My memory fail me (or i never memorized it lol), i can't remember, could you please give some details ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Printable View
My memory fail me (or i never memorized it lol), i can't remember, could you please give some details ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Caesar's de bello gallico.
He said:
"Meantime I sent orders to the officers who had gone on in front with all the cavalry telling them not to attack the enemy, and if attacked themselves, to hold out until I approached with the main body of the army. Our cavalry force was 5,000 strong, whereas the enemy's numbered no more than 800 because those who had crossed the Meuse in search of provisions had not yet returned.
However, the Germans charged our force as soon as it came into view.[9] Our men, who were not expecting trouble from the enemy, because their envoys had only just left me and had asked for a truce for that day, were quickly thrown into confusion. But when they fought back once more, the enemy, following their usual practice, jumped down and unseated a number of our men by stabbing their horses in the belly. The rest they put to flight, driving them on in such panic, that they did not stop until they came into sight of our marching column."
The cavalry of J.C. were mainly gallic auxiliaries.
There are much better descriptions of this cavalry clash, but this is the one that naturally comes to my mind.
As always the numbers 800 vs. 5000 are too high:-)
But Caesar is known for slightly changing numbers...
How in the world are we supposed to pronounce those crazy proto-Germanic names?!? Can this mod at least include a simplified name for us simple people who aren't linguistics experts (like me)? ~;)
Why do you need to pronounce it? Are you going to be talking to your computer, ordering the Ridon Harjaz into battle?
Don't worry, we will have pronunciation guides.
Don't pretend you wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
oh yeah..i scream, shout, curse..the whole nine yards..i order it to do stuff..and when it doesnt..i repeat the screaming shouting and cursing...
that's why i'm not gonna play 'barbarians'. hastati, princepes, triarii. are beter pronounceable than ANY sweboz unit..
btw, i know CA even nerved pronouncing triariai..but i had a few latin classes ~;) at least more lessons latin than ancients gallic.
Ah they you don't deserve to show you the screenie you requested and we wanted to do this at the end of th day but now you blow that chance away. ~;)
Celts and Germans were extremely culturally distinct; Germans adopted a lot of Celtic pieces of equipment, but you would readily be able to tell a Germanic force from a Celtic one, in terms of many things; standard bearers, chariots, heavy cavalry, etc. Chariots particularly stand out, but they also fought differently, and used many different weapons; Gallic Celts in this period did not use axes, for example, and the Germans didn't use chariots. Heavy infantry would look different; size and organization would be different. Further, you have traditions that would come from their religions. Celts collected heads for religious reasons; despite misconception, they weren't trophies (or weren't JUST trophies). Their important aspect is that they were a religious relic, and Celts took it very seriously. They would collect heads from the dead and dying during lulls in battle. The reverence given to the head was very strong; even in post-Christian Ireland and early Alba, where Gallic and British Celtic culture was actually a minority influence compared to Galaecian-Iberian culture, their still existed an outgrowth of the cult of the human head; the Irish and early Scots still collected heads of their enemies, and explained it was because the soul of man resided in the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Technologically, Celts were superior; produced large amounts of chain, long iron swords, performed complicated surgeries, and had an understanding of chemical processes. They were religiously rather advanced compared to many cultures; when others were still worshipping idols, Celts determined that physical objects and things could not be gods, except for the possible incarnation of a god. It is misconcieved by many that Celts worshipped trees; Celts believed certain trees and other things were sacred, and venerated and protected them, but they didn't worship them. Similar practices occur in all religions; just determining something is sacred does not mean one worships it. Celtic temples are generally rather 'no frills'; from what can be determined, they generally had a votive pool or ritual bath, metallic plates depicting common practices, and an altar; there were probably other things, of course, but that seems to the bulwark of what a Celtic temple consisted of.
