. Arrian had been a commander, and his primary source was Ptolemy. Now did Ptolemy have his biases sure, but you got to admit he was there and was most defiantly a soldier.
SigniferOne
09-09-2005, 07:11
You know, after being truly impressed by the creativity and quality of content in the mod you guys have, it takes a thread like this to remind me what the soul of EB really is, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago.
Steppe Merc has really been a colorful poster here:
Persian infantry did not suck. It was different.
And that would have been bad, if the Persians had won?
That is just REVOLTING.
You can't believe historians.Who should we believe, then? You?
And Urnamma explained it excellently, it is he who helped me realize how impossible large armies were.Well, congratulations guys, you are certainly growing yourselves a worthy disciple here.
I've lately started to judge EB solely on its wonderful skins and many unique ideas, and started to think that maybe I didn't mind EB at all now, but in fact quite appreciated it and its high quality. It took this thread to see under the covers and remind me again what kind of people flourish in this group.
Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.
You know, after being truly impressed by the creativity and quality of content in the mod you guys have, it takes a thread like this to remind me of EB's soul, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago.So nice of you to pop in again. Regardless of this current discussion, it has been shown time and time again that you have no idea of what EB's soul is, and the only reason you were "invited" is because I did not realize that SigniferOne = dsyrow1. Once you explained who you were, it was obvious that neither we nor you would have approved that union.
But that is ok, you just like to pop your head into threads and poke holes, and never have anything constructive to add. Your "soul" has always been quite evident, so forgive me (we?) if I (we) don't mind it too much that you think poorly of us. ~;)
O_Stratigos
09-09-2005, 08:15
That is just REVOLTING.
And you, using a word like that makes you what?
Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.
Is this supposed to be a "civil" question that requires an answer? If you don't agree with a posting either try and prove it wrong or if you have nothing to say then shut up.
O_Stratigos :bow:
About the "you can't believe historians" quote...
I'll give you two examples and tell you why i never fully trusted historians. Both are from french history (the one i know the best.)
In 732 the Muslims made an onslaught in frankish territory. They managed to sack Toulouse, Bordeaux, Poitiers and the Saint-Martin de Tours Abbey. They were then pursued by Charles Martel (Karl the hammer) , battled, defeated, ran down and sent back to NArbonne (a southern France city then under Muslim dominion.) Historians tell us it was a great victory, the shock between two culture and only the french superiority at arms (and thus culture as a whole, french society being a very martial one until recently) made the this possible. See where this leads ? yeah, straight to "culture shock, racial superiority and a blatant justification of the occupation of northern Africa and denial of citizenry to the native folks (wich cost us our empire, plain and square.)
And the reality ?
The reality is that the muslims were not invading, they were just pillaging. In fact the 732 battle who took place between Tours and Poitiers was a minor one. The real muslim defeat took place in 728 when the muslims had laid siege to Toulouse and were caught between the anvil (the walls of the city) and the hammer (the strong headed Duke of Aquitania.) The slaughter was so great that hundred of years later the muslims would mourn its anniversary each year, calling this day the "martyr's paveway" because most of the battle tok place around the old roman road. This battle definitely stopped muslim expansion in Europe.
What happened next is even more interesting. The Duke of Aquitania broke away from the weak frank rule (the franks being occupied in internal power struggles) and started to negociate with the muslim overlord of Narbonne. This overlord broke away from the power seat in Spain and he had a wedding arrangement made between his daughter and the son of the duke. This caused a swift reaction from Rome and Spain. The Pope denied its support to the duke, recognizing the danger that an mixed religion wedding was representing and urged the franks to keep him in tracks while Spain reaction was quick and violent. Under their leader, Abd-El-Raman, the spanish muslims crossed the Pyrénées and sack NArbonne, killing the ruling family and many other muslims in the process. Then Abd-El-Raman turned its head to Aquitania and saw it was weakened. Sensing the opportuniy of looting some of the richest cities in Europe he set his forces into the devastation of the Garonne Valley while the Duke of Aquitania tried to counter them with what forces he had. And all this time Charles Martel was waiting at his border, looking at Aquitania's demise and waiting to ripe the fruit of the muslims work. At last the duke called for help and Charles moved in. The muslims had time to pillage a rich abbay near Tours and fled with their burden. The Franks caught them from the back. too slow to flee and unwilling to surrender their loot the muslims made a camp and offered battle to the franks. They looked at each other (understand : there was minor skirmish around the place to secure good positions for the real battle) for Five days before they smashed in each other. The fight was still raging when a frank noble and his kinsmen (heavy cavalry) broke from it, gathered and stormed the muslims camp to capture slaves and grab what loot they could. At this sight, the muslims noble turned their back to protect their camp. Abd-El-Raman came to them in order to convince them to return to the battle line but to no avail : he was trampled to death. The franks did not wait and rammed in the muslims back, sending them flying back to their camp where they held ground until the night. They fled before dawn, leaving everything in their camp. Charles Martel made their loot his, the church was to get back a fraction of what it lost. He then pursued the muslims to NArbonne and did not bother taking the place over. Instead he turned to Aquitania and pilages it until the duke accepted to be a loyal subject of the franks again.
The historians who first unearthed this part of France's history were not looking for truth, they were looking for means of propaganda. A free Duke of Aquitania was bad for the "united France." A muslim and a french trying to build a common kingdom regardless their religious and racial diffrences was not "in the mood" when the empire's policy was to convince everybody in the Empire that the french were culturally superior to the native folks. Not to mention that the native folks were told french history too (and yes, they learned "our ancestors, the gauls...") and putting a muslim and a french at the same level could give them bad ideas (like asking for citizenship and the right to vote.) The 728 battle was simply erased of our past. Gone.
The power needed a strong figure, Charles Martel was that figure. the powerneeded a decisive "culture shock", he 732 battle was here. The power needed to affirm France union and the rewriting of this episode played that role perfectly.
That's how you sow the seeds of disaster in a nation.
The second example is the Bouvines Battle that took place in 1214. The German Emperor and his allies (french traitors and Jhon Landless) assailed the french a sunday. The French were defending their crown, country and the church (literraly) while their enemis were all excommunicated and willing to crush France in order to settle the emprial problem (roughly, France and the Holy Roman Empire could claim ton the imperial crown, the germans had the crown while France was the support of Roman church... of course the french king constantly intervened in german politics in order to have who he liked best crowned as emperor) and the Roman church case. The germans were overran, their emperor fled after being nearly captured by the king's house knights and hundred of knights and high ranking nobles were decimated. The french success was such that the king was able to designate a new emperor (the king of sicily, a client kingdom of France.) the king who was just "King of the franks" took the title "King of France, the roman church affirmed its power in Germany and England and the royal domain of France doubled. It was no small victory.
The most interesting part is that it was a battle were few knights fought alongside with many pesants and townsmen. The peasants formed the militia (they were well equiped and drilled but still no match for knights) and the townsmen formed the sergeants" body who were armed the same way as knights (but lightly armored.) Most of the knights were in Aquitania fighting against the main english army. So this battle is unique because for the first time in France the nobility and the peasantry fought side by side and spilled their blood together. This, among other things, spreaded the word that the king was caring and near its subjects. The impact of this event was immense in the subjects' minds and offered France a century of uneqqualed social peace and prosperity (no joke.)
And what did republican historians had to say about it in the wake of the 20th century ? N O T H I N G. They overlooked it and diminished this event to a "minor engagement" were the knights surrendered themselves easily while the true braves, the common folk, prefered to die to a man. And nothing else. The reason is clear : The republic had destroyed the noblity, decided the nation had nothing to do with the church (which i approve) and Europe was still Shaking after the Bonaparte invaded Europe in order to settle the imperial question... a battle such as Bouvines was really annoying to depict as a great momet of the nation considering it was about defending the church, meddling in imperial affairs and affirming nobility and peasantry peaceful union.
Got the point ?
It took us a disastrous second world war, a traumatizing decolonization and 10 years of slow recovery from the blows to, at long last, look back to our history honestly and admit we did things unsavory, some even awful, commited atrocities and were sometimes betrayed,as a folk, by our leaders and served like turkeys to our enemies (namely : the generals' betrayal in 1940) and even some points remain touchy. Some Historians like Georges Duby rewrote whole parts of our history while trying to be as honnest and obejctive as possible. Still there is yet a moral bias in his works but it suffices to take this into account when you read it.
Thos two examples are why i too do not trsut hitorians completly. Even more about antiquity. Speak about it with a greek, it's obvious.
PS : remind a greek it is a muslim who served France in the 19th century (we conserved his Kilij engraved with the words "Allah Akbar" near the emperor's tomb in Paris) that played a major part in its contry's freedom. The result is funny but a bit frightening.
conon394
09-09-2005, 15:33
Fenrhyl
I am all for critical evaluation of historical evidence, be it ancient sources or modern ones. But the recognition that a particular source (say Herodotus) has biases and had an uneven access to evidence (obviously much better on Greek numbers than Persian), does not justify the whole sale rejection of the that source.
True some events get wrapped up in historical mythology for various reasons (propaganda, religion, national pride etc.), like Charles Martel and his victory. However the recognition of that fact is hardly some great discovery of Modern historians. Thucydides, Polybius or Plutarch and even Theopompos or Clement of Alexandria (their works are of course not all equal in their analysis, Clement’s is basically poorly supported polemic, while Polybius and Thucydides are at pains to offer careful analysis and counter argument) were historians who all noted the same phenomenon among their peers (ancient authors) or the ancient public.
caesar44
09-09-2005, 15:37
You know what , I don't belive historians any more...so...there was no Alexander , no Darius , no Persian empire , no 200,000 man army , no 2 men army , no Caesar , no Pompey , no Romans at all , no Macedonians (ho I heard it several times...) , no Tyre , no Egypt , no nothing ! but yes , there was Atlantis..............
This is really getting weird , HOW ON EARTH ONE CAN LEARN HISTORY ? PLEASE TELL ME...ALL THOSE YEARS IN UNIVERSITY AND FOR NOTHING :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry:
So from now on , when a poster say Caesar took Rome in 49 , I will say to him - GIVE ME HARD EVIDENCE !!! Not levy no Shmivy , not Cicero no Shmicero , not Dio no Shmo , not Appian , no Shmipian??? what ever
Hey , take it with good spirit , ha ? ~;)
caesar44
09-09-2005, 15:53
Caesar, this is getting agitating... Not one single modern, credible historian believes the ancient numbers. They're vastly inflated. What's worse, you're quoting wargaming numbers as if they actually meant something.
C'mon, man. Next you're going to tell me atlantis exists because Plato eluded to it...
Ah yes , did not read my post but have to say some thing , ha ?
read it again , Arrian said 1,000,000 infantry , all my links say 100,000 to 200,000 , but never mind , please continue...
Guys, 5th century Athens had at most 50,000 people.
Logistics is the problem, not the amount of grain they had. We'll do some simple economic analysis. To transport goods overland when you do not have proper wagons, and no access to sea lanes, generally increases the cost of the goods by 50% ever fifty miles or so. Now, to feed 100,000 people in a large area, when most of those people can produce their own food is not particularly hard. Feeding many people when one has a large navy to move mass amounts of grain is also not exceedingly hard.
Let us take Hannibal for example. If his total army was 150,000 in Iberia (operating in 3 different groups, generally close to the sea, where they could be resupplied), why do you think he took only one third of that number with him (which was reduced to some 30,000) into Gaul? He understood that he could not feed 150,000 men. It's as simple as that.
A million men in one place, in antiquity, is absolutely impossible unless they have massive access to food. Established cities like Carthage, Rome, and Alexandria were able to get to such totals because they had huge agricultural networks built up. But allow me to note once more that Rome's largest field army EVER was 80,000 men, and these were having trouble supplying themselves in grain rich Apulia.
Now, Arrian & Co. are essentially all quoting the same sources (probably Callisthenes). The difference with modern historians is that we can use mathematical models, estimations, experiments, and most importantly archaeology to verify our numbers. This was not possible in the ancient world. It is also interesting that Alexander's numbers seem to dwindle, and those of the persians rise, the later the source gets. What we are witnessing is the building of a myth. Alexander is a semi-mythical figure to them, and each successive Greek historian makes him seem all the more amazing.
But, back to our modeling of Gaugamela (and Issus, for that matter). 1 million men in the field would eat aproximately, let us say, 2 pounds of food a day and drink at least a gallon of water a day (we're at Gaugamela, which is quite a hot place). Now, let us say that the average ancient cart could hold 400 pounds of food and 2 barrels of water (50 gallons), and is drawn by either two horses, two asses, or two oxen. It requires two people to drive/manage.
Now, look at the location of Gaugamela (modern Irbil) in Iraq. Note how far it is from any significant source of fresh water.
Now let us do some calculation.
1 million gallons of water a day.
2 million pounds of food a day.
Now remember, we must count at least three times the amount of logistical support technically necessary. This is to account for the fact that all this food and water must be unloaded every day. It will take at least 3 days (at absolute best) to make a round trip to the nearest depot where they can resupply with fresh water, and meet up with the river to get more food. (Once again, look at the map).
So, we have at least 300,000 wagons to account for, and at least 600,000 logistical support personnel. This is not including those who actually cook, distribute, and process the food.
This is also 600,000 animals, if you remember the numbers from above.
Now, supporting these personnel and animals means that we need at least twice the amount that we originally planned for. That brings us to 4 million pounds of food and 2 million gallons of water. This is assuming that the animals eat the same amount of food as a human, which they most assuredly do not. The most common draft animals in mesopotamia, the oxen, eat quite a bit more. But for our thought experiment, we will assume that they are magical oxen that eat the same amount as people.
Now, if you haven't yet noticed, there is a logical progression here. The more people and animals involved in the effort (which brings us to another point, that some of these 'million' men require far more than others, especially the supposed 40,000 cavalry and their animals), the more that is needed to supply them. This is the same in modern conflict. 100,000 troops on the ground generally means 300,000 support personnel, to supply the actual combatants with all their needed supplies. This basically means that one million men in the field is a logistical impossibility.
The sheer size of such an effort requires a modern and rigidly planned logistical system. Remember, even the United States had trouble supplying its soldiers in Europe during World War Two, and this was with a massive fleet of ships and trucks, as well as centralized communication, not to mention logistical supply organization methods created using the latest scientific planning.
In our thought experiment, we're not even considering supplies like wood, cloth, rope, buckets, etc. We're also not even computing the massive costs of such an endeavor, which would certainly be staggering, in excess of a thousand pounds of gold in all, daily.
Now, if you still believe that they could have fielded such an army, I have a bridge in New York I want to sell you... Anyway, the most critical analysis gives the Persians 80,000, and the most generous modern analysis gives the persians 150,000 soldiers total. We can say 130,000 soldiers, and that is a number that makes me happy enough. Remember, this is still more than 3 times what Alexander had.
