Greek Fire...

I think it was not napalm alone... According to my organic chemistry textbooks, the polymeric substance that formed napalm was not invented in Greek times, there should be more logical answer:

My Proposal for Greek Fire:
Greek fire was made from a mixture of naphta(or other aromatic compound), tar(for filling), and nitric acid/HNO3 (made by mixing saturated vinegar with saltpeter(NaNO3)... That mixtures was put in a wax tube-case, and transported as a solid ammunition. However, prior to their usage, they are melted down in situ (in their tube-sprayer), and ignited soon before spraying...:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

hehe AOE2 was awesome I always used the spanish or celts. my brother used the huns cause you didnt have to build homes.

---

I liked the Byzantines,Turks, Vikings, Teutons and Mongols. My mate who I always played against always went Britons; having 40 longbowmen shoot a single villager at the same time is awesome.
Pity AoE3 was so bad. It focused too much on America, felt like Warcraft III with a crap plot and ultimately felt dated compared to RTW.

I'd always fight the island battles, then make about 150 cannon galleons, bombard their island to smithereens, then destroy the galleons, then build a massive invasion force. Repeat till you conquer the world! too bad the Celts couldn't use cannon large cannon galleons lol.



Cute wolf, we don't know what Greek fire was made of. They could have invented Napalm. So much technology was lost due to the oppressive Christian Dark Ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

I'd always fight the island battles, then make about 150 cannon galleons, bombard their island to smithereens, then destroy the galleons, then build a massive invasion force. Repeat till you conquer the world! too bad the Celts couldn't use cannon large cannon galleons lol.



Cute wolf, we don't know what Greek fire was made of. They could have invented Napalm. So much technology was lost due to the oppresive Christian Dark Ages.

---

Fixed that for you.

Religion did not destroy the knowledge and technology, the massive influx of "barbarian" tribes into the Roman Empire that toppled it, did.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying the invading tribes themselves destroyed it, I am saying the fact that the Roman people didn't pass on their knowledge to the invading tribes did. I would enjoy an explanation from someone as to why all this great knowledge never passed on to the invaders, I would think it would be held as very valuable to a warlord looking to expand his tribes empire.

You're quite right that religion did not destroy the knowledge and technology of Rome. What was preserved was largely preserved in monestaries.

I'm not sure what technology you have in mind which a dark age warlord could use, though. If Greek fire first appeared in the Eastern Empire in 513 AD, then a warlord settling in the former Western Empire would not be likely to get access to it. I imagine that the biggest military techlological breakthrough was the stirrup, which was not a Roman invention. It was invented somewhere in the East, I don't know where, and eventually spread to Europe.

Maybe if you could be more specific about what Roman military technology you have in mind, someone might know, or be able to speculate, why it was not passed on. For example, if you mean the testudo formation, I suppose that it would require well trained professional troops, not warrior/farmers lacking long hours of training. If you are thinking of elaborate defensive structures to defend cities, then I imagine the answer is that the tribes which invaded Rome tended to wander about quite a bit at first. (I think the Vandals went to Rome, then Spain, then Africa, for example.) There would be no point in building fancy fortifications when your territorial boundaries are so temporary and ill defined. Maybe by the time things had settled down a bit and economies were strong enough to allow such building projects, all the old Roman engineers had died off. Just a guess, I admit.

You have answered most of questions but what about field artillery? Also, what about farming, blacksmith and other social/practical technologies/techniques that seemed to be lost after the invasions. Surely a warlord with advanced metallurgy techniques like the Romans had would have enjoyed such an advantage over his neighboring/rival tribes who had not adapted such things.

Maybe they had invented the napalm? well, about the probability that they had found and distillating petroleoum deposits? Natural oil source are better, and much widely used that time... But how stupid are the vandals, huns, goths, and other barbarians not to used such easy to use and unnderstand weapons, are they primitive-wannabe or something?:dizzy2:

(^^):balloon2:

Yes, I am no longer a Christian but I wasn't making a religious statement. Don't pull that king of BS into this. It will only get messy.

What I was saying because technology was lost in the dark ages(no matter the cause, that is not the discussion), Greek fire being one of them. Therefore we can never prove or disprove that it was napalm or not. Stories of Greek fire have a striking resemblance to napalm, and the only possible difference would be its accelerate - No gasoline in pre-whenever refined gasoline was first created lol. Certain oils would have been a good start, possibly mixed with tar?

