Go tell the spartans, strangers passing by, that here obedient to there laws we lie

About the "you can't believe historians" quote...

I'll give you two examples and tell you why i never fully trusted historians. Both are from french history (the one i know the best.)

In 732 the Muslims made an onslaught in frankish territory. They managed to sack Toulouse, Bordeaux, Poitiers and the Saint-Martin de Tours Abbey. They were then pursued by Charles Martel (Karl the hammer) , battled, defeated, ran down and sent back to NArbonne (a southern France city then under Muslim dominion.) Historians tell us it was a great victory, the shock between two culture and only the french superiority at arms (and thus culture as a whole, french society being a very martial one until recently) made the this possible. See where this leads ? yeah, straight to "culture shock, racial superiority and a blatant justification of the occupation of northern Africa and denial of citizenry to the native folks (wich cost us our empire, plain and square.)

And the reality ?

The reality is that the muslims were not invading, they were just pillaging. In fact the 732 battle who took place between Tours and Poitiers was a minor one. The real muslim defeat took place in 728 when the muslims had laid siege to Toulouse and were caught between the anvil (the walls of the city) and the hammer (the strong headed Duke of Aquitania.) The slaughter was so great that hundred of years later the muslims would mourn its anniversary each year, calling this day the "martyr's paveway" because most of the battle tok place around the old roman road. This battle definitely stopped muslim expansion in Europe.

What happened next is even more interesting. The Duke of Aquitania broke away from the weak frank rule (the franks being occupied in internal power struggles) and started to negociate with the muslim overlord of Narbonne. This overlord broke away from the power seat in Spain and he had a wedding arrangement made between his daughter and the son of the duke. This caused a swift reaction from Rome and Spain. The Pope denied its support to the duke, recognizing the danger that an mixed religion wedding was representing and urged the franks to keep him in tracks while Spain reaction was quick and violent. Under their leader, Abd-El-Raman, the spanish muslims crossed the Pyrénées and sack NArbonne, killing the ruling family and many other muslims in the process. Then Abd-El-Raman turned its head to Aquitania and saw it was weakened. Sensing the opportuniy of looting some of the richest cities in Europe he set his forces into the devastation of the Garonne Valley while the Duke of Aquitania tried to counter them with what forces he had. And all this time Charles Martel was waiting at his border, looking at Aquitania's demise and waiting to ripe the fruit of the muslims work. At last the duke called for help and Charles moved in. The muslims had time to pillage a rich abbay near Tours and fled with their burden. The Franks caught them from the back. too slow to flee and unwilling to surrender their loot the muslims made a camp and offered battle to the franks. They looked at each other (understand : there was minor skirmish around the place to secure good positions for the real battle) for Five days before they smashed in each other. The fight was still raging when a frank noble and his kinsmen (heavy cavalry) broke from it, gathered and stormed the muslims camp to capture slaves and grab what loot they could. At this sight, the muslims noble turned their back to protect their camp. Abd-El-Raman came to them in order to convince them to return to the battle line but to no avail : he was trampled to death. The franks did not wait and rammed in the muslims back, sending them flying back to their camp where they held ground until the night. They fled before dawn, leaving everything in their camp. Charles Martel made their loot his, the church was to get back a fraction of what it lost. He then pursued the muslims to NArbonne and did not bother taking the place over. Instead he turned to Aquitania and pilages it until the duke accepted to be a loyal subject of the franks again.

The historians who first unearthed this part of France's history were not looking for truth, they were looking for means of propaganda. A free Duke of Aquitania was bad for the "united France." A muslim and a french trying to build a common kingdom regardless their religious and racial diffrences was not "in the mood" when the empire's policy was to convince everybody in the Empire that the french were culturally superior to the native folks. Not to mention that the native folks were told french history too (and yes, they learned "our ancestors, the gauls...") and putting a muslim and a french at the same level could give them bad ideas (like asking for citizenship and the right to vote.) The 728 battle was simply erased of our past. Gone.
The power needed a strong figure, Charles Martel was that figure. the powerneeded a decisive "culture shock", he 732 battle was here. The power needed to affirm France union and the rewriting of this episode played that role perfectly.

That's how you sow the seeds of disaster in a nation.

The second example is the Bouvines Battle that took place in 1214. The German Emperor and his allies (french traitors and Jhon Landless) assailed the french a sunday. The French were defending their crown, country and the church (literraly) while their enemis were all excommunicated and willing to crush France in order to settle the emprial problem (roughly, France and the Holy Roman Empire could claim ton the imperial crown, the germans had the crown while France was the support of Roman church... of course the french king constantly intervened in german politics in order to have who he liked best crowned as emperor) and the Roman church case. The germans were overran, their emperor fled after being nearly captured by the king's house knights and hundred of knights and high ranking nobles were decimated. The french success was such that the king was able to designate a new emperor (the king of sicily, a client kingdom of France.) the king who was just "King of the franks" took the title "King of France, the roman church affirmed its power in Germany and England and the royal domain of France doubled. It was no small victory.