I'm not downplaying the man's accomplishments at all. I also cannot be considered anti-hellenic in the least, or anti-western. Remember, I actively read ancient Greek, and I am the coordinator for all EB's Hellenic factions. Teleklos Archaelou and I have done most of the work on the Greeks ourselves (not to mention the massive contribution of Spartan_Warrior, who has made the vast majority of our Hellenic units). The Hellenics (aside from Carthage), are my favorite factions in this game. I am a philhellene to the extreme, but I'm also a realist. One ought not believe in fantasy if one has reason to suspect that information is as such.
As to the comments of Dysrow1, I'll not be dragging myself into personal attacks. Keep in mind that I've worked long and hard on EB, and that I do this 'historical shit' for a living. I breath it, and it is my favorite thing to think about in real life (when I'm not around women, for obvious reasons. ~;) )
EB has chosen to bring you what is, to the best of our knowledge, the best representation we can get of history within the confines of this game. This may be uncomfortable to some who like to pidgeonhole ancient peoples into set categories (I suspect that these same people would not dare to call modern people who live in nations less economically and socially developed than their own 'drueling barbarians', but I digress). If you don't like it, then by all means, don't play it. I resent it when people make light of the damn hard work that this team has put into proper research. I'm proud of each and every team member who, though some of them are still in high school and others are in their 40s, came together and acted in a professional manner to research and pull together this information.
If you think that the Gauls and Persians are drueling barbarians who are inferior to the Greeks, you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember that you hold the wrong opinion, and that the Greeks, like the Persians, are heirs to a cultural legacy that began with Sumeria and Egypt.
That's all I have to say for now. ~:handball:
Oh, and Caesar44, my comments are not specifically directed at you, so please don't clutter threads with smiley fits.
There were plenty of others making the claim of far more soldiers than the persians could realistically support. :balloon2:
A clarification is necessary at this point : i read many antiquity authors and medieval chroniclers. What i criticize is not their accounts (they ARE biased but archeology can tell us how and how much) but the interpretation modern historians make of them.
We have no idea of what an ancient author means when he gives us a number of troops comprising an anrmy. Does he count only soldiers in this number or does he count also the logistic handlers ? In the first case some numbers are horribly ridiculous, in the second case they are more believable and can survive strict analysis. But, anyway, that's not because some numbers SEEM to be ridiculous that they ARE actually false. WE could be wrong grom one end to another.
What i criticize in modern day historians is that they remain tools of power. For a recent example, look at some US historians trying to minimize France intervention during the independance war right after the quarrel about Irak. The answer on the French ambassy website was a perfect counter example of mimizing the role of yankees in the whole affair. Neither part was honest. Still, the people who consigned the events when they occur can be trusted if you don't forget to take into account their political biases. The best thing is to manage to find a neutral source.
I hope my comment can is better explained now.
A clarification is necessary at this point : i read many antiquity authors and medieval chroniclers. What i criticize is not their accounts (they ARE biased but archeology can tell us how and how much) but the interpretation modern historians make of them.
We have no idea of what an ancient author means when he gives us a number of troops comprising an anrmy. Does he count only soldiers in this number or does he count also the logistic handlers ? In the first case some numbers are horribly ridiculous, in the second case they are more believable and can survive strict analysis. But, anyway, that's not because some numbers SEEM to be ridiculous that they ARE actually false. WE could be wrong grom one end to another.
What i criticize in modern day historians is that they remain tools of power. For a recent example, look at some US historians trying to minimize France intervention during the independance war right after the quarrel about Irak. The answer on the French ambassy website was a perfect counter example of mimizing the role of yankees in the whole affair. Neither part was honest. Still, the people who consigned the events when they occur can be trusted if you don't forget to take into account their political biases. The best thing is to manage to find a neutral source.
I hope my comment can is better explained now.
Yes, but Arrian gives specific numbers of -soldiers- who total about a million. So my thought experiment still holds beautifully. Yes, historians can be the tool of the devil, but so can any other intellectuals. The key is retaining objectivity, not something that is easy to do in a very, very PC environment.
SigniferOne
09-09-2005, 17:27
Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.Is this supposed to be a "civil" question that requires an answer?I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance. And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won. Everyone here is sitting comfortably in their democracies that Greece has won by blood for them, and then they blithely demand proof as if it's still an open question. If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again. Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another.
Steppe Merc
09-09-2005, 17:33
You know, after being truly impressed by the creativity and quality of content in the mod you guys have, it takes a thread like this to remind me what the soul of EB really is, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago.
Steppe Merc has really been a colorful poster here:.
Why thank you, I do try.
That is just REVOLTING.
Why? Because I don't think that the Persians would have destroyed Greek culture, or could have invaded all of Europe?
And why is it bad to combat the lies that Persian infantry sucked?
Who should we believe, then? You?
Real modern historians, like Urnamma, who discount them.
Well, congratulations guys, you are certainly growing yourselves a worthy disciple here.
Too bad I was part of the team before even Khelvan was. ~D
I've lately started to judge EB solely on its wonderful skins and many unique ideas, and started to think that maybe I didn't mind EB at all now, but in fact quite appreciated it and its high quality. It took this thread to see under the covers and remind me again what kind of people flourish in this group.
What kind? I assure, my views on Rome and Greece are my own, and are hardly echoed by everyone. I do respect the Greeks and the Romans. I just don't think they are the best at what they did.
Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.
My opinons reflect my own, not the team.
Fenrhyl, I agree. I'm not saying that Greco Roman historians were all wrong. They have some good information, and are helpful particullary in the study of cultures that do not have their own histories, or that we just don't have. But they can't be taken as literal proof.
caesar44
09-09-2005, 17:45
Oh, and Caesar44, my comments are not specifically directed at you, so please don't clutter threads with smiley fits.
There were plenty of others making the claim of far more soldiers than the persians could realistically support. :balloon2:
Read your post (no. 76 in this thread) , it opens with "caesar"...but never mind , please continue...(smiley fits again...)
Why not just make your comments , why the stings ?
I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance. And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won. Everyone here is sitting comfortably in their democracies that Greece has won by blood for them, and then they blithely demand proof as if it's still an open question. If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again. Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another.
Well, I don't think it would be better if Persia had won, but not for any reason of Democracy, which most of the Greeks found just as tyrannous as any other form of government. (Voltaire saying something about a lion's paw and a thousand rats comes to mind).
Teleklos is a Classicist, yes. Him and I have had many hours of conversations about the subject, I assure you. Once again, read the fact that I am the hellenic coordinator. You're really becoming uncivil here. Steppe Merc is entitled to his opinion, just like you are yours. Remember that you're ignoring Plato, Aristotle, and many, many others who were not in favor of Democracy. It is also worth mentioning that the USA is a republic, who owes its form of government to Rome...
Why do you insist on believing that giving 'barbarians' equal historical respect with Greeks is tantamount to treason? Don't all ancient peoples deserve the truth to be told about them, or is that just for the literate ones? What about Carthage and the Phoenicians? Are they barbarians too, for not being Greek enough...
Read your post (no. 76 in this thread) , it opens with "caesar"...but never mind , please continue...(smiley fits again...)
Why not just make your comments , why the stings ?
Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but please don't make posts with more than 5 smileys. It becomes obnoxious.
And please...
If anyone wants to accuse us of having people with different opinions on the team, without having to kill eachother because of that..I say go ahead...
I, for one, am proud of that.
Seydlitz
09-09-2005, 18:03
The reality is that the muslims were not invading, they were just pillaging. In fact the 732 battle who took place between Tours and Poitiers was a minor one. The real muslim defeat took place in 728 when the muslims had laid siege to Toulouse and were caught between the anvil (the walls of the city) and the hammer (the strong headed Duke of Aquitania.) The slaughter was so great that hundred of years later the muslims would mourn its anniversary each year, calling this day the "martyr's paveway" because most of the battle tok place around the old roman road. This battle definitely stopped muslim expansion in Europe.
You make it sound like pillaging is better than invasion there mate ~;p May I remind you as well that the Muslims who settled Spain had originally only been there to pillage as well. Plus, the Muslims on that particular trip had their families along with them.
Now, what you are claiming here is that in 728 the Muslims besieged Toulouse and got the crap kicked out of them and that is why Muslims expansion into western Europe was stop. Well, chronologically, 732 is after 728...If Muslim expansion had been stopped in 728, how come they where still able to raise an army large enough to threaten Charles Martel into meeting them in open conflict?
Italy and France where ravaged by pillaging Muslims throughout the Middle Ages, but never where large armies raised to block them. Muslim pillaging parties where usually only one or two boatloads of pirates who attacked coastal armies.
What invaded Southern France in 732, was not a pillagging party. It was an Army there to feel out the land, perhaps even settle it (remember, many Muslims brought their families with them that trip as well). Nothing that large would have penetrated that far in land just looking for booty. It's the same thing as saying the Golden Horde and the Huns where just their to pillage, but the general consensus to everyone is they where invaders.
It is said that Charles Martel stopped them in 732, because as far as I remember no other large muslim force tried to take France after Charles Martel had his way with them. :bow:
Otherwise though, I generally agree with you. Most of History, especially that which is taught at schools, is full of bias. Especially that which is written in a time of political social upheavel, like after or during a major revolution, or when a system is replaced by another after a war.
SigniferOne
09-09-2005, 18:17
I don't think Khelvan would like me to post much here, and certainly not to engage in discussions which would mean even more posts from me, but you (Urnamma) said:
Why do you insist on believing that giving 'barbarians' equal historical respect with Greeks is tantamount to treason?I don't, and never have. It is one thing, however, to want to accurately study both Greece and Persia in great detail in order to understand them both well, and it's QUITE another thing to equalize the two cultures, or even prefer Persia to Greece. Just because I can come out and say that Persians were pansies and prone to slavishness does not mean I somehow close my eyes to historical evidence, or become and ignorant person. it is in fact historical evidence which points me to that direction.
Yes, I know that Rome served as the founding principle for America, but Greece served as more of the founding principle for the European countries in the 19th century, the place which I assume many EB members are from. And don't worry, despite Rome's legacy, it gets picked on even more than Greece does, from all the sentiments I've heard EB members say. So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?
And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it with complete impunity, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give the comment a second look! That is a uniquely EB attitude towards the Greco-Roman legacy, from EVERYTHING that I've seen the team's members say.
Steppe Merc,
I assure, my views on Rome and Greece are my ownYours and EVERYONE else's in EB whose comments I've seen on the issue. Except they all have their own pet cultures that they want to extoll instead, at Greece's or Rome's expense.
caesar44
09-09-2005, 18:19
For the sake of what ever , please tell us , I you (EB Historians , no sarcasm here) can :
1. How many soldiers Alexander of Mokdon had in Issus and Arbela (sources !) ?
2. How many soldiers the Persians had in Issus and Arbela (sources !) ?
3. If you don't belive in the numbers of ancient historians why do you belive in any thing they say ?
4. All , that is , all , the historians who wrote about Alexander did it 300 to 500 years after he died , what proof we got of his existence ?
5. Polybius and others said that the Romans had 80,000 soldiers in Cannae , why do you belive it ? Because it match your logic ?
6. You have said that the USoA is not a Democracy , but a Republic , since when a Republic can't be a Democracy ? (GB is a Monarchy , but still a Democracy) .
conon394
09-09-2005, 18:57
Urnamma
Guys, 5th century Athens had at most 50,000 people.
I was refering not to the city, but the whole of Attica.
Logistics is the problem, not the amount of grain they had. We'll do some simple economic analysis. To transport goods overland when you do not have proper wagons, and no access to sea lanes, generally increases the cost of the goods by 50% ever fifty miles or so. Now, to feed 100,000 people in a large area, when most of those people can produce their own food is not particularly hard. Feeding many people when one has a large navy to move mass amounts of grain is also not exceedingly hard.
My comments were still in reagards to the earlier topic of how large Xerxes invasin force was/could be. As I noted I missed the posts that shifted the topic to Gaugamela.
I not sure Hannibal is necessarily a good example. He was planning on traveling trough hostile or at least neutral country, and had abandoned his baggage train. So you are right he had to take a fairly small force that could survive on foraging. Darius III in contrast was sitting in the middle of his own Empire, and had access to Tigres and Euphrates rives systems for moving supplies. As I noted before some of the numbers tossed about 200,000 + are realistically incredible, but I willing to allow a bit more flexibility then cut the Persians down to less than a 100,000. If Xerxes invasion is any guide the Persians seem to have organized their forces in divisions. If Darius had done the same, concentrating his force only with Alexander's approach, the logistics are a bit less strained for 150,000 + (or so) army.
Just in passing I though the canal and irrigation infrastructure of the area had taken a terminal beating during the Mongol invasions, is it certain that today’s situation is the same as the one Darius was looking at. In terms of supply access, he looks to have only been about 18 or miles from the Tigres and a little more than 3 from a significant tributary river.
Now, Arrian & Co. are essentially all quoting the same sources (probably Callisthenes). The difference with modern historians is that we can use mathematical models, estimations, experiments, and most importantly archaeology to verify our numbers. This was not possible in the ancient world. It is also interesting that Alexander's numbers seem to dwindle, and those of the persians rise, the later the source gets. What we are witnessing is the building of a myth. Alexander is a semi-mythical figure to them, and each successive Greek historian makes him seem all the more amazing.
I'm pretty sure Arrian favored Ptolemy as his source for Gaugamela. Adamantly Ptolemy certainly had a vested interest in inflating Persian numbers.
Steppe Merc
09-09-2005, 18:59
I don't, and never have. It is one thing, however, to want to accurately study both Greece and Persia in great detail in order to understand them both well, and it's QUITE another thing to equalize the two cultures, or even prefer Persia to Greece. Just because I can come out and say that Persians were pansies and prone to slavishness does not mean I somehow close my eyes to historical evidence, or become and ignorant person. it is in fact historical evidence which points me to that direction.
Well if you think Persians were pansies, you're wrong. Persians were quite good soldiers, and were probably among the best civilized archers and skirmishers at the time. They fought differently, not worse than Greeks. You don't get an empire the size they did through poor soldiery.
Their cavalry was also far better than Greeks could have, save Alexanders heavy horse and the Thessalians, both of which I respect. The best Hellenic cavalry of course came with the fusion of Iranian and Hellenic tradition in Baktria.
They were no more effiminate than the Greeks or Romans either. I will not get into the how numerous powerful Greeks and Romans had lovers of both sexes, however.
Yes, I know that Rome served as the founding principle for America, but Greece served as more of the founding principle for the European countries in the 19th century, the place which I assume many EB members are from. And don't worry, despite Rome's legacy, it gets picked on even more than Greece does, from all the sentiments I've heard EB members say. So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?
I'm sure Rome's feelings won't be hurt.
And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give it a second look! That is a uniquely EB attitude towards the Greco-Roman legacy, from EVERYTHING that I've seen the team's members say.