What would be interesting is researching what materials were available to the resourceful Greek of pre-Christian Europe, and trying to re-invent Greek Fire yourself. Who knows? it could be a cheap and effective new incendiary weapon that you could sell to your respective military! We might see a rebirth of flamethrower tanks using GREEK FIRE! That'll scare the shit out of the hillboys we are fightin' now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

I'd always fight the island battles, then make about 150 cannon galleons, bombard their island to smithereens, then destroy the galleons, then build a massive invasion force. Repeat till you conquer the world! too bad the Celts couldn't use cannon large cannon galleons lol.

---

I always fail at naval battles, what ever happens. Happens on Rise of Nations as well, I have massive, metal armada smashed by wooden tiny flotilla. That's why I always refused to fight Archipelago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

.So much technology was lost due to the oppressive Christian Dark Ages.

---

Fix'd

I think the Christian monasteries were important in preserving a lot of knowledge that would have been lost, but whether that was due to faith, or the fact that they were the last bastions of civilisation is debatable. However, once you got into the Renaissance, the church started to become oppressive when it came to new ideas, e.g. Galileo, Copernicus etc, as it challenged the ideas of, uh, the Ancient Greeks (Read: Harry Stotle)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You have answered most of questions but what about field artillery? Also, what about farming, blacksmith and other social/practical technologies/techniques that seemed to be lost after the invasions. Surely a warlord with advanced metallurgy techniques like the Romans had would have enjoyed such an advantage over his neighboring/rival tribes who had not adapted such things.

---

Ok, I'm flying by the seat of my pants, but I'll give it a go.

Field artillery would only be effective if you had an engineering corp who would know how to mantain and repair it and could aim it with some accuracy from practise. A warlord would have no professional soldiers at his disposal appart from his bodyguards, and so no artillery engineers.

Roman farming, by the time the empire collapsed, was based on large estates farmed by slaves. Warlords broke up these estates into smaller land grants to reward their followers. The farming techniques that apply to large agribusiness might not apply to smaller lots, and anyway the former landowners and their foremen (the ones with the technical knowledge) were no longer in charge. I admit my expanation is a bit weak. It doesn't really explain why the slaves suddenly forgot how their masters farmed.

As far as smithing goes, I believe that one big advantage the Franks had over the Lombards in the 8th century was that the Franks had more iron weapons than the Lombards. Iron weapons were hard to come by. Also, iron horseshoes were not in use, nor iron tipped plows, simply because there was not much iron around. I suppose that a shortage of iron might explain the decline in smithing skills. For that matter, it might help explain the decline in agriculture, if Roman methods depended on iron tipped plows. Mining of course depends on an economy that can support a number of laborers who do not produce any food. Economic collapse might account for the iron shortage.

As for other social/practical/technologies/techniques, I really couldn't say. A sort of general answer would be that these techniques fell into one of the following categories

1: techniques that a collapsed economy could not support, or dependant on something a collapsed econamy could not support

2: techniques that would be of no use to wanderers without fixed long term boarders or a standing army (more sophisticated forms of fortification and seige artillery, etc)

3: techniques so remote from the society and experience of the barbarians that they could not assimilate it

4: techniques that a harassed warlord, trying to defend himself from ambitious neighbors, or a sucessful, busy warlord could be excused for overlooking

5: techniques that it was not in the interest of the descendants of the Romans to teach their new masters

6: Techniques that their masters had no interest in

I find it interesting to contrast the loss of civilization in the west with the situation when the Arabs had their turn at conquest. The Arabs were (comparitively) unified by Islam, so they didn't have to fight among each other so much, or wander off to escape the pressure of other groups. When they came, they came to stay. Thus they had a vested interest in mantaining the civil and technological infrastructre they inherited. Also, some Arabs were city dwellers even before the beginning of Islam. (Mohammed and his famly, for example.) So at least some of them understood what they had conquered and could make good use of it.

Sorry I'm so long on guesses and so short on facts. I'd appreciate a hand from anyone with good info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

Yes, I am no longer a Christian but I wasn't making a religious statement. Don't pull that king of BS into this. It will only get messy.

What I was saying because technology was lost in the dark ages(no matter the cause, that is not the discussion), Greek fire being one of them.