In social life, Celts were a comparatively welcoming people. Despite a very brutal, even sometimes xenophobic approach to war, many Celts were actually fairly warm toward outsiders during peace. They liked to trade, discuss politics, philosophy, music, sports. They were very 'normal' people day to day, and one modern people can, in many respects, relate to; but that can be said of a lot of ancient people. People seem to assume many ancient cultures were dirt-farming inbred idiots, but they were pretty much like we are now, but less technologically advanced (in some respects; we've lost quite a bit we still haven't got back; in respect to Celts, we've lost the ability to make certain things, such as cultivate a type of grain from Celtic Britain which is substantially healthier than grain we produce now) and with different social concerns due to religion and general philosophy of the day. Celts were a very clean people; filth was unacceptable. A notable point of that is, when Brennos sacked Rome, he accepted a ransom and left because the stench of the city nauseated him and disgusted his men. Celts developed a number of types of soap from lye, as well as compounds to remove body hair, and other methods of keeping their bodies clean. Despite being a very real warrior-hero culture, they led fairly peaceful private lives. The common entertainment for most was sporting events; Celts enjoyed many sports, and were very competetive.
The Celts organized by way of sub-kings under a high king, or by magistrates in the case of the Aedui. Law was absolute, and these officials had little power over the law (or any power at all in many Celtic societies). Elected judges had power over the law, but they answered to the tribes that elected them; their main purpose was to act as a judge in legal disputes, and as a representative of their tribe if a law was to be changed. No one was above the law because everyone answered to some one else; the higher one's station in society, the more harshly they'd be punished by the law. Warriors, aristocrats, judges, etc.; they were meant to exemplify the law, which was divine, and by not doing so, they were setting a bad example for lower stations in society. Kings and such were elected, and, so, they could also be removed. They were a temporal official, and had to meet numerous requirements. They had to be able to lead their host in combat (that is, they had to be physically able to fight properly), they had to control a large amount of money (showing business acumen, as the kings were responsible for much economically, and being a successful businessman made one likely to be able to run a kingdom in such a manner; additionally, they needed to be able to pay fines and such, and reward those deserving of reward), and they had to have reasonable proof of their loyalties to their people. If, at any time, any of those things are compromised, they were removed from power, and a new king was selected.
That's really short and vague on Celtic society, mind you; it is most definitely different than a Germanic society, however.
Whoops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Corrected.
What I have read about the early germanic tribes (300BC-100AD) I get the impresion that these people very spartan..
They did not like cities and did not create many stunning pieces of art like the celts in this time period and prefered a simple more simple life.
I personally think is a big reason that the romans where very successful to romanize the gauls but roman attemps to civilize the germanics where largely unsuccessfull...
Centuries the germans started to be more interested in Roman culture but not in the way that the Romans had in mind ~;)
And about germanic art
In the time period of the wandering of the tribes and the early dark ages the germans did create stunning peices of art but that is much later.
Yeah, good point. I'll be yelling at my Grivpanvar and my Zradha Shivatir to charge the enemy's infantry, probably. :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Thank you for that very extensive reply, Ranika. I geuss I'll have to do some reading on Gaulic and Germanic cultures before I play EB ~D .
I don't know how 'spartan' they were, but the Celts were definitely comparatively decadent. The Celts were considered decadent by mediterranean cultures as well; they saw gold as 'jewelry' metal, and more meant for trinkets. Silver was considered holy and used to make coins as well as religious objects, in addition to much jewelry as well. It's notable though, the average Celt owned an awful lot compared to the average member of any society near them. They produced such an amount of art, jewelry, textiles, etc., that much of what they had was considered rather cheap in their society. Really class defining objects were weapons and armor; most could at least afford a nice piece of jewelry or two. That would tend to give them a bit of a decadent appearance; even the lower class was dressed colorfully with a piece of nice jewelry or a nice cloak. They had a very large 'middle class' that allowed this, due to the relative inexpense of many objects other societies would find expensive. When they relaxed, another form of decadence involved a lot of drugs and alcohol (forbidden by some tribes, most notably the Nervii, to keep their warriors hardened), many imported from the mediterranean, as well as made indigenously; Gauls were particularly skilled in producing beer and wine; wine they exported as well as used in great amounts during feasts. The feasts are another point of decadence in themselves; they weren't for a select group usually, they were for everyone in a tribe. Massive feasts, with all manner of locally available foods, drinks, etc., as well as, if a wealthier chief was financing it, imported food and drink. The mixing of classes in Celtic society was largely due to the fact that one's station could greatly change; being born in poor station hardly meant one was going to stay there. That was also seen as unbecoming to some (though it's not a purely Celtic thing, but for many cultures, for a long time, much of what they got of barbarian culture was found in the Gallic cultures).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTank
Also, I'm going to note this; it's either Gaulish or Gallic. Gaulic appears to be an amalgam of the two.