So only people who are Greco Roman centric are right in their bias?
I happen to place Iranian cultures in high regard. I think that many culture's militaries were at least eqaul to the soldiers soldiers than Greeks or Romans. I do not think that the Scythians philosphy was better than the Greeks, however.
Steppe Merc,
Yours and EVERYONE else's in EB whose comments I've seen on the issue. Except they all have their own pet cultures that they want to extoll instead, at Greece's or Rome's expense.
Pet cultures? Is that a joke? Each culture was real, and all of them had good and bad things. Of course people specilize in a certaint group, and thus know their strengths. They also know more of their weaknesses.
However, Greece and Rome are always heralded as the best, and their strengths are always put foward. It is not the Iranian or Celtic scholars that put Rome and Greece as the culture to beat in the first place.
Besides, Rome has many supporters in our mod. There is nothing wrong in that. It is good for Urnamma to point out to me the Greek's successes against nomads. It is good for Ranika to point out that while tone particular tribe in Britian fought very well against the Romans, they retreated before the Roman's Sarmatian allies, because they claimed that they were related. It is good for Prom to point out that Rome ended up conquering Gaul despite the Celt's invention of soap, and general cleanliness.
Teleklos Archelaou
09-09-2005, 19:03
I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance. And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won. Everyone here is sitting comfortably in their democracies that Greece has won by blood for them, and then they blithely demand proof as if it's still an open question. If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again. Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another.
I am used to working in an environment where people tolerate other views, and when they think that other people are wrong, it usually doesn't help to bash them over the head until they submit. The only way a mod as big as EB has stayed together (with minimal emigration) and provided so much detail over so many various factions is that those of us who really like certain factions and cultures are generally tolerant of each other and each others' opinions, whether or not we agree with them. The silliest thing I can think to do is get sarcastic or aggressive with someone if I'm trying to convince them that their point of view is misguided - and actually my available time limits me in the amount of 'arguing' I would even think about doing over lots of possible topics. The leadership in EB has done a spectacular job of keeping various 'interests' in the mod from overwhelming others, and when gaps emerge we tend to pour into it for a while to try to fix things. If we were constantly belittleing each other and fighting among ourselves, I don't think we would have gotten this far.
I think of myself as an extreme moderate in most situations, a realist, and someone with a lot of common sense (none of which seems to help me in my profession to be honest), and I think that Aymar and khelvan and Urnamma too have been very moderate and reasonable when dealing with issues that SM or Prometheus or myself or alin or sharrukin or others have raised in support of the various factions and cultures in which we are most interested. In my opinion, this is especially notable given the age of most modders and interested fans (just my opinion again, but the fiery intensity of youth and its numerous benefits for a mod like this need to be carefully handled and managed by those with more experience in dealing with divergent personalities and by those made more mature with age--otherwise it would have fallen apart long ago). For these reasons I don't see any incongruity in my actions or membership. I think (besides the name of the mod itself) it's very well balanced (where we could find serious information and interested individuals).
Steppe Merc
09-09-2005, 19:10
Teleklos, as usual, is showing why the older, wiser folks are in charge, not me. :bow:
I'm not trying to insult Rome or Greece. I think that they had a big part in history. I do like Central Asian cultures more.
I don't think Khelvan would like me to post much here, and certainly not to engage in discussions which would mean even more posts from me, but you (Urnamma) said:
I don't, and never have. It is one thing, however, to want to accurately study both Greece and Persia in great detail in order to understand them both well, and it's QUITE another thing to equalize the two cultures, or even prefer Persia to Greece. Just because I can come out and say that Persians were pansies and prone to slavishness does not mean I somehow close my eyes to historical evidence, or become and ignorant person. it is in fact historical evidence which points me to that direction.
Yes, I know that Rome served as the founding principle for America, but Greece served as more of the founding principle for the European countries in the 19th century, the place which I assume many EB members are from. And don't worry, despite Rome's legacy, it gets picked on even more than Greece does, from all the sentiments I've heard EB members say. So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?
And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it with complete impunity, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give the comment a second look! That is a uniquely EB attitude towards the Greco-Roman legacy, from EVERYTHING that I've seen the team's members say.
Steppe Merc,
Yours and EVERYONE else's in EB whose comments I've seen on the issue. Except they all have their own pet cultures that they want to extoll instead, at Greece's or Rome's expense.
What the hell are you talking about? Of course it's OK for him to believe as he does. He knows I disagree with him, but I'm not going to dislike the man because he has an interest in Persian culture. We're not fascists, for Christ's sake. When he spouts bullshit, I generally call him out on it. You're not privelaged to see a lot of the behind the scenes conversations (on the hidden forum or through MSN), but SM knows my opinion and respects it. Believing Greece and Rome are absolutely and positively superior to everyone else is about the same as believing that Hannibal was black because he was born in Africa, in my mind. It ignores the massive influences on both cultures. I'm not sure what your agenda is here, but you play the apparent victim card quite well, for someone who seems to be anti-PC.
Nobody despises the classical tradition, but I'll be the first to tell you that a lot is cut out of it. Carthaginian literature, for one, was massive, but completely destroyed and obliterated by the Romans over time. Carthago delenda est indeed...
I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't ever been in an environment where RESPECT of one another's dissenting views is commonplace.
Speaking of spitting on the men that built it, you may wish to thank the Germanic barbarians for creating the system of law that most of Europe follows today, and perhaps thank those evil celts and saxons for creating what would become the common law.
Edit: SM, please don't make personal attacks. Edit that post please.
Steppe Merc
09-09-2005, 19:19
Urnamma is right, I am wrong many times. ~D
So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to let this one go. What have you done to study Greece or Rome? What have you done to help their legacy, exactly? From my position, you're sitting here complaining about people who are trying to accurately depict them.
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 19:30
You people do realise that you are getting angry about people that have been dead for 2500 years- and that there is no religion involved? Calm down.
Whole comment
Your point is interesting. The fact is that the muslims did not fortify or even tried to keep an hold on what they conquered. They went through it, pillaged it, took slaves and went forward, got more loot and then turned tails and ran like mad to their encampement because they knew they could not take on the franks army head on. If the pillaging had been successful they would have been able to build a real army. Don't forget that they were fleeing from their enemies, not actively seeking to engage them. And once again i point at the fact that they retreated to Narbonne, they did not bother to prepare strongpoints in the cities they broke open (if they actually did... reports are very unclear about this, they may have prefered to pillage the surrounding farms and faubourgs without taking on the cities themselves... there is no logic in seeing a smaller force succeed where an invasion army miserably failed.)
Now let's try to think like a scholar of this time (that is a religious man.) To whom will you give the Aura of the victors ? To a man who inflicted a crushing defeat to an invasion force but pactised with the enemy in order to secure his hold over his lands or to a man who beat a pillaging force but was true to his oath towards the church ? I'll take the second choice, because in this set of mind the former was a traitor. And i'll add that for a long time the defeat mourned by the muslims is the one of 728. That's not to say that the 732 event is not significant (it allowed the franks to reunite their kingdom and caused the muslim power in spain to undergo a crisis), it's a simple example of how history is a tool of power.
To answer your question : Pillaging and war are not different matters, pillaging is a way to win a war through depleting the economy and ressources of your adversary. The french used this method against the english in the 100 years war with success. It is longer than crushing an enemy on the field but a battle is always risky while harassing towns and villages with a few hundred or thousand men can grant you large amounts of loot (which you can use to muster a stronger army) and demoralize the enemy with little risk. Often mutual pillaging would occur between phases of full fledged war and more than often a simple pillage operation would end up causing a battle. That's how Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt occured. A smart general can also lure the enemy in a trap by setting its troops to pillage the land, if the enemy decides to send a force against the looters then it is possible to have him walk right into a prepared ground that will give you some advantages in the battle to come.
PS : by the way, the muslims did come back after 732 : they did some forays in the rhone valley until Pépin le bref (pipin the short) decided they had to be chased south of the Pyrénées and did it right and sound.
In a sense you are right, the 728 battle stopped the invasion, the 732 battle removed any hope to start it again. We should look at this battles as the two pinpoints that highlight the turn of a tide that involved much more than the clash of armies. it is a flaw that old battles nerds like me often fall vicitm to : forgetting that battles are just the consequences of the politics, needs and desires of folks rather than their prime motive.
You people do realise that you are getting angry about people that have been dead for 2500 years- and that there is no religion involved? Calm down.
Hey, I think religion should be discussed in a civil manner too. ~;)
And we are making a game about something that has been dead for 2500 years. ~:)
But I agree with you. Nothing good can come from this discussion anymore.
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 20:06
A small point: Pillaging is actually rather risky in a wartime, especially when you are pillaging in the vicinity of an enemy force. As an example: When Hannibal was marching through Italy, before the battle of Cannae, he would spread out part of his army to pillage the countryside and gather supplies for the army. However, one of his most dangerous enemies, Fabius Maximus, would constantly harass these parties, as they were vulnerable when they were seperated from the rest of the army. He also refused to engage Hannibal head-on, and thus he turned Hannibal's pillagers against him, whilst remaining undefeated. The only reason he did not finally defeat Hannibal in this fashion was because Rome became impaitent with his refusal to engage in battle; and when Fabius lost track of Hannibal after he slipped through a siege (I cannot remember the location- maybe one of the EB members knows) Rome had had enough. So, not all combat, and not all of the risks occur on the battlefield- a significant amount of risk occurs just in movement.
*looks at current point of conversation, eyeballs original topic*
hmmm
comment about Rome and Greece
Can you please point me to the New York Arenas ? I'd love to see the nubians gladiators fighting Everglades alligators to their deaths.
I propose you take a (long) moment to study the origins of your country, historically and philosophically. You obviously need to fill some serious gaps in this subject.
For your information, the french republic is a mix of germanic customs laws and roman canon laws. It has few in common with greek-like democracies and is just remotely linked to the roman republic. We had 5 constitution and our power and decision structure is one of the most efficient and robust in the world (i am not bent to say it's the best, it would be arrogant and non-sensical, it is just good and perfectible.) Some european countries (but not the majority) copied it in some measure. This is far from a "greek oriented" Europe.
I suggest you build yourself an educated and constructed opinion before you spit again your nonsense at the face of people who are usually nice, tolerant of each others ideas and willing to share them with whomever is willing to discover what they know. I do not post here often, partly because my english is not yet good enough to express myself as well as i want to and partly because my field of knowledge is about the medieval timeline, but i greatly appreciate this place which, compared to many forums i read, is a haven of knowledge. I really hope that, the next time i'll read you, i'll have reasons to appreciate your participation as constructive and interesting.
A small point: Pillaging is actually rather risky in a wartime, especially when you are pillaging in the vicinity of an enemy force. As an example: When Hannibal was marching through Italy, before the battle of Cannae, he would spread out part of his army to pillage the countryside and gather supplies for the army. However, one of his most dangerous enemies, Fabius Maximus, would constantly harass these parties, as they were vulnerable when they were seperated from the rest of the army. He also refused to engage Hannibal head-on, and thus he turned Hannibal's pillagers against him, whilst remaining undefeated. The only reason he did not finally defeat Hannibal in this fashion was because Rome became impaitent with his refusal to engage in battle; and when Fabius lost track of Hannibal after he slipped through a siege (I cannot remember the location- maybe one of the EB members knows) Rome had had enough. So, not all combat, and not all of the risks occur on the battlefield- a significant amount of risk occurs just in movement.
It all depends of your starting locations. If your base is at 1 or 2 days of riding from the enemy's lands you want to sack then the risks are low. If you are forced to forage and pillage far from your base then i completly agree with you. It is then all up to the general's skill at organizing its operations. Rome's error as you depict it is the same that the one King Jean II le Bon commited at Poitiers, with the same results. It is interesting to notice than the french lost most if not every battle they engaged in the 14th century and in the meantime recovered nearly all their lost territory through harassment (of english pillaging parties) and pillage (of then english lands.)
dsyrow1, it isn't that I wouldn't want you to post or discuss the situation, it is that you refuse to take part in logical discussions and would rather simply attack us. You make invalid assumptions about EB that are completely off base and troll our threads with them.
For instance, you see SM posting an opinion (and he is one of our younger, more opinionated members) and assume 1) somehow all of EB takes extremist opinions and 2) that EB members don't question extreme views.
For you, when EB members question the validity of some sources because others are available, we're pissing on the classics. Someone like Teleklos doesn't belong in EB because he has different views? That could not be further from the truth. EB is so great BECAUSE we have different views, because we collaborate on sources, because each of us are able to double-check the others' work, many times in period languages directly from the sources. Because some of us have access to cutting-edge materials from our related fields, and we have some that actually do this work for a living and as such represent the very latest in contemporary thought and research.
Somehow this is threatening to you, and from the earliest days of EB you have done your utmost to take shots at us at every opportunity. You never come into a thread and give any sources of your own, or even support what you say. You always attack EB, EB members, and EB methods, without anything to support it other than your own imagination.
So no, I wouldn't want you to post a long discussion on it, because it will be full of your own assumptions built up into long hypotheses based on nothing at all other than conjecture, and then used to troll for angry responses.
Why in the world would I enjoy that?
caesar44
09-09-2005, 22:03
For the sake of what ever , please tell us , I you (EB Historians , no sarcasm here) can :
1. How many soldiers Alexander of Mokdon had in Issus and Arbela (sources !) ?
2. How many soldiers the Persians had in Issus and Arbela (sources !) ?
3. If you don't belive in the numbers of ancient historians why do you belive in any thing they say ?
4. All , that is , all , the historians who wrote about Alexander did it 300 to 500 years after he died , what proof we got of his existence ?
5. Polybius and others said that the Romans had 80,000 soldiers in Cannae , why do you belive it ? Because it match your logic ?
6. You have said that the USoA is not a Democracy , but a Republic , since when a Republic can't be a Democracy ? (GB is a Monarchy , but still a Democracy) .
What ? no answers ? Hhhhmmmmm
The next thing I will do , is to ask questions and than answer them... ~:confused: ~:confused:
Alexandros had aprox 47.000 inf, and 7000 cav.
Darius his forces where estimated by the historinas of that time up to 1M..but 100.000 is the max i guess.
but stil: the army of rome might be as big as you stated: it never was completely present at 1 Battle. the largest amount of men fielded in 1 battlefield were about 100.000 men...
O_Stratigos
09-10-2005, 05:29
@ dsyrow1
"I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance."
I also want to add a small comment about your reply; after posting all these cheap crap earlier and using words like "REVOLTING" about someone’s opinion, your question was either trying to appear "civil" and conversational or trying to be divisive by asking Teleklos that, knowing him full well to be a "classicist" and you must be really disappointed that he didn’t take the bait. Even then you just can’t help your self with a dig about "his (apparent) interest" while trying again to appear “civil” by posting a bit more sensible things this time. EB fans sometimes have vastly different opinions about certain things and if in the end they don’t agree, then they agree to disagree and is all done in quite a civil manner for the betterment of EB and no one needs someone like you to come here and say what is right or wrong, correct or false, especially when your motives are obviously ulterior and destructive.