---

:wall:

No, it wasn't. Greek Fire was invented by the Byzantines in the 7th century AD and used well throughout the later crusader era. Before its secrets leaked out, it was used by Orthodox Christians primarily against polytheists and Muslims. And because it was developed during the "Dark Ages" (which can span from anywhere between Adrianople and the First Crusade), your assertion about Greek Fire is 100% wrong.

@Brandy Blue

Thank you, its rare that someone gives a well thought out answer like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cullhwch

:wall:

No, it wasn't. Greek Fire was invented by the Byzantines in the 7th century AD and used well throughout the later crusader era. Before its secrets leaked out, it was used by Orthodox Christians primarily against polytheists and Muslims. And because it was developed during the "Dark Ages" (which can span from anywhere between Adrianople and the First Crusade), your assertion about Greek Fire is 100% wrong.

---

all that head smashing got you muddled up. Greek fire is a BC invention you ninny.

Celtic_Punk:
1) Keep it civil.
2) Please present sources that Greek fire was used before the Byzantine empire was founded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Celtic_Punk:
2) Please present sources that Greek fire was used before the Byzantine empire was founded.

---

It is possible he is confusing it with other flammable mixtures, such as naphtha for instance, which existed since the dawn of civilization. There wasn't really anything so special or deadly about Greek Fire. It was just one of the hundreds of mixtures employed by the ancients.


This book is exceedingly interesting in this regard. I've read it two weeks ago, and it was very interesting and informative:
Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs http://images.barnesandnoble.com/ima...0/23349978.JPG

According to it, the Byzantines and the earlier Imperial Romans feared the Parthians mainly because of the naphtha and the scorpions they used in defending against sieges. That was also the reason for the puzzling withdrawal of Septimius Severus during the 198/199 CE siege of Hatra. All that is CE stuff, but naphtha was used in BCE era as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

all that head smashing got you muddled up. Greek fire is a BC invention you ninny.

---

I think that you're confusing Greek Fire with naptha. Greek fire could be projected from a hose, but naptha was generally flung in molotov cocktail-style pots at enemy ships or siege equipment. Because Greek Fire was an improvement over naptha in tactical terms, you still cannot blame the Dark Ages for losing that technology. The real problems following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire were the lack of strong states that had the werewithal to implement more advanced technologies.

Edit: did not see AP's post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

@Brandy Blue

Thank you, its rare that someone gives a well thought out answer like that.

---

Well, thank you, too. A bit of excercise is just what my lazy brain needs from time to time.

Out of curiosity I thought up a list of 5 ancient cities and looked up what happened to them on the internet. Padua and Milan were destroyed and the survivors had to recover more or less from scratch. Genoa and Marseilles were conquered, and persumably sacked. Rome, of course, was famously sacked. Its hard to imagine how our civilization would cope if barbarians were allowed to wander about destroying and sacking our cities every so often for a century or so. Think we might lose a few skills?

Of course it is also possible that we underestimate how many skills were not lost. Its so easy to say Roman = civilised and dark ages = barbaric. People used to think that all the middle ages were barbaric. Then scholars discovered that the high middle ages were more sophisticated than they thought, and the late middle ages were not so very different from the Renaissance after all. Maybe some of those dark age guys actually could count past ten without borrowing someone else's fingers ... or maybe that is wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

... oppressive when it came to new ideas, e.g. Galileo, Copernicus etc, as it challenged the ideas of, uh, the Ancient Greeks (Read: Harry Stotle)

---

To be fair, it depended on who was in charge. Copernicus's heliocentric theories actually interested a fair amount of clergy and Pope Clement VII even heard one of the lectures I believe. The church even encouraged his research for a time. The Pope he was under when he died wasn't nearly as receptive.

In fact, it is a very blanket statement to say the church supported or oppressed free thought. 1000 + years and so many people cannot be generalized so easily. Its like saying all Americans are fat or all French are stinky. You also have to avoid those crazy anachronisms such as Europeans thinking the earth was flat in 1492. Blame silly Washinton Irving for that one...