Which drugs, specifically, other than alcohol and the PCP-type substance mentioned previously?
I think by "spartan" the conversation between the suebian Warlord Ariovist with Julius Caesar comes to mind, as the germanic king told Caesar that his warriors had no roof over their heads for many years and live only for fighting.
i think PCP, and the havoc of battle do a good job to be 'immume' to pain..Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
when i was kid i went on a fieldtrip to the police. and a man told me that they always shoot in the legs. but when somebody gets aggresive and is heaily on XTC (or something) they coudl clean their clip on their legs, and they still keep running.
they smash their hands strait threw a front-screen of a car without blinking..
those Gaesatae should have been a terrifying sight... but the day after would be a REAL HANGOVER..imagine yourself waking up with a javalin stuck threw your leg..
Depicted on a few metal plates Nantes, there appear to have been smoked and inhaled substances, and a few Celtic legends point to the usage of what would seem to be pyschedelic mushrooms. Additionally, the wealthier likely imported a lot of other substances from around the known world; the ancient world had a great deal of substance abuse, and of many many substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
I know hemp was used a lot to make clothing and ropes and the like in the east in particular. I bet at least some of that was smoked... ~D
The Scythians in Herodotus' time seem to have smoked a fair bit of grass. As for the Celts, I can certainly speak for Britain when I say that you don't live in this country for long without coming upon fields and fields of magic mushrooms, and something tells me that people have been eating the buggers for a fair old while...
whahha...you get home after a hard day of work. to see your friends smoking up your scythian pants ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
I think it was 14 years...Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
I know the berzerker vikings used poisened mushrooms as drugs before battles, to get in their "berserker state of mind". This is not written down, but the effects of the drugs point to "Fly mushrooms" along with boose and others.
They wold get white foam around their mouth, and not respond to pain.
After battle, they became very calm and dizzy, and could sit still in the same place not saying a word.
I don't think they smoked too mutch. A bunch of stone pople woldn't possibly be the most frightening sight on the battlefield :hippy:
-Skel-
That is the funniest thing I've read all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
you must have a tough life..glad to have written it ~;)
Scythian1: Whoah, dude...like...where's my pants?
Scythian2: You smoked em...
Scythian1: Oh....wow...I did didnt I?
I'm curious about the pronunciation of the german names..
Is ¯ long vowel and ´ high-pitched short vowel?
And is the w like the english sound, or more like v, or like the last phonom in te word 'you'?
As phonetics are written, the straight line indicates a long vowel sound ("Oh";"Ay" as in "lay";) and the circumflex indicates a short vowel sound. I'm also reasonably sure that the "w" is like the English kind, and the "z" also like the English kind.
wouldn't be much of a surpize to me if scythian's walked around naked alot. scared somebody will rob their pants to smoke them.
people after a drinking game would be naked: somebody smoked their pants while they were still in it.
Wōdánáwulfōz:
As example you would speak it out like Wō(like a long spoken wonder) dá like in the word darling not in the word day ná - also here is it a long a - wulf like the english word wulf and finally ōz like in the wizard of Oz.
Hope that helps:-)
.
.
.
and if you can't get it right this is what happens to you
.
.
.
https://img217.imageshack.us/img217/...c9zb1cr.th.jpg
that's not that hard. that's practically fonetic for me (dutch). but i can see englishmen havign trouble with it..especially Wo-Da.
german, dutch and scandinavian speaking people would have it easier to speak today proto-germanic.
happy me,
any units with a G in it..always fun to hear americans say: Slagroom (wipped cream) and that sort a stuff
*pronounces the german unit list a few times, doesn't feel as awkward as before*Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Ah thanks, I think I understand. :bow:
*looks down at the street, relieved not to see any wōdánáwulfōz down there* :hide:
So ō is pronounced like o in swedish, ê perhaps like ä in swedish, short vowels exept those with ´, and no vowels are diphtongs, and w and z are english sounds.
before you said it i completely understood it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Narayanese
"Oz" as, in the wizard (and the prison), rhymes with the english "jaws".Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
My god at last we can see spears stuck in the ground beside them warriors. I was having enough of having forester warbands suddenly take up spears from nowhere, and the same goes for the hastati, whose pila come from nowhere. Hmm, the skirmishers seem to be a little over-ambitious... trying to throw two framea at once? ;-)
But all that aside, wonderful job! They look really good, especially the beards... i don't know, but the fact that they have beards seems to strike me for some reason...