"If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again."
Even though I agree that is not exactly "an open question" what IS you point and HOW is it proven?
Does it have something to do with: "it takes a thread like this to remind me what the soul of EB really is, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago." or "It took this thread to see under the covers and remind me again what kind of people flourish in this group."? Like I said, just cheap destructive crap..
"Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another."
WOW…very impressive statement.. did you thought of that all by yourself? BTW please keep in mind that questioning or even disregarding is not the same as "despising" and as for "tradition" well.. "tradition" does not equal "fact". And while we are at it, where is YOUR "critical evaluation" on any of the historical depictions that EB portrays?
"And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won."
Debating something like this can only be an exercise in sophistry, but who made you “defender of the faith” anyway? I am Greek and I may disagree with some of these but since I’m not willing to debate, I hold that they have every right to express their opinion and I will never call it "REVOLTING". So either debate (if you are good enough) or shut up.
"And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it with complete impunity, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give the comment a second look!"
Yep.. no one should be allowed to say things like these with "complete impunity"!! I suggest 40 minus1 lashes and hemlock after that!! :whip: :mean: ~D Hellooo…why don’t YOU challenge it (repeat: if you are good enough) since it bothers you, instead of inviting others to do so?!
I didn’t have much time on my earlier post (working) and I haven’t got much time now (going fishing) so I can’t really respond properly to your snide "this little quote" but I’ll let you ponder this by Fenrhyl:
"I really hope that, the next time i'll read you, i'll have reasons to appreciate your participation as constructive and interesting"
I know we are not supposed to be "personal" here, but I find your posts to be divisive, destructive AND personal, even condescending so please heed the advice above..
O_Stratigos :bow:
SigniferOne
09-10-2005, 07:37
You never come into a thread and give any sources of your own, or even support what you say. You always attack EB, EB members, and EB methods, without anything to support it other than your own imagination.Hey, excuse me Khelvan, I have ALWAYS provided support for the historical arguments that I've made. It's not as if I pulled my ideas out of my butt -- views like mine were status quo JUST 50 years ago, so unless you are willing to come out and say that every scholar from the Rennaissance until the last two decades had been ignorant and deluded, please do not question my position as lacking all support or attribution.
In fact, if memory serves correctly, it is always you who, when pressed for sources, always ends up saying that your sources are never actual widespread books, but either 'experts in the field', or some obscure books written in obscure languages that no one ever heard of or knows about. So please don't get started on the sources. And yes, you don't have to repeat the token response that you provide on this subject every time we raise this issue up. I know your position already, and that's fine, but you should know better than to issue a challenge on the subject of sources, seeing as how it's always been so difficult for you to provide yours.
Urnamma,
I'm not going to dislike the man because he has an interest in Persian culture. We're not fascists, for Christ's sake.Again this is turning into a straw man argument. People can have interest in whatever they want, and I don't care. During the 18th century it was common among the scholars to find men interested in and studying the Sanskrit language for example, but the respect for the Classics was very strong throughout. It is one thing to have an interest in a certain culture, and it's completely another to find it superior. The former first has basis in personal opinions and values, while the second has basis in objective fact. Let's not obliterate the difference between the two.
When he spouts bullshit, I generally call him out on it. You're not privelaged to see a lot of the behind the scenes conversationsThen I guess you can see where I'm coming from. All I see is a lot of bullshit being spouted, and never get to see when, if ever, those people are called out on it. What I see on EB's public forums is that bullshit like this is NEVER called out on.
I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't ever been in an environment where RESPECT of one another's dissenting views is commonplace.Dissent is only possible when some things are first agreed upon in common.
My 'agenda' here was simply to express my concern that while EB had begun to appear to have become a 'moderate' mod focused only on history and quality of work, their original premise, the one that I was so opposed to originally is still there. And that premise is best expressed in people like Steppe Merc, and MANY other people like him who all somehow seem to end up being drawn only to EB and not any other mods. There is very obviously something about EB that draws people with these extreme views, and inundates it with them. I don't know where all of the moderates are -- I don't see them, unfortunately; in just this one example, Steppe Merc could say what he did with impunity, and no one cared. And the fact of the matter is, that as long as I've been in the TW community and reading TW forums, EB members have ALWAYS been making comments like these, and NEVER had other EB members call them out on it. So my 'agenda' is perhaps not so radical or strange after all...
Oh and by the way,
Carthaginian literature, for one, was massive, but completely destroyed and obliterated by the Romans over time. Carthaginian literature was neither destroyed nor obliterated by Romans or anyone else. It was given out to the local libraries and cities for safekeeping, and was lost through time because no one cared to speak, read, or write in Punic anymore.
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to let this one go. What have you done to study Greece or Rome?Everything I can, actually.
What have you done to help their legacy, exactly?Wasn't it you trying to figure out my 'agenda', attempting to combine my playing the victim card with my apparent anti-PC'ness? You've answered your own question there. What I at least try is to do my own little part on forums like these to call people out on their -- bullshit, as you put it -- when no one else seems to be willing to any longer. Jared Diamond is the national hero, while Victor Hanson is made out to be a laughingstock.
Fenrhyl,
For your information, the french republic is a mix of germanic customs laws and roman canon laws. It has few in common with greek-like democracies and is just remotely linked to the roman republic. We had 5 constitution and our power and decision structure is one of the most efficient and robust in the world (i am not bent to say it's the best, it would be arrogant and non-sensical, it is just good and perfectible.) Some european countries (but not the majority) copied it in some measure. This is far from a "greek oriented" Europe.We are talking about constitutions here, not jurisprudence. The original French Republic was, at least ideologically, linked to the Roman Republic, but we all know how that turned out. Subsequent constitutions, both France's and the rest of Europe's -- with their single branch of government, direct elections, reverence for the word "democracy" (the word which was as much despised by the Americans before 20th century as it was in the Roman Republic), etc -- most closely resemble the Greek institutions. This, not surprisingly coincided with the shift in appreciation of Greece over Rome in the 19th century. So thank you for attempting to educate me, in such a non-patronizing manner too.
I really hope that, the next time i'll read you, i'll have reasons to appreciate your participation as constructive and interesting.It's quite interesting how I have never insulted you or Stratigos in any way (or even knew you existed), and yet you two have come out slinging personal attacks at me and at the same time blilthely demanding that I cease slinging mine in return.... ~:eek: I don't even know why you personally feel so offended by this discussion.
O_Stratigos,
after posting all these cheap crap earlier and using words like "REVOLTING" about someone’s opinionSomething being a person's opinion does not automatically disqualify it from being revolting. In fact, apart from natural phenomena, only another person's opinion can really be called revolting.
your question was either trying to appear "civil" and conversational or trying to be divisive by asking Teleklos that, knowing him full well to be a "classicist" and you must be really disappointed that he didn’t take the baitWhat bait? You should leave the practice of mind-reading to the professionals, and stop trying to psychoanalyze my motives and thinking at every sentence break. I was simply asking Teleklos how he, as a classicist, could endure to stay in a team that seemed to have so little respect for the Classics.
I know we are not supposed to be "personal" here, but I find your posts to be divisive, destructive AND personal, even condescending so please heed the advice above..Hey, excuse me, all of my sharpest comments were directed at Steppe Merc, and none of those were personal attacks. Out of the criticisms that I did levy at him, at least part also were intended to apply to EB in general, but again none of those were personal. Instead, here are the comments that I got in return (from you and Fenrhyl):
I propose you take a (long) moment to study the origins of your country, historically and philosophically. You obviously need to fill some serious gaps in this subject.
I suggest you build yourself an educated and constructed opinion before you spit again your nonsense at the face of people who are usually nice, tolerant of each others ideas
after posting all these cheap crap earlier [...], your question was either trying to appear "civil" and conversational or trying to be divisive [...] and you must be really disappointed that he didn’t take the bait. Even then you just can’t help your self with a dig about "his (apparent) interest"
and many others. So instead of offering to me the advice of stopping the insults or shutting up, perhaps you could follow the advice yourself first.
In any case, I have no interest in discussing or defending the superiority of the Greco-Roman tradition here. I'm just making a comment that no one in EB seems to be willing to do this.
Anyhow, my original comment was intended to just make a passing disappointed comment, not start up a flame war, so I will refrain from posting in this thread any further...
why don;t you let it rest?
or Khelvan, Urnamma, Steppe merc, and all other EB member. just stop answering...this is going no where.
dsyrow1,
they agruement started with how large number ancients empire could field...and your 300-words response doesnt even mention it once! you tell me what your disagree with with EB...
Divinus Arma
09-10-2005, 09:00
~:cheers: ~D ~D Uh? What>? I am using one of m,y very limited threade respoeenses to say "close this?!" Friggin 40 minute fllllloood tititmteee.
Ya... I am goin nna need ya to work on Satrtuday...
Yes. I am slub again.
BUT I I LEARRAN MY LESSON !!!! i PROMISES!@@! ~D ~D ~:cheers: ~D ~:cheers:
Hey, excuse me Khelvan, I have ALWAYS provided support for the historical arguments that I've made. It's not as if I pulled my ideas out of my butt -- views like mine were status quo JUST 50 years ago, so unless you are willing to come out and say that every scholar from the Rennaissance until the last two decades had been ignorant and deluded, please do not question my position as lacking all support or attribution.You don't bother to quote them when in an argument with me, at least. You seem to conveniently disappear whenever pressed on them. Your modus operandi is to attack and then disappear when presented with a logical, supported argument.
Is it because you don't have these sources you claim to have, or you just can't be bothered to engage in such a discussion? I am guessing the former, based on your attitude, but I suppose it could be the latter. Prove me wrong.
In fact, if memory serves correctly, it is always you who, when pressed for sources, always ends up saying that your sources are never actual widespread books, but either 'experts in the field', or some obscure books written in obscure languages that no one ever heard of or knows about.Not at all, I always quote sources. Of course, where extra information is to be found in areas that others may not have access to, I always note it, as well as providing information about what sources are more reliable than others. You may choose this to mean I don't support my arguments or I do so with obscure things no one has heard of, but you're doing yourself a disservice if so.
Of course, I know what you think of any source not written by, or in the possession of before it was dug up, a Greek or Roman, so it isn't a surprise that you feel this way.
And I'll keep restating my position until you stop your insipid practice of entering threads and making attacks without supporting them. Stop trolling and you'll stop getting a response fit for a troll. Is that clear?
It is one thing to have an interest in a certain culture, and it's completely another to find it superior. The former first has basis in personal opinions and values, while the second has basis in objective fact.It is quite convenient for you to brush off dissenting opinions as being based in the feeling that one culture is superior, especially when your own arguments are so often based around the premise that the Greco-Roman culture is far superior to anything else. Pot, kettle, black.
Then I guess you can see where I'm coming from. All I see is a lot of bullshit being spouted, and never get to see when, if ever, those people are called out on it. What I see on EB's public forums is that bullshit like this is NEVER called out on.You don't bother to support why you think things are bullshit. You just pop in and call anything you disagree with "bullshit," and then you move on, not bothering to answer the responses. Just once I would love to see you sit down and write a response to the -actual topic in question-, rather than engage in an attack on the person writing the messages or the sources. You don't provide clear, supported arguments, you merely attack others. As you continue to do now.
Why do you think you receive the types of responses you receive? Try discussing things in a civil manner, supporting arguments without resorting to ad hominem (if that is possible for you), and you'll get civil responses. Blather and squawk about bullshit this and pissing on that, attack this person and that without bothering to support it, and you will be treated like the troll you are.
My 'agenda' here was simply to express my concern that while EB had begun to appear to have become a 'moderate' mod focused only on history and quality of work, their original premise, the one that I was so opposed to originally is still there.Translation: I don't have a goddamn clue what goes on in the EB mod, so I will continue to attack them because they have the nerve to look at sources other than those written by Greeks or Romans. Blasphemers!
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to let this one go. What have you done to study Greece or Rome?Everything I can, actually.Your example of a supported statement, I suppose?
It's quite interesting how I have never insulted you or Stratigos in any way (or even knew you existed), and yet you two have come out slinging personal attacks at me and at the same time blilthely demanding that I cease slinging mine in return.... ~:eek: I don't even know why you personally feel so offended by this discussion.Because people like O Stratigos, and many others, have often disagreed with certain things that EB has done, but been able to do so in a logical, reasoned manner. No one in this forum enjoys dealing with someone who comes simply to attack, argue ad hominem, and contribute nothing. We normally say "don't feed the troll," but the folks here aren't used to your particular brand of inanity, so I'll let this go on until everyone sees you for what you are.
You are free to go away and not return unless you're capable of making reasoned, supported arguments, rather than simply making attacks and questioning character. You may begin with why, for instance, you find Steppe Merc's statement "revolting." (Don't forget to support what you say)
What bait? You should leave the practice of mind-reading to the professionals, and stop trying to psychoanalyze my motives and thinking at every sentence break. I was simply asking Teleklos how he, as a classicist, could endure to stay in a team that seemed to have so little respect for the Classics.It doesn't take a mind-reader (do you know any professional mind-readers, by the way?) to recognize a troll for being a troll. One does not need psychoanalysis to see you for what you are.
Oh, by the way, not that you care, but the team has much respect for the Classics. They are the primary sources we pull from, in the original language, no less. Even our *GASP* barbarian groups use the Classics as their primary source of information, because they are so valuable (and respected)! You may feel free to faint from shock, now.
Hey, excuse me, all of my sharpest comments were directed at Steppe Merc, and none of those were personal attacks.A troll is a troll is a troll. Stop trying to justify your trolling, and either engage in civil discourse or leave.
I generally let threads live a very long time here, but trolls we do not tolerate. Even if you happen to be a very long-term EB-hating troll who we have a long history with, you still need to move away from the baseless attacks on character and toward reasoned, logical arguments. If not, I'll banish you as I banish all trolls.
In any case, I have no interest in discussing or defending the superiority of the Greco-Roman tradition here. I'm just making a comment that no one in EB seems to be willing to do this.Why would anyone in EB be "willing" to defend the superiority of the Greco-Roman tradition here? The team is attempting to look at all cultures and represent their historical strengths and weaknesses, not just the most popular ones. The team has respect for many different sources, not just from the cultures that have the most widely studied ones, and judges each source on its merits, not with blanket judgements based on the type of source, the nationality of the source, or the language it is written in.
Anyhow, my original comment was intended to just make a passing disappointed comment, not start up a flame war, so I will refrain from posting in this thread any further...You're welcome to contribute, as long as you contribute, and not attack.
However, it is your modus operandi to make these sorts of baseless character attacks and then disappear when you are called out for doing so, so I expect you'll follow your word here. It is a shame, really, since you seem intelligent and knowledgeable, if extremely biased. It would be nice to actually have you engage in discussion without you making this sort of attack.
Just once, I would very much like for you to move from "troll" to actual "forum contributor." It would be a very pleasant surprise.
PSYCHO V
09-10-2005, 09:59
dsyrow1,why don;t you let it rest?
The agruement started with how large number ancients empire could field...and your 300-words response doesnt even mention it once! you tell me what your disagree with with EB...
lol... good point. So what are you 'really' upset about dsyrow1? You obviously have some beef with EB, so cut the eronious pseudo-passive agressive bullshit and tell us why?
~:)
my2bob
lol... good point. So what are you 'really' upset about dsyrow1? You obviously have some beef with EB, so cut the eronious pseudo-passive agressive bullshit and tell us why?
~:)
my2bob
afaik. he pissed at EB for saying Romans/Greeks aren't superior. he only thinks Telekos is "a good man" but basically he only "likes" good 'ol Tel because they share a passion for a Culture..He was looking for support...
afaik, to him: you, SM and Ranika...all the non-greek/roman EB-members are twits and you dont understand hsitory~;)
but lets quit it..we stated a question he's not going to answer, so it's a done deal..
getting back to the very first topic: teh spartans.
how do you spell "molon Labe" in ancient greek?
A troll is a troll is a troll. Stop trying to justify your trolling, and either engage in civil discourse or leave.
Just once, I would very much like for you to move from "troll" to actual "forum contributor." It would be a very pleasant surprise.
He, khelvan -
our dog is called Troll, so please don't compare him with a special guy here.
He is so sensible ~;)
Seydlitz
09-10-2005, 13:40
Firstly, Fenrhyl, I see where you are coming from now on the whole Charles Martel and Tours thing, and I now agree. There were a lot of facts I didn't know in your post there, and so it was good to know some more info on that time period. ~:) I guess the importance of Tours is more of a symbolic nature then, since it led to the unity of the frankish tribes, and pushed back the farthest reachings of the encroaching muslims.
dysrow1, as one of the people in EB working on the Romans, I can assure you they aren't being treated with any less regard then any of the other factions. VandalCarthage, cuncator, Tel, Prom, Aymar and me, along with many other members have put a lot of work into organizing and making Rome as true to her ancient self as possible, and I daresay we succeeded. The priority was put on the easterners, celts, and germans since they were terribly under represented in the original RTW. Which, may I remind was why EB was formed in the first place; to correct those mistakes.
Steppe (*Ahem*) Merc's opinions on the peoples of the steppe's, the persians, and all those people I can assure you 100% are his own. I have learned a lot about customs, traditions, and methods of warfare about them that I never knew before from him and his posts. Even though all this, I personally find Graeco-Roman culture more intriguing because of my heritage.
Among other things, superiority of one culture over another is morally and militarily absurd. The supremecay of one nation over another is only dictated by fortune, commitment from the population and resources at the disposal of the nation. Through research you will quite easily see that quality and skill at arms counts for near nothing in the final result of a war; The quality of the men leading, luck, and resources at one's disposal count a lot more. WWII is a perfect example. The German's had the better equipment and the better training; But against Russian fervour and the Allied quantative advantage they never stood a chance (If you want I can delve into this deeper. WWII is my area of expertise :bow: ).
Saying one nation is morally superior to another is also close minded. Morality is something personal, and while you might not agree with someone else's beliefs it does not mean yours are any better. The Romans knew this themselves. Hell, they'd even 'invite' over enemy gods once in a while to try and convince them to change sides! The Romans managed to mantain such a large empire with so few people (300,000 people controlling 60 million+ while guarding the borders from invasion is quite a feat) since as long as a different culture didn't infringe on Roman interests, they pretty much let it do what they wished.
On the general topic of ancient historians and embellished history, may I remind you they didn't have TV or photos back then! To try and imbue their ancient readers with some sort of awe, and to trigger the emotions in the readers which the author experienced, embellishment was necessary. One great example is Polybius and his embellishment of the Gauls. He said they had huge swords, and shields as tall as a man! This of course, has been disproven by archaelogical findings (infact, the Celtic sword and shield of that time were about the same size as the Roman Scutum and gladius from that time). But it greatly conveys the ferocity the Gauls had, and puts the same sense of fear in the reader (who btw, would have most likely never seen a gaul arrayed for battle) as a legionary facing the gauls would have experienced.
The exaggerated numbers follows the same trend. An army of 100,000 men is a lot bigger than it sounds. It would cover various kilometers of land in a line, and if deployed in depth it would stretch out to the horizon and more. Josephus tells us how scary a formation of just two or three Roman legions on the march looked, now imagine 10 times as many people! Of course, reading and seeing is different. Just by reading '1 million advancing Persians' you'd get the same sense of size a Spartan would have had looking at Xerxes army massing without needing any psychological explanations relating to how reading is different from seeing (hence, one picture is worth a thousand words).
So the distrust of ancient writers regarding figures isn't just relating to them trying to embellish the accomplishment of their nations, but it is also since they had to convey emotions without visual support. That's why they aren't regarded as accurate figures.
It dosn't diminish Thermoplaye in any way at all, either way. If we take a low estimate of 50,000 persians on the last day and a high estimate of roughly 2,000 greeks (700 thespians, 400 thebans, 300 spartans, and a few hundred spartan helots), it is still 25 to 1 in favour of the persians!!
Oh yeah, and 20,000 casualties is also a terribly high figure. Since the persians who retreated were never pursued, a better estimation (taking the observed fact that casualties due to actual face to face engagement are anywhere between 1-5% dead, and an equal amount wounded) and taking in consideration that the persians got scared at their losses (so we use the higher 5% casualty figure), the persians would have had about 2,500 dead and an equal amount wounded. (still a lot: most victorious armies of about that size rarely lost more than 1,000 dead and wounded).
dysrow1, as one of the people in EB working on the Romans, I can assure you they aren't being treated with any less regard then any of the other factions. VandalCarthage, cuncator, Tel, Prom, Aymar and me, along with many other members have put a lot of work into organizing and making Rome as true to her ancient self as possible, and I daresay we succeeded. The priority was put on the easterners, celts, and germans since they were terribly under represented in the original RTW. Which, may I remind was why EB was formed in the first place; to correct those mistakes.A valiant try, but it won't help, believe me. Hell, as the person who probably did a majority of research for the pre-marian Romans, I have a vested interest in seeing them represented correctly and finding their proper place in our mod. The Romans happen to be my favorite; they weren't a priority in work simply because of the amount of work we had to do to other factions compared to Rome, and for no other reason. They happen to be my favorite faction, though I must admit Baktria has grown on me recently.
EB may have been formed to make the barbarian representation better, but it evolved into much more than that, and I think referencing this beginning only serves to reinforce the misconceptions that someone like dysrow1 attempts to spread. EB has never been anything but an organization that endeavors to show all cultures correctly, no matter how well-known they are, or are not, with no bias against any particular culture in any way, as a team. Any imbalance is sorted out as our team naturally balances each other in our attempt to make all areas of the mod historically correct, as much as possible.
caesar44
09-10-2005, 15:55
Did not see your sources.......history is not about logic ! you just can't say "100,000 men , no , it is to big , can't be , the food , the watter , the space , no , can't be" - this is an arrogant attitude ! You (EB) have your logic , and some one else have his logic , I ask you , that is the way tho learn history ?
Look at the sources , combine them , read modern historians and than . and only than , make your argument , again I say , there is no logic in history !!! and because of that history is not pure science .
I see you are ignoring my questions (a conspiracy for sure...) so please read this and open your minds (ignore my English)
From professor Livio Stecchini - "The size of the Persian army (at 480 bce)"
Herodotos reports about the Persian army - from 46 nationalities (7 , 59-88) , crossing in 170 times * 10,000 men = 1,700,000 fighting men (7 , 60 and also Aischylos 981) . to that number he added 1,700,000 non fighting men = 3,400,000 men ! Other sources came with different numbers , between 700,000 to 800,000 fighting men , so , about 1,700,000 fighting and non fighting men .
Herodotos tell us about the Persian cavalry - some 80,000 on horses and another 20,000 on camels . he mentioned a greek allies of some 300,000 men (8 , 85) .
In 1867 Gobineau questioned (for the first time ?) these numbers and was supported by Macan and by Munro in 1902 . Gobineau came to a conclusion that the Persian army was no more than 300,000 infantry and 60,000 cavalry !
"Gobineau thought that he had made a laughing stock of the Greeks...but the climate of opinion was changing rapidly among the scholars of ancient history . When in 1895 Macan published...he thought of himself as a radical critic , but by the time he published the last volume in 1908 , he found himself to be holding a rather moderate position . When in 1901 G.B. Grundy estimated the size of Xerxes army at several hundred thousands he was expressing an old fation view" .
in 1887 Hans Delbrueck stated that Xerxes army was no more than 55,000 man . later he was so encouraged by the praise bestowed upon him as a pioneer that he reduced Xerxes army to no more than 25,000 man , some where between 20,000 to 15,000 men !!!
Eduard Meyer said "There is no need explain that all these figures are absurd" , he estimated Xerxes army to some 100,000 men .
De Scanctis - 100,000 men .
Ernst Obst - 90,000 men .
Beloch and W.W. tarn - 60,000 men .
J.B. Bury - 180,000 men .
Robert Von Fischer - 40,000 (less than the Greek force!!!) .
Now ,the recent historians -
Giolio Giannelli - 300,000 men .
Ulrich Wilcken and Helmut berve - 100,000 men .
Stecchini's conclusion - 300,000 fighting and non fighting men + 50,000 cavalry .
Now , these are the sources . Every body (?) want's to get some attention , so how can one get's it ? By saying "yes the persian army was huge as the ancient historians said" - no ! it is boring , so ? By saying "The Persian army was no more than 25,000 men !" Ah , wow , that is new , yes , "the hell with historians , I know better , and it is more interesting"
That is my opinion , no offence , no nothing .
Herodotus is biased... if he inflates everything peopel will get scared, people will understand teh heroism of teh spartans...
besides: he wasn't even. and everybody that was coudl count them all...
How mcuh water do you think 1,000,000 men recuire. how much food? in those times... how mcuh wood for campfires. how much water. tents etc. It's practically impossible to get that many people in 1 place..
and about historians>logic.
I got a nice source from archimedes: he says that hevaier object fall faster than lighter ones...
but logic tells us all object fall at the same speed..the only factor is air-friction...
how's that for comparison?
caesar44
09-10-2005, 16:30
Herodotus is biased... if he inflates everything peopel will get scared, people will understand teh heroism of teh spartans...
besides: he wasn't even. and everybody that was coudl count them all...
How mcuh water do you think 1,000,000 men recuire. how much food? in those times... how mcuh wood for campfires. how much water. tents etc. It's practically impossible to get that many people in 1 place..
and about historians>logic.
I got a nice source from archimedes: he says that hevaier object fall faster than lighter ones...
but logic tells us all object fall at the same speed..the only factor is air-friction...
how's that for comparison?
Did I said 1,000,000 people ? did any of the above said that ?
About Archimedes , you are talking here about science , not about history .
If we want to find logic in history , the Germans would have not invaded Poland , Napoleon would have not go to Russia with 600,000 men (oh , the food , the watter , the air , what about the air ~;) ) etc' but that is history , there is no logic , Hannibal faced the Romans 1:3 , why ? there is no logic and none of us can tell what went in Darius III mined when ha went ti Arbela with his 150,000 men .
i thought you wanted to make a point in your previous post...the source siad two parts: Herodotus claime 1M men..The historian 20,000. your previous postst would indicate you were with teh former.
so what was it your were trying to say?
Steppe Merc
09-10-2005, 16:47
Spartan Merc's opinions on the peoples of the steppe's, the persians, and all those people I can assure you 100% are his own. I have learned a lot about customs, traditions, and methods of warfare about them that I never knew before from him and his posts. Even though all this, I personally find Graeco-Roman culture more intriguing because of my heritage.
Dude, it's Steppe Merc. Spartan is the Warrior who makes the excellent units. ~D
But it's ok, I thank you for your assistance. ~:grouphug:
EB may have been formed to make the barbarian representation better, but it evolved into much more than that, and I think referencing this beginning only serves to reinforce the misconceptions that someone like dysrow1 attempts to spread. EB has never been anything but an organization that endeavors to show all cultures correctly, no matter how well-known they are, or are not, with no bias against any particular culture in any way, as a team. Any imbalance is sorted out as our team naturally balances each other in our attempt to make all areas of the mod historically correct, as much as possible.
This is true. I want the Greeks and Romans and Celts and Carthagianians to be as accurate as possible. I don't want the Parthians to be super men. That would be boring. I want to play as my favorite guys, against their historical enemies. And then, even play as my favorite guy's enemies. Even Greeks! ~;)
Now , these are the sources . Every body (?) want's to get some attention , so how can one get's it ? By saying "yes the persian army was huge as the ancient historians said" - no ! it is boring , so ? By saying "The Persian army was no more than 25,000 men !" Ah , wow , that is new , yes , "the hell with historians , I know better , and it is more interesting"
Caesar, but historians are saying that it is far too large. Real ones. The point isn't to destroy ancient historians, but to help make sense of their works.
Oh, by the way, not that you care, but the team has much respect for the Classics. They are the primary sources we pull from, in the original language, no less. Even our *GASP* barbarian groups use the Classics as their primary source of information, because they are so valuable (and respected)! You may feel free to faint from shock, now.
This is very true. Great information has come from the historians about factions that I'm involved with, especially the Iranian nomads. We don't have any of their own records, so we use archealogy with ancient acounts. We have at least one unit using the hoof/horn armor that Pausanias mentions, as well as Ammianus.
Just because we use ancient author's does not mean we take their words as law. We do not represent the Sarmatians as sons of Scythians and Amazons, like Herodotus says.
conon394
09-10-2005, 16:51
I got a nice source from archimedes: he says that hevaier object fall faster than lighter ones...but logic tells us all object fall at the same speed..the only factor is air-friction...how's that for comparison?
I believe that was Aristotle. And anyway the classical world hardly slavishly followed him (unlike say the medieval church). Strabo, correctly noted that Aristotle was mistaken in his assertion about heavy object falling faster.
Herodotus is biased... if he inflates everything peopel will get scared, people will understand teh heroism of teh spartans...
besides: he wasn't even. and everybody that was coudl count them all...