Still need to track down and kill whoever started the whole Lorica Segmetata thing.:sweatdrop:

For that matter, strictly speaking Galileo was not forced to recant his scientific views as long as he stuck to astronomical observations and left it at that. He annoyed some of the clergy, partly because of his views and partly because he was an annoying person. But he didn't get into real trouble until he took it upon himself to say (in writing!) that the church was incorrect in its interpretation of scripture. That doesn't mean the church wasn't opressive (by modern standards). After all, it did opress him. But not for retaining ideas from ancient civilization about Greek fire or any other ancient technical or theoretical ideas. In fact, I suspect any of us would be very hard pressed to name any military or practical technology or techniques from ancient times which the Catholic church banned, apart from the crossbow, of course, and even that didn't last long. (Astonomy, in that day and age, could hardly be called a practical, except with regard to calculating the seasons, and the church had no problem with that.)

Does anyone know if Copernicus was oppressed for Greek views? I thought he died of a stroke, but I don't know much about his life.


Antisocialmunkey, what do you mean about Lorica Seg-whatever? And why do you have to track down and kill him? (I just hope it wasn't me!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

Of course it is also possible that we underestimate how many skills were not lost. Its so easy to say Roman = civilised and dark ages = barbaric. People used to think that all the middle ages were barbaric. Then scholars discovered that the high middle ages were more sophisticated than they thought, and the late middle ages were not so very different from the Renaissance after all. Maybe some of those dark age guys actually could count past ten without borrowing someone else's fingers ... or maybe that is wishful thinking.

---

There was actually a study done that studied the effects of the Roman Empire's collapse in the West on the general populace, and it came to the conclusion that, in terms of nutrition and (possibly) life expectancy, the collapse was actually beneficial to a majority of the populace, at least in the short term. Under the Empire, there was instability on a grand scale, and the wealth was tied up in such a small percentage of the population. With the collapse, wealth could be at least partially redistributed, and while there was still instability, it wasn't the sort of all-consuming strife that afflicted the Empire. I can't exactly remember who did the study or where I read it, so take it worth a grain of salt considering we all can't (re)peruse it.

This uptick in general wealth and wellbeing didn't continue unabated of course. As time went on, and these trends at least plateaued, and in many places reversed themselves, at least some technology disappeared, only to be rediscovered later. However, there are some justifiable explanations. For example, over time some of those farming techniques would of course be lost. It needn't have happened from the get-go. Remember we are talking about a number of centuries. As feudal lords begin establishing greater and greater control via their sword arm, there is less and less incentive to continue farming well. If one has no rights to one's land and/or a significant portion of one's land's yield, then what is the incentive to improve the land and/or use good farming techniques. The more surplus one produces, the more is taken away to the lord's manor. If this cycle continues for a few generations, then the knowledge on how to improve the land and the yield is lost.

That's just one example of course, but that idea can be extrapolated to a lot of things.

Interesting stuff, Brandy Blue and Cimon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

Antisocialmunkey, what do you mean about Lorica Seg-whatever? And why do you have to track down and kill him? (I just hope it wasn't me!)

---

He probably refers to the person responsible for the general public thinking that all Roman legionaries wore the famous segmented armour (lorica segmentata). The inclusion of LS is a recurring topic on the forums, even though it has been repeatedly stated that it won't be in EB because it appears only at the very end of the time-frame and doesn't seem to have been very common even when it was popular (about 50 to 200 years after EB's time-frame).

Anyway, it probably wasn't a single person that falsified history. More likely it became well know because it is preferred by illustrators and reenactors. It's recognizable, easy to make (compared to chainmail), uniquely Roman and looks good. None of these ever stated it was the only type of armour Roman legions used, but this fixed the image in the public mind. Add to this the history-related laziness of your average Hollywood filmmaker, and you can understand why most people nowadays think of LS as the essential Roman armour.

To be honest, I do like the LS better than that leather stuff they had in the 50-60s Sparticus movie.

Thanks for the LS clarification, Ludens. Maybe the Romans unintentionally promoted the LS stereotype too. I think I remember seeing pictures of famous Roman stonework showing legionaries in LS. It was probably easier to carve pictures of it than of chain mail and, as you say, looked more impressive. People like me see pictures of it in books and say "Oh, how Roman." Kind of silly really. Its as if I saw a picture of a guy in a beret holding a baugette and some cheese, and said "Oh, how French."

