Historically (in)accurate hoplites

The best part is when he says this:
I hate people who post crap and think they know more, so childish.
I mean come on. He has to be a very intelligent troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

...to differentiate them from spearmen who don't have a secondary(and therefore would suffer in CQB).

---

No such thing. Didn't I very specifically explain this already above ? Noone was so dumb as to assume his spear would last forever or remain useful all the time, and carried at minimum a big knife to have something besides his bare hands in a pinch.

BTW, Massalian hoplitai is still a good unit, when they knocked down, they'll change to spears.... that's no problem... but if Hoplitai Haploi wield a sword....... they had no different role than Kluddolon then...

Here's a quote from Khelvan, dated 2007. After this :dancinglock:
This is everything that needs to be said here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khelvan

Europa Barbarorum, as a mod team, has existed for over two years, running on three now. The team members have put a lot into this mod - their time, sweat...battled through illness (at least three members were diagnosed with one form of cancer or another, including myself), and tragic loss of loved ones. A lot of stress and emotions were poured out as positive energy into this labor of love. We don't get paid for it, and we don't have any expectations that this would ever happen. We do it because we want to see the best representation of this ancient time period available to all, including but not exclusively ourselves.

We're human. We are emotionally invested in our mod. We have always welcomed scholarly debate, but we have always rejected aggressive tones or criticism which is not constructive, regardless of the merit of the argument. As we have put more of ourselves in our mod and had less time in our personal lives to devote to it, we have become less patient with those people who would take issue with us in a manner that is not constructive.

So my request is: If you have an issue with our mod, present it nicely. Don't take the attitude that "you're absolutely wrong" or "there is not a shred of evidence to support your position" or any such demonstrative statements. Approach the discussion openly, sources in hand, but willing to listen. If you present sources and ask for open debate, you will get it. If you present your position in the light that there is absolutely nothing to support the opposite position, you will be presented with a mirror of that argument, with additional rancor for having presented yourself that way. If you don't like our skins, suggest how to improve them rather than simply say they're ugly. If you simply call our skins ugly, you will get an ugly response.

In very basic communications classes they will teach you to always consider your audience. If you present an historical argument with sources to the EB team with the goal of helping us change our minds, by beginning your discussion with the attitude that you are absolutely right and we are absolutely wrong is completely counterproductive to your goal. We don't squelch dissentors, we get pissed off at arrogance. There is a very real difference there, and perhaps if we were being paid for this we could afford to be completely aloof and detached and "turn the other cheek." But we're not - we're emotional volunteers who ask only one thing of the people who enjoy playing this mod: To present whatever information, argument, or criticism you have with respect. You don't have to agree, but if you want to have your argument evaluated objectively, you will need to present it objectively.

Finally, we have always encouraged people to disagree with us, given the caveat above. Spouting long diatribes about how bad we are because we don't listen to people is, first of all, completely baseless because we love to be presented with evidence, and second, completely useless because we won't bother to listen; the person making the argument simply doesn't understand us, so why would we bother to attempt to reason with them?

So, please remember the following in your communication to us:

- Present your arguments as presenting evidence, not truth
- Keep in mind that we are completely open to opposing views, but closed to arrogance in presenting said views
- Separate in your mind us shutting off arrogance as opposed to opposing views
- Keep in mind that we are a mod team and our focus is on completing work, not debating; where evidence is open to interpretation, and we interpret it one way, we will likely not change our minds unless brand new evidence is presented
- We're human, we don't get paid for this, and we react badly to both the attitudes I discuss above and people who seem to enjoy nothing more than finding reasons to criticize us

I, for one, wish I were a better person and could simply ignore the attitudes and attacks that are sometimes made here. It would be great to be completely professional in all things (striving to be more like I am in my "real" job), but the truth is that I come here to avoid the stress of daily life, to put my limited time and energy into something I enjoy, and I can't stand attitudes I perceive as arrogant or as a sense of entitlement when all I have ever wanted was to provide something fun to everyone at absolutely no cost.

Honestly, I don't think that requiring someone to suppress their ego before making a critical argument is too much to ask, given what we're doing for free here, no matter how unjust that may seem to people.

As an aside, any and all posts that contain Hitler or Nazi references when evaluating our actions, or anyone else's for that matter, will be deleted immediately, beginning this minute, including recent ones. Unless you survived the Holocaust, you have absolutely no right to make such a comparison.

Thank you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

No such thing. Didn't I very specifically explain this already above ? Noone was so dumb as to assume his spear would last forever or remain useful all the time, and carried at minimum a big knife to have something besides his bare hands in a pinch.

---

Well obviously, I'm not arguing with that.

I'm talking about various levy spearmen and the like vs hoplites. I don't think everyone carried secondary swords, maybe a dagger or soemthing but not everyone had a decent sword. Units with side arms that can't be represented should get some sort of bonus since hte side arm can't be represented as a weapon vs a spear unit that doesn't have any decent secondary.

Its a compromise between engine limitations and representing a secondary on a melee unit.