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here; the Persians were too stupid to count? I don’t know that anyone one is really going to say the Herodotus was right, and sure he was making a bit of a political statement in how he treated the climatic battles of the war. But, I really don’t think you can right him off as either biased or stupid. Herodotus is usually quite clear about the fact that he is being told something, but finds it silly or unbelievable. He is at the end of the day ill severed for sources when it comes to Persian numbers. He almost certainly had to rely heavily on reports from the Greek side, and I think we can demonstrate that even in modern wars reports for enemy size or casualties can be widely out of tune with reality. Just consider how many ‘kills’ of AFVs NATO claimed in its air campaign against Serbia, but in reality they vastly overstated their successes.
caesar44
09-10-2005, 17:22
i thought you wanted to make a point in your previous post...the source siad two parts: Herodotus claime 1M men..The historian 20,000. your previous postst would indicate you were with teh former.
so what was it your were trying to say?
jerby , the point is in my final words in the post . please read them again .
From 1,700,000 men they left only 15,000 men , why ? they wanted attention , publicity etc'- it is written in the words of the scholar . Now , from 15,000 we got in to 100,000 to 300,000 men , why ? because modern historians saw the reason behind the early numbers (early , that is in the beginning of the 19' century) .
Steppe Merc
09-10-2005, 17:29
Caesar, why look at old (not ancient, but old) historians? The ones know know more, have more rescources available, and are all around more accurate.
Seydlitz
09-10-2005, 17:31
caesar44, I will restate to you what I have already stated before (And either you ignored, or missed):
On the general topic of ancient historians and embellished history, may I remind you they didn't have TV or photos back then! To try and imbue their ancient readers with some sort of awe, and to trigger the emotions in the readers which the author experienced, embellishment was necessary. One great example is Polybius and his embellishment of the Gauls. He said they had huge swords, and shields as tall as a man! This of course, has been disproven by archaelogical findings (infact, the Celtic sword and shield of that time were about the same size as the Roman Scutum and gladius from that time). But it greatly conveys the ferocity the Gauls had, and puts the same sense of fear in the reader (who btw, would have most likely never seen a gaul arrayed for battle) as a legionary facing the gauls would have experienced.
The exaggerated numbers follows the same trend. An army of 100,000 men is a lot bigger than it sounds. It would cover various kilometers of land in a line, and if deployed in depth it would stretch out to the horizon and more. Josephus tells us how scary a formation of just two or three Roman legions on the march looked, now imagine 10 times as many people! Of course, reading and seeing is different. Just by reading '1 million advancing Persians' you'd get the same sense of size a Spartan would have had looking at Xerxes army massing without needing any psychological explanations relating to how reading is different from seeing (hence, one picture is worth a thousand words).
So the distrust of ancient writers regarding figures isn't just relating to them trying to embellish the accomplishment of their nations, but it is also since they had to convey emotions without visual support. That's why they aren't regarded as accurate figures.
It dosn't diminish Thermoplaye in any way at all, either way. If we take a low estimate of 50,000 persians on the last day and a high estimate of roughly 2,000 greeks (700 thespians, 400 thebans, 300 spartans, and a few hundred spartan helots), it is still 25 to 1 in favour of the persians!!
Oh yeah, and 20,000 casualties is also a terribly high figure. Since the persians who retreated were never pursued, a better estimation (taking the observed fact that casualties due to actual face to face engagement are anywhere between 1-5% dead, and an equal amount wounded) and taking in consideration that the persians got scared at their losses (so we use the higher 5% casualty figure), the persians would have had about 2,500 dead and an equal amount wounded. (still a lot: most victorious armies of about that size rarely lost more than 1,000 dead and wounded).
I don't know about you, but also I do believe most soldiers in the greek army had more important things to do back then to sit an count how many soldiers the Persians had. And no, by a quick look you can't tell if the enemy has 8,000 or 80,000. Hell, it's hard for humans to grasp anything over a few thousand. Fear, awe, pride, sheer testoterone can make the numbers change a lot, and that is quite obvious by the fact that figures vary so much. Anything over 150,000 in numbers of fighting men should be taken as a bit iffy, as Urnamma and Steppe Merc ( ~;)) have already demonstrated by simple math and logic. Peter Connolley, author of Greece and Rome, goes with a maximum estimate of about 180,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry, plus about 60,000 support personnel, which is still stretching it.
cono94.
i'm sorry my message was so poorly spelled. what i meant was that they ahd no sky-cams or even time to count all of that 1M. and for the persians there wouldn't be a point to count them..they got a rough estimate...know it's 10 times more than the greeks..that's neough for them..i'd guess
conon394
09-10-2005, 18:07
Jerby
I agree that at best the Greeks were forced to use fairly rough estimates of people and ships (as in Themistocles to helmsmen "Andronicus, how many sail of enemy do you count... hmm hard to say maybe 1000 but it is difficult to tell the men-of-war from the merchant ships, anyway damn sight more than Aigina ever put out to sea that is for sure, are you confident about this wooden wall crap...). But whatever the number of troops the Persians brought, I rather suspect that had a very good ideal of the number. The Persians were heirs to what something like 2 or 3 thousand years worth of centralized bureaucratic empires. Empires that had been using mass armies and mass cuvee labor for centuries, somebody in Xerxes palace staff certainly could have put a number to the army and no doubt to how much it ate and drank and cost...
Es Arkajae
09-10-2005, 19:19
Guys, 5th century Athens had at most 50,000 people.
~:confused: My sources say more like 300,000 people at its height mate, it was afterall a major port city and Rome eventually reached a million so its not that unbelievable.
And the 8,000 number for their hoplites at Platea seems fairly solid, I don't think a city of at most of 50,000 people (with half being women and including slaves etc.) could field 8,000 hoplites even if one included outlying districts and villages.
When the Celts destroyed the army of the Macedonians during the migration of Gauls that settled Galatia and Tylis, prominent ancient historians from Greece put the number of Celts into the hundreds of thousands. There is a HUGE problem with that. One, at the time, there were maybe a few million, at most (and that's a fairly liberal estimate, taking into account we don't know what's necessary about the countryside to make a more accurate assumption), in all of Gaul.
This migration occured due to overpopulation; this was a common Celtic practice since the Hallstatt period, though more settled La Tene Celts didn't engage it as often. Celts wanted wide spaces, and they liked Greece, and Greeks. Seemed a natural place to go.The thing is, every Celtic soldier, even with his family, even his extended family, in tow, if we count all of them, it isn't possible that they, all together, were more than MAYBE 200,000; that includes mostly non-combatants. The Galatians had three 'migrant armies', each more likely composed of between 15-25,000 soldiers. That's still a big damn army, since there are three of them, but it's hardly the hundreds of thousands that 'over ran' Macedonians; Galatian metalworking brings us a different understanding of what occured, and corroborates with Gallic metalwork of the same event. In truth, the Macedonians were defeated by an army of less than 100,000 men.
However, ancient historians care little for examining the likliehood of numbers, and to the Macedonians, due to the size of the Celts, that there were many of them (imagine seeing all three armies on the move; about 60,000 men in one place, followed by a huge caravan of followers), that they were probably very frightening to see. Of course they're not going to accurately count how many of them there are, and they would've invariably seemed like there were many more of them. However, after Brennos's (different from the one who sacked Rome; almost a century apart these two) failed incursion into Greece (committed suicide after Delphi by falling on his sword; an aside, that was a still a popular ritual suicide method in the middle ages), his army went north and dispersed among the two remaining armies. This ballooned the army sizes to rather unwieldy to numbers, so one of the armies, after driving the Thracians out, settled Tylis, a short-lived Celtic kingdom; some of that army joined with the remaining one, and they split into three armies of their own (and also split their families this way, based on their former tribes back in western/central Europe).
However, even so, when they arrived in Asia Minor, we are told only of about 40,000 Galatians, recorded as two armies of 20,000, by Bithynia; this is far more believable, and was essentially a 'peaceful', methodic count of individual men, rather than an estimation. So, where did the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Celtic warriors go that annihilated the Macedonian army? They certainly didn't all settle in Tylis; that region was not densely populated by Celts, even when they ruled it. The point is, ancient historians don't generally record the number of men in battle, because firsthand accounts almost invariably exaggerate. From there, many historians, who were, one must realize, to some extent, a type of story teller in many ways, had a penchant for increasing numbers and size of things and the like to make an enemy seem more fearsome and a victory more great, or a loss more devestating, but understandable; again, in this example, no one would expect the Macedonian army to survive an onslaught of a horde of a few hundred thousand Celtic warriors. Regardless of individual skill, equipment, command; they would lose such an engagement. However, in such an account, it's no longer the Macedonians' fault for the loss. It wasn't bad command, poor morale, or a tactical failure. They were simply overwhelmed.
That is much more palatable for the supporters of Macedonians. It's not true by a long shot, but real ancient historians recorded it that way for a combination of misunderstanding based on first hand accounts, and sociopolitical reasons involving wanting to save face, and this is just the reasons that are apparent. Even in victories people exaggerate, as I said. There are many reasons this was done. It's not an isolated incident at all, and to trust numbers of historians at face value without examination does a disservice to our understanding of history in general. To not examine a historian's account, against archaeological record, and other sources, is to be disserviceful; we will not gain a full scope of history.
Take for example this; Diodoros concluded Celts were drunkards because of the amount they would pay in slaves for wine. What do we know about Celts, culturally? For one, they had a ton of slaves. So many that slaves were common gifts. Slaves in Celtic lands were cheap. Wine, however, was a rarity in northern Celtic places, or in central/eastern European Celtic regions. Of course they'd trade slaves for wine; it's a matter of supply and demand. But if we trust Diodoros at the utmost, they were just drunks willing to surrender an 'expensive' commodity for a 'cheap', alcoholic commodity, when the truth was they were trading a commodity that was very common for them, for one that was very common for Greeks.
Steppe Merc
09-11-2005, 01:24
To expand upon Ranika saying how armies look bigger than they were, this was often a case with nomadic armies. They often marched divided, but they moved so quickly, those seeing them in one place and then another would assume they were seperate parts of the army, rather than the same part. This led to the over exagerations of the Mongol's numbers, which the Mongols incouraged, as did all nomads before them.
conon394
09-11-2005, 01:51
but they moved so quickly
Armies and raiders yes, mass migrations with family and livestock, no. Even the Mongols only moved slowly when moving with their livestock (sheep just don't march very far in a day).
Conqueror
09-11-2005, 08:38
Ranika, your post is interesting but it's a pain to read when it's all in one huge block of text. Please add some line breaks.
EDIT: Thank you ~:)
When the Celts destroyed the army of the Macedonians during the migration of Gauls that settled Galatia and Tylis, prominent ancient historians from Greece put the number of Celts into the hundreds of thousands. There is a HUGE problem with that. One, at the time, there were maybe a few million, at most (and that's a fairly liberal estimate, taking into account we don't know what's necessary about the countryside to make a more accurate assumption), in all of Gaul. This migration occured due to overpopulation; this was a common Celtic practice since the Hallstatt period, though more settled La Tene Celts didn't engage it as often. Celts wanted wide spaces, and they liked Greece, and Greeks. Seemed a natural place to go.The thing is, every Celtic soldier, even with his family, even his extended family, in tow, if we count all of them, it isn't possible that they, all together, were more than MAYBE 200,000; that includes mostly non-combatants. The Galatians had three 'migrant armies', each more likely composed of between 15-25,000 soldiers. That's still a big damn army, since there are three of them, but it's hardly the hundreds of thousands that 'over ran' Macedonians; Galatian metalworking brings us a different understanding of what occured, and corroborates with Gallic metalwork of the same event. In truth, the Macedonians were defeated by an army of less than 100,000 men. However, ancient historians care little for examining the likliehood of numbers, and to the Macedonians, due to the size of the Celts, that there were many of them (imagine seeing all three armies on the move; about 60,000 men in one place, followed by a huge caravan of followers), that they were probably very frightening to see. Of course they're not going to accurately count how many of them there are, and they would've invariably seemed like there were many more of them. However, after Brennos's (different from the one who sacked Rome; almost a century apart these two) failed incursion into Greece (committed suicide after Delphi by falling on his sword; an aside, that was a still a popular ritual suicide method in the middle ages), his army went north and dispersed among the two remaining armies. This ballooned the army sizes to rather unwieldy to numbers, so one of the armies, after driving the Thracians out, settled Tylis, a short-lived Celtic kingdom; some of that army joined with the remaining one, and they split into three armies of their own (and also split their families this way, based on their former tribes back in western/central Europe). However, even so, when they arrived in Asia Minor, we are told only of about 40,000 Galatians, recorded as two armies of 20,000, by Bithynia; this is far more believable, and was essentially a 'peaceful', methodic count of individual men, rather than an estimation. So, where did the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Celtic warriors go that annihilated the Macedonian army? They certainly didn't all settle in Tylis; that region was not densely populated by Celts, even when they ruled it. The point is, ancient historians don't generally record the number of men in battle, because firsthand accounts almost invariably exaggerate. From there, many historians, who were, one must realize, to some extent, a type of story teller in many ways, had a penchant for increasing numbers and size of things and the like to make an enemy seem more fearsome and a victory more great, or a loss more devestating, but understandable; again, in this example, no one would expect the Macedonian army to survive an onslaught of a horde of a few hundred thousand Celtic warriors. Regardless of individual skill, equipment, command; they would lose such an engagement. However, in such an account, it's no longer the Macedonians' fault for the loss. It wasn't bad command, poor morale, or a tactical failure. They were simply overwhelmed. That is much more palatable for the supporters of Macedonians. It's not true by a long shot, but real ancient historians recorded it that way for a combination of misunderstanding based on first hand accounts, and sociopolitical reasons involving wanting to save face, and this is just the reasons that are apparent. Even in victories people exaggerate, as I said. There are many reasons this was done. It's not an isolated incident at all, and to trust numbers of historians at face value without examination does a disservice to our understanding of history in general. To not examine a historian's account, against archaeological record, and other sources, is to be disserviceful; we will not gain a full scope of history. Take for example this; Diodoros concluded Celts were drunkards because of the amount they would pay in slaves for wine. What do we know about Celts, culturally? For one, they had a ton of slaves. So many that slaves were common gifts. Slaves in Celtic lands were cheap. Wine, however, was a rarity in northern Celtic places, or in central/eastern European Celtic regions. Of course they'd trade slaves for wine; it's a matter of supply and demand. But if we trust Diodoros at the utmost, they were just drunks willing to surrender an 'expensive' commodity for a 'cheap', alcoholic commodity.
Hear hear!
As i said many times before the same could be said for the roman numbers in their clashes with germanic tribes.
Tribes not a nation! Those tribes were never able to raise hundreds of thousands warriors as the romans wants us to believe to make their victories sweeter and their defeats more logical.
Also the land and agriculture in germania was not enough to let millions of warriors live there.
And the given numbers tell us of millions...
Ranika, your post is interesting but it's a pain to read when it's all in one huge block of text. Please add some line breaks.
I apologize, I'll add some breaks ASAP.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 12:09
[QUOTE=Ranika]When the Celts destroyed the army of the Macedonians during the migration of Gauls that settled Galatia
Are you saying the Galatians were Celts ? ~;) some posters have said they were some thing else.....
