I've missed you. ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
Printable View
I've missed you. ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
I have missed you too http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/streichel.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I guess we're the sultans of spam, huh? :sneaky: http://home.btconnect.com/Boney/alan...oling_anim.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
http://home.btconnect.com/Boney/alan...lies/loser.gifhttp://home.btconnect.com/Boney/alan...ies/closed.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
down with simlie spam :dizzy2: :end:
I'll have to see those resources AdrianII I havent looked through that in ages
more is to come
Several mistakes... first of all, in the first paragraph you mention Philip III, who has nothing to do with the time period you are discuss. I'm thinking it was a typo for Philip II, but just thought you should be aware of it. Maybe you are referring to Amyntas III, the father of Philip II?
Second, the Macedonian language was not "related" to Greek, it was a dialect of Greek. Look at any tombs or coins, and you will see they are nothing but a slightly different dialect from Doric Greek, no more different than any two other Greek dialects. The Greeks of the time spoke hundreds of different dialects, from Attic, Doric, Ionic and Aeolic, to Macedonian, Arcadian, Corinthian, Phocian, Cretan, etc. The list goes on.
Third of all, at the Battle of Chaeronea, the alliances consisted of Athenians, Thebans, and Corinthians. You did not list the Corinthians.
Also, Philip did not use 18 foot pikes. Philip original made the adjustment to lengthen the pikes to 4 meters (approx. 14 feet). Alexander lengthened them further, and then the successors even more.
It is spelled Philip, not Phillip.
The Greeks did not actually view the Macedonians as foreigners. They labelled them barbarians in the sense that they were so primitive in their ways that the Greeks liked to distance them by comparing them to the barbarians. Pick up any historical text such as those by Herodotus or Thucydides and you will quickly see that they were accepted as a Hellenic people, but were more of the "Greek trash" in the eyes of the southern Greeks.
Philip II, much like most of the Macedonian kings before him wanted not to control Greece, but to become accepted by them. Seeing that this would not happen, he decided that if the Greeks would not accept them willingly, he would force them to not only accept him and his kingdom, but follow him in his panhellenic campaign to avenge Greece against the Persians.
Further more, if you are going to write a book (which I assume this is what you are doing by your title) I would expect the author to discuss the Sacred Wars (not sure if thats what they are called in english, I studied this stuff in Greek, so this is a direct translation so please correct me if the names are wrong) in which Philip slowly expanded his kingdom and built political ties with other Greeks through bribery and diplomacy, and of course violence when needed.
Additionally, if you are going to discuss Philip II's reforms to the Macedonian army, it is important to discuss his experience as a prisoner in Thebes in which he not only learned the oblique/slanted phalanx, but studied its strengths and weakness, and adapted his army to be best suited against it later on.
Also, the Macedonian nobles did not consider themselves to be Greek, they WERE Greek. Read about Alexander I who proved to be an Argive (a Greek from Argos) and thus was a member of the Argead Dynasty in Macedon, and you will quickly understand what is going on.
Also, the Macedonians did not "soundly" defeat the Athenian alliance at Chaeronea. If it was not for Philip and his ingenious feigned retreat, the Athenian left flank would not have chased them and fallen out of formation, allowing Alexander to sweep in and rout the Corinthian center. It was a close match, won by the clever tactics of Philip II.
You mention Demosthenes trying to rally the Greeks against Philip, but you fail to mention Isocrates who was pro-unity between the Greek city states. You might want to discuss the entire spectrum of emotion in this, since not all the Greeks were against a united Greece.
You talk about the former guardsman stabbing Philip, you might want to discuss the fact that he may have been bribed by Darius III to put an end to the rising power in Greece.
Have you considered discussing the formation of the Corinthian League after Philip united Greece and took charge?
Also, he did not form "phalanxes" that were 16 men by 16 men. A phalanx is the name of the formation, each group of 256 men was called a 'speira' and often referred to as a 'syntagma', and was the basic unit and a part of the formation.