About the frameas check this post , someone asked the same as you at twc, hope it clears things out.
I believe many Germanic tribesmen fought semi-naked or even naked to prevent clothing infecting a wound acquired in battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by infierno
The mushroom thing aint true...a program on the history channel proved that a side effect of the mushrooms (the ones that produce the factor "Beserkerness") have a nasty side effect involving Diarroeah, vomiting and other nasty stuff, not something that is prized in warriors ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by skeletor
yeah , tests proved that they worked themselves up psychologically.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserk...erker_behavior
A UK television programme in 2004 tested the possible use of fly agaric and alcohol by training a healthy volunteer in the use of Viking weapons, then evaluating his performance under the influence of fly agaric or alcohol compared to no influence. It was obvious that use of fly agaric or alcohol severely reduced his fighting ability, and the tentative conclusion drawn was that berserk state was achieved psychologically; otherwise berserkers would have been too easy to kill.
has anyone here ever gone berserk?
nice site
sounds almost like pms..Quote:
Going berserk — berserksgangr or berserkergang — could also happen in the middle of daily work. It began with shivering, chattering of the teeth, and a chill in the body. The face swelled and changed its color. Next came great rage, howling, and indiscriminate brawling. When the rage quelled, the berserker was exhausted and dull of mind for up to several days. According to sagas, many enemies of berserkers exploited this stage to get rid of them.
one time i was playing mario cart against this guy in my dorm. i was leading the whole time, talking trash like no tomorrow! i was clearly the better racer, but it started getting tight on the last lap. at the last second, my opponent fired a random shell from about 5 seconds behind me. the thing ricocheted and clipped me as i was literally about a tenth of second from the finish line. i recovered and limped towards the line and the dirty bastard raced right past, beating me by a hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
i can't tell you how angry i was, i threw the controller down and sprung up from the couch screaming "NO!! NO!! NO!!" as loud as i could. there were about 6 or 7 other people in the room and they were all going crazy. i raged over to a bed that was in the back of the room and grabbed the foot of the mattress and threw it straight up. the thing smacked the ceiling (more than 10-ft up) and crashed down right back onto the frame. everyone in the room scattered. i mean people were literally fleeing like i had a gun or something. it was hilarious. one girl, upon creeping back into the room, said, "you are an intense man", with a hint of fear and awe in her voice.
a few days later i tried to do the same thing, in a normal state of mind. i could touch the opposite end of the mattress to the ceiling, but i was nowhere near smacking the whole thing flush into the ceiling like i did before. it didn't even feel like it weighed anything when i raged on it.
Yes, one day during a summer vacation from school my dad woke me up 11am and told me he had some work for me to do....when i went upstairs i saw a rather large dump truck dumping 2 tons of dirt into our front yard. my dad said i had to move it to the back yard and fill in the new garden. i looked at the wheelbarrow and told my dad the tire was flat how can i possibly do this?, he told me to put air into it. i did and halfway into the backyard the tire would go flat again because the weight of the dirt pused air through the hole in the tire at a very fast rate. so after about 1.5 hours of back breaking work of pushing a wheelbarrow with a flat wheel and getting more and more angry after every load. i spilled the dirt all over the yard grabbed the spade and snapped it in 2 parts. the spade had a wooden handle about 5 centimeters in diameter i then proceded to go on a rampage kicking and throwing stuff. i fractured my foot in two placesQuote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
i was very very angry
Berserker states are fairly well attested in numerous cultures. The Irish rastriagh would pray for hours and put themselves into a kind of trance where they would begin to babble incoherently; the whole time their body would toss and shake violently (both pagan and Christian Irish believed they were being possessed by spirits that protected Ireland), ending with the person speaking very loud and very clearly, but everything they said was gibberish. They would eventually get so swift to put themself into a trance (which is an actual state of mind; it's essentially what the brain goes through while asleep, but in this state one can keep themself awake and moving, though certain nerve reactions are slowed down, though, often, one can confine those slowed reactions, once experienced, to things like pain, allowing one to ignore pain briefly; however, one would still probably lack a bit of control) they could do it right before a fight, and would fight in a trance-like state. It was called a 'calm rage' because of the seeming absolute calm of the individual coupled with their intensity in a fight (they would do things like rip people's fingers off, tear out eyes, pull out/crush throats, etc., without having drawn their weapons first; they got pretty sadistic). King Brian Boru's brother Wolf was a rastriagh (Wolf also was the one who killed Brian Boru's killer). The problem with it was that a really experienced rastriagh, if he wasn't careful, could accidentally slip into this state, and essentially freak out; rarely would he hurt anyone, except himself, though. It was scary, but it was a psychological state.
That's one kind of 'berserker'. The Irish used to say vikings did something similar, but not quite the same. Much more movement, and very loud. Lots of shouting. It was probably the same basic method; given that it's said they could slip into a berserk at any time, it seems likely it was purely a pyschological state, somewhat akin to a self-induced madness. The mind can only be subjected to certain rigors so many times before it snaps.
i would be more afraid of a calm beserker than a loud one. i mean before you know it he is holding your throat in your hand
scary as hell
Have you guys by chance changed the graphic for Hellenistic Pikemen to use BOTH hands to hold the Sarissa?
Fear not, we have an animation that will allow two handed pikes/xystons/kontus where aplicable.
you guys never cease to amaze me....
Warriors who rip you limb-from-limb without any visible emotion would be quite scary... Seriously. :sweatdrop:
bah, ill take Greek or Roman disipline over the shock tactics and mind tricks
There was plenty of discipline and tactics to be found; this wasn't every soldier, it was (in the Irish case) a small group of religious fanatics. But there were shield and spearwalls, ordered 'break' tactics, 'shell' formations (akin to testudo), sapping, very ingenious defenses involving man-made terrain (large things; not just moats, but huge man-made hills and the like). Berserkers being present in an army isn't a sign of a lack of tactics, and it's poor form to imagine that it is.
Irish Case? they had no major impact on anything untill maybe a few hundred years ago. And even then they only had an impact on British intrests.
Only true to someone who has no knowledge of ancient ireland, of course. Please refine your absolute statements to be, well, true, rather than absolutely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinakis
What I'm saying is you're judging tactics based on 'an army uses berserkers, so they don't use any tactics'. Also, that was rather glib, and ignorant of history. During the dark ages, it was Irish monks who kept the books of Europe from being burned by invaders; if it wasn't saved by the eastern Roman empire, it was saved by the Irish (the period in Ireland is called the 'Gaelic Golden Age' for a reason). It also neglects the wide proliferation of Irish mercenaries (which widely changed the course of numerous events, and their use during the crusades as translators was important to numerous events), the conquest of Pictland, their effect on trade (The Irish weren't some 'backwoods' civilization in the dark ages; since they were unaffected by the dark ages negatively, they were a comparatively advanced collection of kingdoms who traded with every major kingdom and empire in Europe) and the defeat of the vikings. After Clontarf, pressure on expanding into Saxon lands was higher due to the lack of Irish holdings, and invariably altered the course of history in northern Europe. Looking further back, what about the abandonment of Britain by the Romans? That wasn't just Picts; Gaels had set up slaving colonies along the coast and were raiding with impunity, destroying mines and the like. The Irish helped make Britain so unprofitable for Romans, they couldn't deal with it with the rest of the empire's problems, and they left it. Such ignorance of the history of the region is irritating.
As to the point at hand; the Irish used berserkers. However, they also fought in dense shieldwall formations, used pikes, made elaborate armor (layers of scale, chain, and padding in some cases; actually dumbed down from earlier armor used by iron age Irish invaders), and used multi-stage charges (such as axe/cudgel followed by spears to defeat a dense formation). The presense of 'berserkers' does not mean an army doesn't use tactics, and it's stupid to think it does. The vikings used very impressive tactics, and they had berserkers. How does this denote a lack of discipline and tactics as a whole? Such an attidue of throwing the baby out with the bathwater implies you have little knowledge of actual study or reasoning, and would rather make kneejerk assesments.