Who said Galatians were anything but Celts? That's asinine; Galatians were migrant Gauls. However, after they settled Tylis and Galatia, they were a completely seperate group from the Gauls, hence why we call them Galatians, and not 'Gauls in Asia Minor'.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 13:50
Who said Galatians were anything but Celts? That's asinine; Galatians were migrant Gauls. However, after they settled Tylis and Galatia, they were a completely seperate group from the Gauls, hence why we call them Galatians, and not 'Gauls in Asia Minor'.
Who said ? check...
Celts are Celts? Is that like Greeks are Greeks?....This is not argument to absurdity. "Celts" are not "Celts"....
So ? in 8 years (278 bce to 270 bce) the Celts in Asia minor became...what ? Ah , yes , Galatians...in that logic you can take an Englishman , put him in France and after 8 years you can get an "Engranchman"
Galatians became a separated group (Galo-Graecian) after decades , not after 8 years ! it is Absurd , don't you think ?
Geoffrey S
09-11-2005, 14:30
However, you're referring to the culture. How is this relevant to the discussion? Perhaps at the time they were culturally similar to the celts in western Europe; this does not mean they should be controlled by the Gallic faction in the game.
Anyway, as Ranika stated where has anyone said that the Galatians would be represented as anything but what they were (inside the engine's limits); essentially, an isolated group of Celts in Asia Minor who weren't connected to their cousins in western Europe any longer. You seem to be chasing a hypothetical situation, based upon your own assumptions of the period and how EB is portraying it.
Who said ? check...
Celts are Celts? Is that like Greeks are Greeks?....This is not argument to absurdity. "Celts" are not "Celts"....
So ? in 8 years (278 bce to 270 bce) the Celts in Asia minor became...what ? Ah , yes , Galatians...in that logic you can take an Englishman , put him in France and after 8 years you can get an "Engranchman"
Galatians became a separated group (Galo-Graecian) after decades , not after 8 years ! it is Absurd , don't you think ?
Actually, immediately after being given Galatia, their aristocracy had begun taking Hellenic wives and observed some Hellenic customs (it was part of the agreement that gave them their land). However, yes, it did take them time to become 'unique' apart from the Gauls in the utmost cultural sense, however, take the 'English' example. Technically, 'lowland' Scots were 'English' in the middle ages, if one goes by culture. They spoke English, observed English customs, and English laws; in fact, many were descended from Norman Englishmen. However, it's asinine to say they were the same people or the same 'nation'. Likewise, Galatia is hardly under the control of any Gallic power. Of the major power groups in Gaul (most notably the Aedui and Arverni, but also the Aquitanni, Bonnonii {Boii} and Armoricans), none of them controlled Galatia. Simply sharing a culture doesn't mean they were 'allied' or even viewed eachother as the same people. Also, if you're saying 'They were Celts, so they should be under control of other Celts', then a huge portion of Europe (and the south of Britain, if we're talking about 'Gauls', since the southern Britons were ostensibly Gallic cultured) would be under the control a Celtic super-faction. Also, to the point of 'culture', Celtic was not a single culture, it was dozens of them. Even in Gaul, there were Belgae, Transalpine Gauls, Cisalpine Gauls, Alpine Gaul, Noricenes, Rhaetic demi-Celts, etc. The truth is, Celtic 'nations' were made of alliances, confederations, and demi-republican/feudalist states, that could span multiple tribes. However, none of them ever exercised control over Galatia, and to think such a thing is logical is plainly stupid.
Steppe Merc
09-11-2005, 16:34
Armies and raiders yes, mass migrations with family and livestock, no. Even the Mongols only moved slowly when moving with their livestock (sheep just don't march very far in a day).
You would be suprised. Families were very mobile, and could make great progress, far more than civilized peoples could. Livestock could be herded seperatly from the family groups, or not at all, depending on what tribe (some only raised horses, others raised goats, sheep, etc.).
And even if they didn't move incredibly fast on migrations, what is your point? Not trying to be rude, but I don't understand what you're getting at.
Who said ? check...
Celts are Celts? Is that like Greeks are Greeks?....This is not argument to absurdity. "Celts" are not "Celts"....
So ? in 8 years (278 bce to 270 bce) the Celts in Asia minor became...what ? Ah , yes , Galatians...in that logic you can take an Englishman , put him in France and after 8 years you can get an "Engranchman"
Galatians became a separated group (Galo-Graecian) after decades , not after 8 years ! it is Absurd , don't you think ?Culturally they are still similar. The point was, if you would care to get past your bias, that lumping the Galatians in with the Gauls because they are Celtic is equivalent to lumping the Successor states together because they all came from Alexander, or all Greeks together.
Cultural affinity does not equal one nation, and there is no way in hell EB would represent the Galatians as being a part of the Gauls any more than we would merge the Greek cities with Ptolemaioi. It is silly to even think of.
I never said they were different culturally, but have fun knocking down a straw man. I am sure Ranika would agree that Galatia should no more be a part of the Gauls than the Successor states a part of Makedonia or Greece.
Dux Corvanus
09-11-2005, 20:00
If sharing the generic aspects of a culture signified sharing also the same government and institutions, then Western World should be a single state nowadays... ~:rolleyes:
Steppe Merc
09-11-2005, 20:11
Ooo, we could have a huge Iranian Empire spanning all of Central Asia, including the Parthians, Sarmatians, Scythians, Dahae, and Sakae! That would be cool! ~:handball:
caesar44
09-11-2005, 20:33
[QUOTE=Geoffrey SHow is this relevant to the discussion?
It does not , so what ? It is still a discussion (I hope...)
The question is - Did the "Galatians" (in 278 they were called just the Trocmi , the Tolistobogii and the Tecrosages) were a separate political entity ? They did not had a central government , just like the "Iberians" , so why the "Iberians" are united in your mod ? As you know , the "Galatians" became a political entity just in 228 and a united kingdom just in 62 .
Just a question .
caesar44
09-11-2005, 20:41
If sharing the generic aspects of a culture signified sharing also the same government and institutions, then Western World should be a single state nowadays... ~:rolleyes:
So , we should have a mod with 3,287 factions , ha ? 200 Celtic tribes , 150 Sarmatic tribes , 250 Greek city states , 50 Iberians tribes , 250 Germanic tribes , 80 Britonic tribes and more and more - yes , it would be so fun !!! :juggle2: :juggle2: :juggle2: :2thumbsup:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
09-11-2005, 20:55
The question is - Did the "Galatians" (in 278 they were called just the Trocmi , the Tolistobogii and the Tecrosages) were a separate political entity ? They did not had a central government , just like the "Iberians", so why the "Iberians" are united in your mod ?The Iberian faction in EB represents one of the several alliances between the Lusitanii confederation and the Celtiberian confederation that was made often when faced against foreign common enemies like the Carthaginians and Romans.
Steppe Merc
09-11-2005, 21:04
Caesar, it would be Iranian, not "Sarmatic".
conon394
09-11-2005, 21:08
You would be suprised. Families were very mobile, and could make great progress, far more than civilized peoples could. Livestock could be herded seperatly from the family groups, or not at all, depending on what tribe (some only raised horses, others raised goats, sheep, etc.).
And even if they didn't move incredibly fast on migrations, what is your point? Not trying to be rude, but I don't understand what you're getting at.
I realize we seem to have some fairly opposite views, so I don’t take your response as rude, I hope you don’t think I being rude either, but just strongly disagreeing.
The reason I replied that I felt your statement was rather overly broad. First, the Celts were not nomads (you seem to have moving the frame of reference to steppe peoples away from the Celts). Second, even limiting one’s arguments to just steppe nomads I don’t now that you can support a dichotomy that suggest nomads move so fast civilized societies would be befuddled into double counting them. Alexander’s infantry often managed to move as fast on a per day basis as the Mongols do on several campaigns.
What I meant to suggest was that fast movement is rather a function of hard disciple and a ruthless willingness and ability to forage all resources from the locals. Thus Alexander, Caesar, the Mongols, Napoleon, are all at various times all able to make what amounts to extreme marches that stun their enemies.
Also, I think it’s easy to fall into a fallacy of overstating the mobility of steppe peoples. Tactically sure, the policy of bring a string of ponies guarantees a high degree of mobility (one that a ‘civilized’ cavalry force ignores at the cost of its destruction, no argument here). But on the strategic front those same ponies need forage, and more importantly the time to graze every day (and you just cannot jump from forage to feed at the drop of a hat). Move away from the steppe and that becomes a difficult proposition. Even on the steppe forge feeding takes considerably more time that grain feeding. As you suggest a nomadic steppe force could divide, but that was my original point (a stripped down raiding party or army had high mobility but only after losing its non-coms and ‘supply’ herds), and would of course leave the non combatant elements vulnerable to attack.
The final upshot is just that it’s easy to pick on Diodorus, but he is neither the best not the only ancient Greek or Roman historian.
Wow, this post has certainly moved through various subjects. I can't believe some of the content though, some of it sounds like it was discussed in a playground. 'My civilization was better than yours!' 'Yeah but you had pansies in your kingdom!'
Yeah we all have our favourites but this isn't football (Thank the gods). ~;)
oh crap, that was intended for page 4 of this thread, I'm a little behind.
conon394
09-11-2005, 21:20
So , we should have a mod with 3,287 factions , ha ? 200 Celtic tribes , 150 Sarmatic tribes , 250 Greek city states , 50 Iberians tribes , 250 Germanic tribes , 80 Britonic tribes and more and more - yes , it would be so fun !!!
Come on now your really taking a cheap pot shot. Every mod is basically limited by CA decision on how many factions are possible. If you link the Galatians to the Celtic faction largely based in northern/western Europe you seem likely to skew diplomatic and military nature of the game. For much of the period in question the eastern and western Med were distinctly separate spheres of political and military activity. Connecting the Galatians to the ‘Celts” from the start of the game would in my mind create an a-historical situation.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 21:29
Come on now your really taking a cheap pot shot. Every mod is basically limited by CA decision on how many factions are possible. If you link the Galatians to the Celtic faction largely based in northern/western Europe you seem likely to skew diplomatic and military nature of the game. For much of the period in question the eastern and western Med were distinctly separate spheres of political and military activity. Connecting the Galatians to the ‘Celts” from the start of the game would in my mind create an a-historical situation.
Conon , you are not saying that historical accuracy is been victimize for the sake of game play ? ~;)
caesar44
09-11-2005, 21:32
Caesar, it would be Iranian, not "Sarmatic".
If you say so .
Geoffrey S
09-11-2005, 21:55
It does not , so what ? It is still a discussion (I hope...)
I'm afraid you took that out of context. What I meant was that no-one is disputing the fact that the Galatians were originally Celts, perhaps even in the timeframe of EB; this doesn't simply mean you can lump them into some kind of generic Celtic faction, as you were advocating.
Conon , you are not saying that historical accuracy is been victimize for the sake of game play ?
If you'd read Conon's post properly you would have seen he was saying quite the opposite, actually.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 22:01
If you'd read Conon's post properly you would have seen he was saying quite the opposite, actually.
I know...
I'm interested, can someone tell me more of the Galatians, as this is the first I've heard of them, I've heard they were originally Gauls and that they were somewhere in Asia minor, but could some one be kind enough to tell me more? Thanks for your time.
conon394
09-11-2005, 22:25
No caesar44, what I’m saying is that A: the migration phase of the Celts, who gave Galatia it’s name was over by the start of the game. B: during game period Glatia was effectively just another minor successor territory, admittedly one with a somewhat novel cultural background. In actual reality if the Seleucid King or Rhodes or the King of Pergamum decided to attack Galatia, no Celtic/Gual kingdom/Polity in Western Europe would care or even know. Linking Galatia to the Western Europeans would create the very a-historical situation you suggest.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 22:49
No caesar44, what I’m saying is that A: the migration phase of the Celts, who gave Galatia it’s name was over by the start of the game. B: during game period Glatia was effectively just another minor successor territory, admittedly one with a somewhat novel cultural background. In actual reality if the Seleucid King or Rhodes or the King of Pergamum decided to attack Galatia, no Celtic/Gual kingdom/Polity in Western Europe would care or even know. Linking Galatia to the Western Europeans would create the very a-historical situation you suggest.
conon394 , do you think the Aeduii cared about the Boii ?
Steppe Merc
09-11-2005, 23:08
I realize we seem to have some fairly opposite views, so I don’t take your response as rude, I hope you don’t think I being rude either, but just strongly disagreeing.
The reason I replied that I felt your statement was rather overly broad. First, the Celts were not nomads (you seem to have moving the frame of reference to steppe peoples away from the Celts). Second, even limiting one’s arguments to just steppe nomads I don’t now that you can support a dichotomy that suggest nomads move so fast civilized societies would be befuddled into double counting them. Alexander’s infantry often managed to move as fast on a per day basis as the Mongols do on several campaigns.
What I meant to suggest was that fast movement is rather a function of hard disciple and a ruthless willingness and ability to forage all resources from the locals. Thus Alexander, Caesar, the Mongols, Napoleon, are all at various times all able to make what amounts to extreme marches that stun their enemies.
Also, I think it’s easy to fall into a fallacy of overstating the mobility of steppe peoples. Tactically sure, the policy of bring a string of ponies guarantees a high degree of mobility (one that a ‘civilized’ cavalry force ignores at the cost of its destruction, no argument here). But on the strategic front those same ponies need forage, and more importantly the time to graze every day (and you just cannot jump from forage to feed at the drop of a hat). Move away from the steppe and that becomes a difficult proposition. Even on the steppe forge feeding takes considerably more time that grain feeding. As you suggest a nomadic steppe force could divide, but that was my original point (a stripped down raiding party or army had high mobility but only after losing its non-coms and ‘supply’ herds), and would of course leave the non combatant elements vulnerable to attack.
The final upshot is just that it’s easy to pick on Diodorus, but he is neither the best not the only ancient Greek or Roman historian.
OK, now I see what you mean. And yeah, I was talking about nomads, not Celts. As for the moving so fast to seem like two, that mainly applied to during actual times of war, as you said. However, many nomads were fast enough to keep ahead of civilized armies even with their families. Darius I invasion of the Pontic steppe, for example. Ancient authors often spoke of the wagons that Iranian nomads lived in, of course tents were also used.
As to steppe ponies, yeah, they did take longer to adapt to feed, and weren't as mobile in places without great pastures. But as you said, they had large strings of remounts, and could move far quickly than a settled person would expect. So while a settled person unused to dealing with nomads saw the same group in two places, they may not have needed to travell a huge distance, just more than a settled person think that anyone could move.
But we both agree that steppe nomads were slowed down by their families and herds.
As for Celts, I don't know how fast they could move. I just commented that that sort of confusion could occur.
conon394 , do you think the Aeduii cared about the Boii ?