I think I'm gonna stop now... No offense, but this has a long ways to go before it can become historically accurate, detailed, or a book...
And please, nobody reply saying "give him a break, he's only 15" because I'm only 16. You have to understand that this guy has been spamming this same thing on multiple message boards, saying how he knows more than archaeologists, refuses to accept input (because god forbid he gets corrected) and then runs away.
listien Elies71 you need to shut your big fat mouth i have had to put up with your crap at 2 other sites! i want you to leave and never return agian! i am going to get Geroshi if you don't leave me alone i don't like people correcting my mistakes you can tell that by looking at some previus posts i hate you and don't want you replying to MY thread because you have made me mad too many times so leave before start something! you are not the one under pressure to complete the books by July of 2006 i do not have the time to read your stupid corrections if you want a book just the way you want it then you write your own book if you don't feel like it then shut-up and don't correct everything i do!OK! :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias71
Thats my point exactly, to write a proper book, you HAVE to be able to throw your ego to the side every now and then and accept corrections/input from others.
If you don't want to accept that, that I kinda feel sorry for ya.
do you wonder why?Quote:
i have had to put up with your crap at 2 other sites!
I'm just gonna leave you with this quote for now, and I hope you think about it a little, seeing how it fits the scene perfectly with you claiming to be God's gift to the world of history (at least, thats what message your sig tells me):
"Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful." - John Wooden
LOL! Templar Knight! YOU ARE THE MAN!
Man, I haven't laughed like that in a while. Short, sweet, and gold.
do youwant to help elias71 you can be in charge of correcting errors in the storys i make i will e-mail them to you okQuote:
Originally Posted by Elias71
do you want to help elias71 you can be in charge of correcting errors in the storys i make i will e-mail them to you okQuote:
Originally Posted by Elias71
Clayton, it's good to see that you are willing to accept input, but the fact is, I'm not a "master of history" and I don't claim to be. I know about the Greeks in detail, and the rest of my history is not up to par to be able to say I know it well enough to tell people what is right and what is wrong.
I gave you my corrections above, and I hope you use them, but other than that, I'm afriad I can't help. Maybe someone who is good with the Romans can help you with your Rome info, and someone else with Christianity with that.
If you are going to offer advice, be nice about it. If you can't be nice about it, then use the PM feature or don't say anything at all. Silence can say just as much as any words can when used properly.
The problem with the internet is that proving or disproving who somebody is with certainty is difficult at best. Everybody can judge for themselves if a patron is who they say they are, and unless that patron is causing harm, what purpose does is serve to dispute that? And if you feel that patron is causing harm, it is not your place here to deal with it - that is my job. If you have a complaint, PM me with the details and I will decide how best to handle it. Thank you.
I have a concise history of the world book that covers everything from early man to modern day, politics, warfare, etc..... On the Roman and ancient section alone, 4 historians worked on it, plus countless more historians and researchers on the other sections.
I have studied the Crimean War and other conflicts of the 19th Century for several years now, working for various websites and my own. It can take me several days/weeks to complete an article even although I have studied that period for years. There is still alot that I don't know. You have to accept corrections and input, no one is perfect.
What im trying to say is no one is a master of history, but to go all out and try for a 'world history' by next year is impossible, im not beign horrible, im just stating the truth, I have had deadlines on me before, but you must realise when a deadline is possible and when it is impossible. Have the company you are publishing with not said anything about this?
you are right geroshi i will no longer be rude about anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
do you know how much it costs to publish a book?
how muchQuote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
Well how many pages are you going to have, roughly? and will there be any colour pictures? what type of paper will it be printed on?
around 100 pages no color pages and it will be printed on reguler printer paperQuote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
regular printer paper?
what is the company you are going to get to publish it?
don't know yetQuote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
Have you deposited the copyright yet?
no.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII