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

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

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

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

~Jirisys ()

---

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

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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

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

~Jirisys ()

---

Link one. Link two.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

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

---

Exactly.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

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

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

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


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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Link one. Link two.

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

---

Bogus, Bogus.

Here's why: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-Pushing-Match

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

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

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

---

No. Everything in this universe is either black or white. There are no grey areas. There is no room for variation and adaptation. It's a binary world we live in.





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

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

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

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

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

"romans would swear an oath holding their testicles"

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaginacles

"romans would swear an oath holding their testicles"

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

---

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

knowing catullus he was probably making fun of weird cults?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atraphoenix

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

---

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

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

Every single independent Greek city was allied to one another.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

knowing catullus he was probably making fun of weird cults?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Link one. Link two.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

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

---

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

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

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

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