The kind of big knife every peasant everywhere had for assorted everyday purposes is quite dangerous in close quarters, you know. And daggers may well have killed more heavily armoured elite warriors throughtout history than almost any other weapon.

The dagger is one trick horse. At any rate, all I was trying to say was that if you REALLY wanted to depict a secondary, just give a bonus to stats since adding a secondary screws up melee units.

the XGM team gave him some not-so-tough love over at TWC and it seems to have put him in check...

Quote:

---

Plus, they are constantly annoying me, greatly, since they make silly assumptions, And they also keep on repeating themselves, that pikemen are not similar to hoplites (I already know that, infact I provided and evaluated more information about pikemen and hoplites than they do, they seem to have limited knowledge and evaluation skills :/).

---

I loled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

I loled

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

The dagger is one trick horse. At any rate, all I was trying to say was that if you REALLY wanted to depict a secondary, just give a bonus to stats since adding a secondary screws up melee units.

---

Not really, a decent dagger will still be about 10 inches long in the blade, that's more than enough to disembowel a guy with. In addition, many who couldn't afford swords would carry woodsman's axes, or hardwood clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not really, a decent dagger will still be about 10 inches long in the blade, that's more than enough to disembowel a guy with. In addition, many who couldn't afford swords would carry woodsman's axes, or hardwood clubs.

---

And those could be quite deadly in experienced hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not really, a decent dagger will still be about 10 inches long in the blade, that's more than enough to disembowel a guy with. In addition, many who couldn't afford swords would carry woodsman's axes, or hardwood clubs.

---

What sort of dagger are we talking about here? Very many varieties mostly meant for stabbing or maybe slashing though if its that big and slashy/stabby then its getting into generic blade territory.

How do you classify blades anyways? Cutting surfaces, shape, balance etc? When is a big knife a short sword and what is the difference between a bladed long dagger and a knife or sword?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

What sort of dagger are we talking about here? Very many varieties mostly meant for stabbing or maybe slashing though if its that big and slashy/stabby then its getting into generic blade territory.

How do you classify blades anyways? Cutting surfaces, shape, balance etc? When is a big knife a short sword and what is the difference between a bladed long dagger and a knife or sword?

---

"Decent" in this instance would be "good for killing".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

What sort of dagger are we talking about here? Very many varieties mostly meant for stabbing or maybe slashing though if its that big and slashy/stabby then its getting into generic blade territory.

How do you classify blades anyways? Cutting surfaces, shape, balance etc? When is a big knife a short sword and what is the difference between a bladed long dagger and a knife or sword?

---

Shorter blades are generally better at stabbing than slashing, on account of lacking leverage. This is particularly true for the shorter, "knife-sized" end thereof - at "shortsword" lenghts they start having enough weight and leverage that there can be practical merit in designing them for the cut.
Anyways, the line between a large dagger and a short sword is notoriously fuzzy (not that the one between "long" and "short" swords was all that clear either), and when you get down to it somewhat arbitrary - typically, a question of end-user perception and which exactly the thing is "worn as" so to speak.

Hoplitai Kluddolon is not THAT a good idea, so NO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Shorter blades are generally better at stabbing than slashing, on account of lacking leverage. This is particularly true for the shorter, "knife-sized" end thereof - at "shortsword" lenghts they start having enough weight and leverage that there can be practical merit in designing them for the cut.
Anyways, the line between a large dagger and a short sword is notoriously fuzzy (not that the one between "long" and "short" swords was all that clear either), and when you get down to it somewhat arbitrary - typically, a question of end-user perception and which exactly the thing is "worn as" so to speak.

---

I remember an armsman once telling me that, "longsword" simply meant longer than "sword", therefore a spatha was a longsword to a Roman, and a bastardsword was a "longsword" to a medieval armsman.

That guy has already spammed so many threads, EB, XGM, etc...

I like to think of him as one of the more annoying people there, and he always uses those same two sources, the internet link and that Peter Colony book of his, yet he doesn't quote anything from the book at all, which almost makes me wonder if he may have even misunderstood the words of his own source.

I'm checking the internet for a copy of that book of his :beam:.

Also, I keep wondering this, but don't the Syracusan hoplites fight with an underhand formation? Wondering 'cuz it says so in the description yet they always fight overhand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

the XGM team gave him some not-so-tough love over at TWC and it seems to have put him in check...

---

In XGM forums we force the trolls to use their brains.
Somehow, as soon as this happens they stop trolling and sometimes become decent posters.

"The hoplite formation I described is correct, if those 2 proffessors disagree, then they are disagreeing with most high schools which teach history."

I loled so hard at this. First the spelling errors, then the fact that he mentioned that he was in high school I think?

"disagreeing with most high schools that teach history"

This was the best part, my high school teacher tried to tell me that Triarii didn't exist in the Roman army, Alexander made the plan to conquer Persia and not his father, and that the Huns sacked Rome :laugh4:! he also came up with sources too, one of which being a website, do you guys think he went to the same public school as me :beam:?