And what of other armies? Carthage certainly had disciplined soldiers and tactics. Carthage also employed Celts, who had 'berserkers'. They employed rather disciplined Celts sometimes, at that, such as the Brihentin, Gallic knights, who were grouped with Iberian heavy cavalry. Celtic Soldurii were disciplined; arguably more disciplined than any regular Roman soldier would be, and for good reason (religious devotion to one another); in fact, they so impressed the Romans that Julius Caesar applied the title to his men to encourage them. It's statements like yours that are the reason EB exists. Why do you think Romans used Celtic soldiers when they could? Or anyone else for that matter? Galatians were in high demand as mercenaries for a reason.
Yeah right. Greeks and Romans were as skilled as many others, in many cases less so. Even Roman training can't replace riding nearly from birth, or Celtic tactics in many cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinakis
I could say all the Greeks do are have two mindless hoplite groups who push at each other. But that would be a simplification.
Many peoples were far better at Greeks and Romans at warfare, both when it came to warriors and tactics.
Yeah, that 'Irish being unimportant' struck a nerve here too. I'm amazed at the patience of ye EB fellows. I'd have packed it in years ago under the assault of the Philistines.
I've made this point before and I'll make it again, all of the standard Roman equipment that we think of a Roman soldier of the 4th to early 1st centuries wearing was originally Celtic, excepting the pilum. Chain-mail was almost certainly invented by the Celts, the scutum was a Celtic shield, the gladius hispaniensis was Celtiberian/Iberian in origin, even the most popular helmet types of the Roman soldier were Celtic designs (e.g. Montefortino). The Romans might have fancied themselves the successors of the Mediterranean world but in reality their methods of warfare were highly influenced by the Celts. Additionally, in Italy the Classical phalanx was quickly replaced by more Celtic methods of warfare when the Romans first came into contact with them. I know this might be a tad unrelated, but I just wanted a chip at the "big table". ~;)
EDIT: Maybe the reason the Romans were so succesful in the first place is because, unlike the Greeks, they adopted Celtic methods of warfare!
Just rambling, sorry. :embarassed:
i never said that the equipment wasnt celtic in origin, im part French so im sure i have a little Gallic/celtic blood in me. Surly when talking about a peoples impact on the western world you dont look at just warfare?
Lets look ar Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Greco-Roman culture, any one of those peoples surly had a far more profound and significant legacy then celtic influences.
I know america is 99% Irish so im sure im gonna get a huge backlash from patriotic members...
Perplexed. im perplexed at the comment " Maybe the reason the Romans were so succesful in the first place is because, unlike the Greeks, they adopted Celtic methods of warfare!"
Thats a silly comment the Greeks are if not the most succesful people one of the most. Lest look at some things the greeks contributed.
Democracy
Philosophy
The Marathon
Alexander the Great
The Olympic Games
Comedy
Geometry
Public Jury
The Hippocratic Oath
Hellenistic Architecture
History
Tragedy
i could go on if you wish
I would be happy to compare and contrast
So far you have
Chain mail
Gladius
And the most common roman used helmet
Egyptian? Sure the culture was interesting, but I think Celts had a far more lasting influence on at least European culture.
Have you ever seen their gold works and art? Far pretty than Roman stuff, and Greek stuff (well, not prettier than the Greek artisans working for the Scythians). Heck, the Greeks even respected the Celts a lot, and they were not the most tolerant of not Greeks.
And without Celtic warfare, mabye the Romans wouldn't have lasted, so that's at least profound. ~;)
P.S. You're irrelevant coment on the ethnicity of America doesn't really make much sense.
about my america comment im just saying that a huge number of people that live in america (as i do) have roots leading back to the Irish. There is nothing wrong with that. Just that im saying alot of people are going to attack me cause they think im insulting the irish, which im not.
~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Ok Matt, I may have taken my rhetoric a bit far... ~;)
I should have said some, not many. ~;)
Now wait a second, Steppe you honestly thing all the greeks did was hoplite warfare? For the most part I would agree with you reguarding southern most greece. however, Syracuse, Macedon, Epirus, thessally and all the Kingdoms following Alexander used very mixed and talented armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
It wouldnt be fair for me to say that all Celts did was just rush people naked screaming and hollering would it? Just cause some did doesnt mean they all did.
the southern greeks used mostly hoplite warfare for a reason. The land was so mountainous that they couldnt get good land to raise horses. thats why north from thebes, and all the way over in Syracuse you see greek peoples using horses.
I agree 100%. The Northern Greeks figured out how to ride horses, like the Thessallians. Then Alexander introduced more Eastern elements which helped in his armies.