About your study, Cimon. Its encouraging. If true, it suggests that not only were there still people around who could count past ten, but also they actually had something to count for once. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

About your study, Cimon. Its encouraging. If true, it suggests that not only were there still people around who could count past ten, but also they actually had something to count for once. :beam:

---

Ok, found the study, or rather a wikipedia snyopsis of it. It was used by Joseph Tainter to argue in favor his overall hypothesis (not limited to the Roman Empire) that societal collapses are caused by diminishing returns on investments in societal complexity. It has been a number of years since I read this bit, but from what I remember, the wikipedia synopsis seems fairly accurate, if a bit superficial. In any case, here it is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In his 1988 book "The Collapse of Complex Societies" Tainter presents the view that for given technological levels there are implicit declining returns to complexity, in which systems deplete their resource base beyond levels that are ultimately sustainable. Tainter argues that societies become more complex as they try to solve problems. Social complexity can include differentiated social and economic roles, reliance on symbolic and abstract communication, and the existence of a class of information producers and analysts who are not involved in primary resource production. Such complexity requires a substantial "energy" subsidy (meaning resources, or other forms of wealth). When a society confronts a "problem," such as a shortage of or difficulty in gaining access to energy, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge.

For example, as Roman agricultural output slowly declined and population increased, per-capita energy availability dropped. The Romans "solved" this problem by conquering their neighbours to appropriate their energy surpluses (metals, grain, slaves, etc). As a consequence of the growing Empire, the cost of maintaining communications, garrisons, civil government, etc. increased. Eventually, this cost grew so great that any new challenges such as invasions and crop failures could not be solved by the acquisition of more territory. At that point, the empire fragmented into smaller units.

We often assume that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off (all but the elite, presumably[citation needed]). Archeological evidence from human bones indicates that average nutrition actually improved after the collapse in many parts of the former Roman Empire. Average individuals may have benefited because they no longer had to invest in the burdensome complexity of empire.

In Tainter's view, while invasions, crop failures, disease or environmental degradation may be the apparent causes of societal collapse, the ultimate cause is diminishing returns on investments in social complexity.

---

Wikipedia link

Again, it's a bit of a "skim the surface" summation (thanks wikipedia!), but I think the point still comes through.

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. After all, social complexity relies heavily on agricultural output. The more agriculture output you have, the more specialists you end up with because not everyone has to farm. This is perhaps why the agricultural revolutions are among the most important innovations in human history.

Europe didn't really recover from the Dark Ages until they adopted more advanced crop rotation methods from the Muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. After all, social complexity relies heavily on agricultural output. The more agriculture output you have, the more specialists you end up with because not everyone has to farm. This is perhaps why the agricultural revolutions are among the most important innovations in human history.

---

Yes, complexity does rely heavily on agricultural output. I think it is important to remember, however, that Tainter's theory is about diminishing returns on all (or, at least, many) resources, not merely agriculture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Europe didn't really recover from the Dark Ages until they adopted more advanced crop rotation methods from the Muslims.

---

I would argue that Europe's step forward had less to do with crop rotation and more to do with the development (or rather adoption) of the horse collar, sometime in the mid- to late-10th century. The horse collar is really the invention that gets the ball rolling toward surplus agricultural output and away from subsistence level farming. The reason why I think the horse collar is more important is, unlike crop rotation (which came a little later, I believe), it doesn't require any real improving of the land; it just allows more land to be worked in the same time span.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea

The use of Greek fire is well enough attested for us to be sure that it was real and was used (and not just by the Byzantines - the Arabs and Turks developed a version of it too). It is recorded in more than one battle and there are even diagrams of it being fired from a ship-mounted tube in manuscripts. However, we don't know its exact composition. It probably had something to do with naphtha, though.

---

Not to mention some depictions of handheld versions of the apparatus DO exist in the Madrid Skylitzes manuscript. No, seriously. Which means the people who made Kingdoms weren't ENITRELY off their rocker.... IIRC, Theophanes the Confessor also mentions it being used in one of Justinian II's campaigns against the slavs near Thessalonika.

Though I'd have to dig up my copy of Theophanes to be sure.

Oh: The image from the chronicle:

https://i230.photobucket.com/albums/...4_Pyrforoi.jpg

Very good research, thanks all :2thumbsup::yes:

BTW, historical or not, the greek firethrower in Kingdoms is still my favourite unit...:laugh4:

Rockets > Mangonel > Siphons > Flaming Pigs.