I'm gonna stop trying to talk sense into him, his bs spans so many different forums now, I bet he's even hit the Diadochi forums by now. I hope he becomes a perfectly good poster now that Zarax and the rest of the XGM forums talked some sense into him. I saw the thread too, what a troll to post stuff about another mod in someone elses forum and argue about it there trying to gain support and getting slapped in the face :sweatdrop:.

EDIT: He's trolling the Rome 2 petition thread now as well as others, I have to admit, he's almost as good of a troll as I was when I was younger and had no balls to speak of.

EDIT 2: Nevermind the Syracusan hoplite thing, I'll use the search button and check if it's been answered before.

I have a copy of the Peter Connolly book, and it is a very good general source of information on Greek and Roman warfare (Nice illustrations too). It, actually, spends most of it's time concentrating on Rome and her wars with Carthage, and was obviously well re-searched at the time.

It was first published in 1981 and I believe Mr Connelly is a well respected historian. I would say it is the kind of work that gives you a good initial grounding in a subject before moving on to more extensive research, not something one treats as the only source!

Do you know if they have it on Google Books or something? I've been planning on going on a shopping spree for all the books used in the discussion as well, but I don't want to lay down money if I can get a .pdf for free(yes, I'm pretty cheap). Apparently, about 90% of his posts have been about inaccurate hoplites, so that's his existance apparently. I couldn't find what I needed on the syracusans so I'm going to start a new thread instead of talking about this guy, I don't want to be known as a troll either soo...:oops:.

Ouch just did a quick search!

I'm going to have to look after this book:book: On amazon UK it ranges from £91 to £183 !!!

And mine's a mint condition first edition!

I've seen the new edition on play.com for £22.99

Well, I guess I'm not going to get the old edition then :laugh4:, not only would I have to transfer that to American dollars, I'd have to pay for the shipping.

23 Euros on play.com though, I'll have to check it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glouch

what a sorry excuse for a supposedly 'educated' person
[EDIT]
god i wish we could meet guys like this in person, and then SHUT THEM UP the way dan henderson shut up michael bisping.
(btw, anyone here who watched UFC100? that was just too much for me. i almost sobbed because of so much joy. best knock out - no - best KTFO ever.)

---

Ugh, I thought that was so brutal and excessive. Totally unnecessary and unsportsmanlike in my opinion.

Please don't tell me you approved of Lesnar's performance, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris1959

I have a copy of the Peter Connolly book, and it is a very good general source of information on Greek and Roman warfare (Nice illustrations too). It, actually, spends most of it's time concentrating on Rome and her wars with Carthage, and was obviously well re-searched at the time.

It was first published in 1981 and I believe Mr Connelly is a well respected historian. I would say it is the kind of work that gives you a good initial grounding in a subject before moving on to more extensive research, not something one treats as the only source!

---

you are correct-he is indeed well respected. I read his greeks and romans book, and I was very much impressed: thurough, concise, and in an easily digestable manner. my rating::2thumbsup:

Jesus Christ, this guy thinks Thebans fought two-handed with pikes and that hoplites didn't exist after 300 BC. :wall: And he's so frakking arrogant!

Could we, like, collectively destroy him (on the Rome Surectum NEA SPARTA thread)? I spent two hours on a post but the damn site logged me out and I lost it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Jesus Christ, this guy thinks Thebans fought two-handed with pikes and that hoplites didn't exist after 300 BC. :wall: And he's so frakking arrogant!

Could we, like, collectively destroy him (on the Rome Surectum NEA SPARTA thread)? I spent two hours on a post but the damn site logged me out and I lost it.

---

Why waste time, here or there, on a Troll?

I have news for you...

They are delusional...

They will not learn even presented with first-hand sources. Even here we have some of that kind.


Why continue wasting time on an ignorant? Especially time here amongst mostly educated people?


Edited to add, let it lie. It will give you more peace of mind than letting some fool frustrate you. That way he controls your mood, not you, and he will make it bad...

It is your choice.

Hoplites...

that’s sort of shield and spear light to medium foot, with a short sword back-up, used only after their giggers went the way of the dodos, right? Now, what is the actual source for how they fought? I’m a bit interested because the problem with over-hand fighting in close-order is akin to using the circular spiked boss, but in reverse. Fore or aft, a good number of ill-fated friendlys, in the wrong place, were bound to get severally stuck.

So again what is the ancient textual source that described how this type of unit fought? If such a source is not forthcoming please, and I stress, don’t bother.


CmacQ

Quote:

---

Why waste time, here or there, on a Troll?

I have news for you...

They are delusional...

They will not learn even presented with first-hand sources. Even here we have some of that kind.


Why continue wasting time on an ignorant? Especially time here amongst mostly educated people?


Edited to add, let it lie. It will give you more peace of mind than letting some fool frustrate you. That way he controls your mood, not you, and he will make it bad...

It is your choice.

---

You're right. I was upset and tired when I posted, and I'm sorry for bringing this up.