Any wise nation would care if their neighbors were attacked, ar at least take notice. And I don't understand your point. What does that have to do with anything?
caesar44
09-11-2005, 23:44
Any wise nation would care if their neighbors were attacked, ar at least take notice. And I don't understand your point. What does that have to do with anything?
Steppe ,
in 270 , the Boii were living under the po river , the Aeduii , as you can see in your map , lived in central Galia , that is my point . All the Celts from the Atlantic to the Danube or so , are represented by only 1 celtic faction , tell me why that is accurate ?
But you know what ? never mind...you can say that the Carthaginians were tyrians (Tsorim) although a vast see is between Carthage and Tyre , but no , don't say that the Galatians had anything with the Celts .
Again I say , never mind...
Steppe Merc
09-11-2005, 23:55
No they arent! In EB, there is the Aedui! There is no Gaul faction! Just one nation!
All the Celts from the Atlantic to the Danube or so , are represented by only 1 celtic faction , tell me why that is accurate ?The Aedui ruled over a confederacy of tribes. This is perfectly historically accurate. There were two tribal confederacies of Gauls, led by "great kings," Aedui and Arverni, which are both tribes in and of themselves and what the confederacies are called (for instance, the Sequani tribe came to power over the tribal confederacy led by the Arverni, and henceforth it is refered to as the "Sequani" confederacy, even though its lands and holdings, and the tribes over which it holds dominion, were relatively unchanged).
Our setup reflects the dominion over which the Aedui great king held control, and as such is historical. The Aedui had no ties to the Galatians, and it would be ahistorical to include them. Or the Belgae, for example.
But you know what ? never mind...you can say that the Carthaginians were tyrians (Tsorim) although a vast see is between Carthage and Tyre , but no , don't say that the Galatians had anything with the Celts .The Carthaginians referred to THEMSELVES as Tsorim. We didn't make up the name. Go question them as to why they used it.
You can question all you like and make all the snide comments you like, the research speaks for itself. Adding Galatians to the Aedui would be as ahistorical as adding the Seleukid lands to Makedonian control, and all your complaining and vain attempts to find some other inaccuracy in our work won't change that one bit.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 23:57
~:confused:
caesar44
09-11-2005, 23:59
Sorry , but the ~:confused: was for Steppe ~D
caesar44
09-12-2005, 00:14
and all your complaining and vain attempts to find some other inaccuracy in our work won't change that one bit.
Belive me Khelvan , I have found inaccuracy in your works , but as I have said before , never mind . I see that my comments are making you (EB) a little irritated , so I will stop here . you ignored all my sources , that is , all my sources , and never , that is , never came with your own , despite me asking you .
just one more example - the Senones took Rome between 386 to 382 bce and not in 390 . the Varronian chronology is considered for the last 200 years as worthless , but you used it - good for you .
Bottom line - no more criticism ! (I am playing martyr here ? hhmmmm) .
Bye .
Belive me Khelvan , I have found inaccuracy in your works , but as I have said before , never mind . I see that my comments are making you (EB) a little irritated , so I will stop here . you ignored all my sources , that is , all my sources , and never , that is , never came with your own , despite me asking you . You must be thinking of someone else, as I never asked for, nor received sources. There are no sources that claim the Galatians were controlled by Gallic tribes in Gaul at this time, that I am aware of, and you certainly have not provided any.
Nor have you asked me for sources. What sources are you looking for?
Every "inaccuracy" you have pointed out has been shown not to be one. I can't answer your calendar comment as I was not a part of that decision.
Fenrhyl,
We are talking about constitutions here, not jurisprudence. The original French Republic was, at least ideologically, linked to the Roman Republic, but we all know how that turned out. Subsequent constitutions, both France's and the rest of Europe's -- with their single branch of government, direct elections, reverence for the word "democracy" (the word which was as much despised by the Americans before 20th century as it was in the Roman Republic), etc -- most closely resemble the Greek institutions. This, not surprisingly coincided with the shift in appreciation of Greece over Rome in the 19th century. So thank you for attempting to educate me, in such a non-patronizing manner too.
The original constitution of the french republic is completly built from the declaration of humans' rights. This was a complete rupture from any ruling system that existed in Europe before because greek, roman, german or slavic models considered it existed different classes of citizens and took this into account when organizing their ruling systems. The assembly of the people's representatives was not created after the revolution but, as you surely know, existed before. In fact it existed since the franks emerged as a coalition of tribes, the franks kings, then the french ones called upon it in order to settle important question that required the opinion of every man in the kingdom. This was called the "generals states" (Etats-généraux) from at least the 13th century and it still was named this way when it became "l'assemblée constituante" which wrote the first constitution. You can say as much as you want that Bonaparte Empire was Rome and Greek inspired, you'd be right. It is simply inadequate for even the first republic (and with greater reason the following ones), which despite its many shortcomings was an original creation.
I also have a list of objection about your claims :
The first problem with stating that Europe is greek influenced for constitution matters is that it completely overlooks the deep efforts of thinking on a theological, sociological and economic level that took place in this part of the world in the 17th and 18th century and led to the profound changes that took place in the following centuries.
The second problem is that you do not take into account the Danish, scandinavians, swiss, irish and english constitutions that are the result of their own cultural evolution and were influenced in a very minor way by ancient types of governement. You also do not take into account the governements of the former dictatures such as Spain, Polland or Romania who benefited from the experience earned from the errors and successes of other nations and have few in common, once again, with ancient governement system (not even in their spirit.) And a great deal of european countries were dictatures until recently (greece for example) or very recently.
If we discard english, irish and nordic states, nearly every central and eastern Europe nations, Swiss, Greece and Spain we fall far from the mark of the "most part of Europe." And that is an understatement.
The fact is that a certain way of thinking the past tends to prone that only the mediterranean cultures had what we call democracies or republics and that humanity has found nothing as efficient ever since... i disagree completely with these two points.
PS : i did not mean to be patronizing, i am just not really comfortable with debating in english. I hope i did not hurt your feelings.
PPS : thank you for your answer, this is the kind of debate i like to take part in (but is really out of the subject.)
PSYCHO V
09-12-2005, 01:20
Steppe ,
in 270 , the Boii were living under the po river , the Aeduii , as you can see in your map , lived in central Galia , that is my point . All the Celts from the Atlantic to the Danube or so , are represented by only 1 celtic faction , tell me why that is accurate ?
But you know what ? never mind...you can say that the Carthaginians were tyrians (Tsorim) although a vast see is between Carthage and Tyre , but no , don't say that the Galatians had anything with the Celts .
Again I say , never mind...
caesar44, if I may add my 2 bob. I think you may be missing the point here. As Steppe mentioned, there is no "Gaul faction". To have a "Gaul faction" would be a gross inaccuracy. Akin to to having a "European faction" in a game like EUII that seeks to represent the actual situation at the time. So we have depicted one of the major tribes and their confederacy to play. Remember rebels will be alot more regionally diverse.
Further to claim a pan-celtic empire in 270 BC that spans the length and breadth of the Celtic world would just be complete bullshit. We do have some evidence of communication between Galatia and the 'old country' but there was never a power block in the west that had any control over the Galatians. They were autonomous.
Belive me Khelvan , I have found inaccuracy in your works , but as I have said before , never mind . I see that my comments are making you (EB) a little irritated , so I will stop here . you ignored all my sources , that is , all my sources , and never , that is , never came with your own , despite me asking you .
just one more example - the Senones took Rome between 386 to 382 bce and not in 390 . the Varronian chronology is considered for the last 200 years as worthless , but you used it - good for you .
Bottom line - no more criticism ! (I am playing martyr here ? hhmmmm) .
Bye .
now you're just trying to save yourself..screaming even kehlvan is wrong sometimes, and pointing out a mistake of 6 years..i my language that's called an Ant-fucker..
and your sources state nothign about galatians being 'under control' of teh aedui..
think about what you're saying: when you want the galatians to be part of the aedui, that would include them under 1 leader, share funds, import/export 'units'..all teh things that RTW would automatically do..
you argue a point, and than post irrelative sources..
Why, are you even honouring him with replies at this point? He believes in a Greek and Latin based history, and refuses to look at other sources, so let him stay ignorant.
For christ's sake, what's even the logic of having a pan-celtic faction when half of these guys were at war with each other, or had no direct communication? Why are two celtic tribes fighting each other, any different from two macedonian states doing the same? This is morronic.
I somewhat agree with you on the numbers of armies, it is *possible* that a large army (though obviously not in the half a million numbers) can be maintained on a faraway land, since logistics are such a complicated matter and require so many variables that it is beyond most people to calculate.
Still when you do not deviate from a line of thought that is obviously wrong, even by logic, let alone through known historic facts, I must ask what exactly are you thinking when you say these things? Do you seriously believe what you're saying?
Being a Troll is bad enough, but actually believing in that crap...I seriously pity you, if you do...
caesar44
09-13-2005, 09:59
"Crap"...well , that is a strong argument , based on sources...
So harsh words , "I pity you" and all that nonsense , "ignorant" , ah yes , ignorant , and who are you ? professor from Princeton ? Give me a break...
You know what ? Dear Sarcasm , go fish...save your intellectual observations to your friends , tell them they are doing a great job , than they will say to you "thank you" , than say to them "we are so great" , and they will say "we know , we know" , have a party :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: . I have said it before , no more criticism , just praises
"ignorant" ~D ~D ~D
Geoffrey S
09-13-2005, 15:59
Bottom line - no more criticism ! (I am playing martyr here ? hhmmmm) .
Bye .
Could you stick to this, at least until you learn to make coherent posts supported by facts rather than constant whining? It would make reading these fora a lot more pleasant, not to mention more informative thank you very much.
pezhetairoi
09-14-2005, 00:56
The Theban Sacred Band was butchered nearly a century after Thermopylae when Alexander surrounded and cut them to ribbons at Chaeronea.
Cannae was lost by overconfidence. Paulus/Varro didn't see the trap because the African flankers were masked behind the Iberians and Gauls, so all the Romans saw was crap troops and one soluitary elephant above all that. So he thought he could use a battering ram of roman troops to burst through it before his cavalry got pwned. Big miscalculation because Hannibal had a reserve. Overconfidence. Not miscalculation.
Why, are you even honouring him with replies at this point? He believes in a Greek and Latin based history, and refuses to look at other sources, so let him stay ignorant.
For christ's sake, what's even the logic of having a pan-celtic faction when half of these guys were at war with each other, or had no direct communication? Why are two celtic tribes fighting each other, any different from two macedonian states doing the same? This is morronic.
I somewhat agree with you on the numbers of armies, it is *possible* that a large army (though obviously not in the half a million numbers) can be maintained on a faraway land, since logistics are such a complicated matter and require so many variables that it is beyond most people to calculate.
Still when you do not deviate from a line of thought that is obviously wrong, even by logic, let alone through known historic facts, I must ask what exactly are you thinking when you say these things? Do you seriously believe what you're saying?
Being a Troll is bad enough, but actually believing in that crap...I seriously pity you, if you do...
Sarcasm lives!
"Crap"...well , that is a strong argument , based on sources...
So harsh words , "I pity you" and all that nonsense , "ignorant" , ah yes , ignorant , and who are you ? professor from Princeton ? Give me a break...
You know what ? Dear Sarcasm , go fish...save your intellectual observations to your friends , tell them they are doing a great job , than they will say to you "thank you" , than say to them "we are so great" , and they will say "we know , we know" , have a party :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: . I have said it before , no more criticism , just praises
"ignorant" ~D ~D ~D
If you dont like EB..there's always a solution:
LEAVE
but you know what: you will keep returning..just because this is teh greatest project for rtw out there..and you will play it when it comes out..so stop bithcing..
and if you wont play it: still leave, because you have no input
Steppe Merc
09-14-2005, 18:21
Nah, that's not fair. It's good if people want to come and ask questions about history, or question our potrayal of something. But it has to be corteous, and understandable for us to adress it...
and people should be open minded about the answer they get..
We welcome people to challenge our choices. However, we recommend that people be prepared to give everyone, on both sides of whatever discussion may ensue, the benefit of the doubt. This is a text medium and as such the meaning of posts may be distorted or misinterpreted. People who state things such as "EB is inaccurate" should expect us to defend our mod with passion, as we have worked on this for more than a year and are very passionate about it.
This does not mean that challenges to our choices are not welcome, but it does mean that people who do so should be aware that we are human, and your phrasing and the way in which you make your challenges matters to us. We are not emotionless robots (well, not all of us), and as such we perceive and react in an emotional way.
So, if you come to challenge us on something, do so prepared to support what you say, but more than that, be prepared with thick skin; we may defend against challenges in a hard way, but that should not be taken personally.
If people take it personally, the discussion will go absolutely nowhere very quickly, as we see above.
Finally, because someone takes it personally and then begins lashing out should not be a reason to run them out of the forum. People are allowed to express their opinion, though of course it does them no good to say "this is wrong!" and then run off without supporting why it is wrong. However, let us deal with that. We know our fans are passionate about our work as well, but don't take the opportunity to attack those who challenge us, as it serves no one.
Edit: I will, however, personally run trolls out of our forum. I find it highly amusing to do so.
and that would be an apropriate post to close this "thread"
"Crap"...well , that is a strong argument , based on sources...
So harsh words , "I pity you" and all that nonsense , "ignorant" , ah yes , ignorant , and who are you ? professor from Princeton ? Give me a break...
You know what ? Dear Sarcasm , go fish...save your intellectual observations to your friends , tell them they are doing a great job , than they will say to you "thank you" , than say to them "we are so great" , and they will say "we know , we know" , have a party :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: . I have said it before , no more criticism , just praises
"ignorant" ~D ~D ~D
I don't have to be professor from Princeton to recognize tribal confederacies and migratory movements when I see them. You neither recognize them or don't want to recognize them. What does that make you then? "Ignorance" isn't necessarily a bad thing, not on its own at least...though willing blindness to facts and logic is.
As for fishing, that's nice of you to sugest it, maybe I'll do just that, as opposed to reading any more of your educated guesses at caracterizing a pan-celtic faction which spreads from the the Iberian Peninsula to Asia Minor. Then again why stop there? We have celtic tombs even more to the east and to south, well into Egypt...maybe you should add those to your thesis? :thumbsup:
You should know better than to oversimplify what people here are trying to tell you. No criticism is unwelcome when they follow the rules of conduct of this sub-forum, or hell, of normal conduct in society. You have broken quite a few since you started ignoring and disrespecting posts from people, who, quite frankly know a whole lot more than you will probably ever will (or me for that matter; I don't pretend to be an expert on anything), and still maintained a calm, logic and unbiased approach to the subject which you were incapable of doing.
And cut the crap with the smilies. Putting half a dozen "biggrins" in the end of your post doesn't stop you from acting like a jerk.
And, Jerby, that would be nice wouldn't it?
I tried to give everyone the opportunity to play nice. Obviously that is impossible.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.