But if you read what I wrote, I did not say "Greeks just used hoplite warfare".
I said "I could say all the Greeks do are have two mindless hoplite groups who push at each other. But that would be a simplification.".
Just as it is a simplification to say that Celts just charged.
I'm Irish. From Ireland. Ranika mentioned the work of Irish scholars in preserving the great works of the Greeks and Romans in the 'Dark Ages.' Thus, I suppose, one is left to reflect on the advancements made in warfare by such actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Im sorry i dissagree, its not that the northern greeks "figured it out" its just that the terrain did not allow them to raise horses south of thessally and epirus.
To raise a horse, and enough for alot of calvary, you need ALOT of land for pasture. southern greece is extreamly rocky and mountainous which made it nearly impossable to raise good bloodlines
I would give the vast majority of credit to the Arabs for perserving and carrying on the Greeks legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous_joe
Well, it's their fault for living in bad horse country. ~;)
Seriously, I am aware of the limitations of geography on horses. You can't have a steppe army in most places on earth. However, if the Greeks had wanted to, they could have hired more mercanaries from good horse nations (Scythians, Persians, Thracians even fellow Greeks like the Thessalians). And that is what Alexander and his successors did.
Ahh good point, however, hiring mercenaries requires alot of money, something most of southern greece didnt have. Hence all the levy armies. Macedon on the otherhand have rich gold and silver mines. And after Alexander Greek nations became world powers. No longer being a tiny city state bring in a few more bucks =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
You might be right or wrong, however, there was probably more interaction between Christian Irish and their neighbours in France and our perrenial friends across the sea, the Britons, Angles and Saxons. :bow:
Of course the many Irish monasteries in Europe would have to be mentioned. Those in Italy and Switzerland, Spain and Germany. Whether the Irish single-handedly 'saved' these works is doubtful, but we certainly had an important effect on their preservation and re-introduction to Northern and Western Europe.
I do not entirely agree with this.Quote:
I would give the vast majority of credit to the Arabs for perserving and carrying on the Greeks legacy
Byzantium was rather more reponsible for the preserving and carry on the legacy of the Greeks and Romans...
You forgot Soap ~DQuote:
I would be happy to compare and contrast
So far you have
Chain mail
Gladius
And the most common roman used helmet
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTank
Yeah thats true, but really in every way,other then the name "Eastern ROMAN Empire", the Byzantine Empire, as its now known, was greek. Spoke greek, Worshiped Greek othadox, Capital City was in Greece, the Capital city itself is of greek origin, Greek emporers, etc etc.
So yeah your right, but i just see eastern empire as being greek not not as carrying on someone else's legacy.
To Marinakis, a reply:
Democracy:
True, but was it a boon or was it a curse? *points meaningfully at stupid apes being elected by the ignorant masses for high government posts* Most of the public votes in the Greek democracies were crooked anyway, controlled by the aristocracy.
Philosophy:
Practiced by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
The Marathon, the Olympic Games:
Sports and war-games were common in all cultures, not the least of which were the Celts
Alexander the Great:
Alexander the Great was one person, a single Greek, we're talking about the bigger picture here.
Comedy:
The concept of comedy has existed and will in all cultures as long as humans can speak to each other.
Geometry:
Originally used by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
Public Jury:
A form of public council was used in Icelandic culture for one, the "All-Thing", and I am certain that similar practices were observed in other Celtic and Germanic societies.
The Hippocratic Oath:
I have to admit that (to my knowledge that is) medical expertise was greatly advanced in the Mediterranean, more so than in Northern Europe.
Hellenistic Architecture:
Again, the Greeks were very good architects, I must admit.
History:
Oh come on, many cultures recorded events before the Greeks did, even if Herodotus was considered "the Father of History". Have you read Herodotus by the way? More of a fairy-tale approach than actual historical fact.
Tragedy:
I'm pretty sure that the concept of tragedy is present in all humankind, not just in the Greeks.
I'm not just talking about warfare, my good man. ~;)
There are other points to be made, but I'll explore these three;
Democracy:
Celtic societies were based on democratic votes associated with a 'senate'; in modern terms, they lived in a type of democratic-republic with a very limited 'monarch' who was elected by a 'senate' composed of educated members of society, the warrior class, and the aristocracy. Every citizen had the right to elect local officials, and had a say in changing law.
History:
Celts kept impeccable records of their history through tightly guarded oral traditions. While many less-than-educated individuals will quickly denounce oral traditions as being inaccurate, any good historian of a culture that ever had a solid oral tradition can attest that they were very accurate at passing the same knowledge down for centuries. These weren't random people playing some kind of cultural 'grapevine'; they were trained mnemonicists who memorized exhorberant amounts of history, religion, music, poetry, and every other aspect of culture. The post-Christian Irish had pretty good recollection of the migrations of their ancestors, which were actually diluted by writing (their earlier writings are more accurate to our understanding than later writings).
Medicine:
The way bone scars show the type of surgeries employed, it is apparent that Gauls could perform brain surgeries, due to the pattern of scars on the skulls of certain dead; it evidences surgery to the skull that the individual survived for years following this, implying an understanding of complex procedures. This kind of knowledge would be passed down the same way as history. Not necessarily as complex as Hellenic medicine, but hardly an absence of medicine.
lol..just to throw in my lot here. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinakis
It was the Romans that mastered the "shock tactics" and "mind tricks". The whole Roman modes operandi (eg. silent march, throwing of pilum, adjustment of lines and noisy charge) was finely honed to produce maximum psychological shock.
In addition, the most pronounced fear in an army was that of a rout... that you would be left, by yourself, unprotected by your pears. Incidentally it was also in the rout that most casualties were sustained by armies. The Romans worked hard to build their reputation as the sons of Mars, the rightful inheritors of the known world, the invincible. Every defeat was excused, dismissed / played down or ignored. Every victory over glorified. If they suffered a major defeat, they felt obliged to take immediate action to get their vengeance for the slight of this reputation.
The forces of J. Caesar were some of the best troops ever fielded by Rome. They had no better training than any other Roman forces throughout the history of the empire so what made the difference. The difference was the difference of the mind. They believed that whilst JC was with them, they were invincible. JC was an astute enough leader to understand the human psyche. He took no real tangible risks, always being aware of the mental state of his men and using their base masculine bravado to his own ends. The result was that they only got to fight when the battle was already pretty much won, only further influencing their morale and making the commanders / JC’s job a lot more easier as time went on. What we call experience.
All military forces throughout the history of armed conflict understood one thing... war is Chaos. Even the best training can fail a soldier on the battlefield..why? The unknown possibilities of combat and the unreliable variable of human nature. For example, it was discovered that during WWII, only 15-20 % of infantry units actually fired their weapon during combat. Psychologists now acknowledge that in the modern man, there is an innate reluctance to take the life of another human being. The US for example re-wrote their training programs in the 50s to combat this and managed to raise that figure to 80% during the Vietnam War. The down side, that they failed to factor in, was the human psyche. Subsequently, psychologists believe the huge increase in 'post traumatic stress disorder' was due in part, to the effects of blindly putting this new 'training' into action.
Training / discipline in an off itself is NOT the answer to victory. It's merely a means to an ends. A means to reduce the uncertainty of battle and thereby instil greater confidence / self-belief / morale and thus greater staying power than one’s enemies.
The Romans understood this very well and it wasn’t until the later stages of the Empire when this fell to bits for them. It was the ‘mind games’ that won the Roman battles, the training, equipment, etc etc were all just tools and advantages to assist in those victories.
Ran.. forgot Legal
Trial by Jury rather than the Inquisitorial (Greeco-Romano / continental) system. Legal representation, etc etc
oh..and the legal equality of women predates even that of the Spartans
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
few things, firstly im not saying the greek nessacerly invented all of the listed above, but they were extreamly important in advancing the works of other peoples. Secondly im just talking about the western world, not so much assyria, sumeria, Babylonia etc. If we are talking about the most important cultures to mankind as a whole i would say Babylonia, Egypt, and Assyria.
P.S. When i say the greeks contributed Comedy and Tragedy im referring to plays, not just normal every day stuff. If your just referring to warfare then I point you to Alexander the great, Seleukos I Nikator, Pyrrhus, and the early Spartans. There wa not a shortage of brilliant and powerful Greeks when it came to war. I, however, dont judge a culture on their ability to wage war.
Some form of democracy where not only men but also women could vote were common in the germanic tribes.