The most interesting part is that it was a battle were few knights fought alongside with many pesants and townsmen. The peasants formed the militia (they were well equiped and drilled but still no match for knights) and the townsmen formed the sergeants" body who were armed the same way as knights (but lightly armored.) Most of the knights were in Aquitania fighting against the main english army. So this battle is unique because for the first time in France the nobility and the peasantry fought side by side and spilled their blood together. This, among other things, spreaded the word that the king was caring and near its subjects. The impact of this event was immense in the subjects' minds and offered France a century of uneqqualed social peace and prosperity (no joke.)

And what did republican historians had to say about it in the wake of the 20th century ? N O T H I N G. They overlooked it and diminished this event to a "minor engagement" were the knights surrendered themselves easily while the true braves, the common folk, prefered to die to a man. And nothing else. The reason is clear : The republic had destroyed the noblity, decided the nation had nothing to do with the church (which i approve) and Europe was still Shaking after the Bonaparte invaded Europe in order to settle the imperial question... a battle such as Bouvines was really annoying to depict as a great momet of the nation considering it was about defending the church, meddling in imperial affairs and affirming nobility and peasantry peaceful union.
Got the point ?

It took us a disastrous second world war, a traumatizing decolonization and 10 years of slow recovery from the blows to, at long last, look back to our history honestly and admit we did things unsavory, some even awful, commited atrocities and were sometimes betrayed,as a folk, by our leaders and served like turkeys to our enemies (namely : the generals' betrayal in 1940) and even some points remain touchy. Some Historians like Georges Duby rewrote whole parts of our history while trying to be as honnest and obejctive as possible. Still there is yet a moral bias in his works but it suffices to take this into account when you read it.

Thos two examples are why i too do not trsut hitorians completly. Even more about antiquity. Speak about it with a greek, it's obvious.

PS : remind a greek it is a muslim who served France in the 19th century (we conserved his Kilij engraved with the words "Allah Akbar" near the emperor's tomb in Paris) that played a major part in its contry's freedom. The result is funny but a bit frightening.

Fenrhyl

I am all for critical evaluation of historical evidence, be it ancient sources or modern ones. But the recognition that a particular source (say Herodotus) has biases and had an uneven access to evidence (obviously much better on Greek numbers than Persian), does not justify the whole sale rejection of the that source.

True some events get wrapped up in historical mythology for various reasons (propaganda, religion, national pride etc.), like Charles Martel and his victory. However the recognition of that fact is hardly some great discovery of Modern historians. Thucydides, Polybius or Plutarch and even Theopompos or Clement of Alexandria (their works are of course not all equal in their analysis, Clement’s is basically poorly supported polemic, while Polybius and Thucydides are at pains to offer careful analysis and counter argument) were historians who all noted the same phenomenon among their peers (ancient authors) or the ancient public.

You know what , I don't belive historians any more...so...there was no Alexander , no Darius , no Persian empire , no 200,000 man army , no 2 men army , no Caesar , no Pompey , no Romans at all , no Macedonians (ho I heard it several times...) , no Tyre , no Egypt , no nothing ! but yes , there was Atlantis..............
This is really getting weird , HOW ON EARTH ONE CAN LEARN HISTORY ? PLEASE TELL ME...ALL THOSE YEARS IN UNIVERSITY AND FOR NOTHING :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry:

So from now on , when a poster say Caesar took Rome in 49 , I will say to him - GIVE ME HARD EVIDENCE !!! Not levy no Shmivy , not Cicero no Shmicero , not Dio no Shmo , not Appian , no Shmipian??? what ever

Hey , take it with good spirit , ha ? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Caesar, this is getting agitating... Not one single modern, credible historian believes the ancient numbers. They're vastly inflated. What's worse, you're quoting wargaming numbers as if they actually meant something.

C'mon, man. Next you're going to tell me atlantis exists because Plato eluded to it...

---

Ah yes , did not read my post but have to say some thing , ha ?
read it again , Arrian said 1,000,000 infantry , all my links say 100,000 to 200,000 , but never mind , please continue...

Guys, 5th century Athens had at most 50,000 people.

Logistics is the problem, not the amount of grain they had. We'll do some simple economic analysis. To transport goods overland when you do not have proper wagons, and no access to sea lanes, generally increases the cost of the goods by 50% ever fifty miles or so. Now, to feed 100,000 people in a large area, when most of those people can produce their own food is not particularly hard. Feeding many people when one has a large navy to move mass amounts of grain is also not exceedingly hard.

Let us take Hannibal for example. If his total army was 150,000 in Iberia (operating in 3 different groups, generally close to the sea, where they could be resupplied), why do you think he took only one third of that number with him (which was reduced to some 30,000) into Gaul? He understood that he could not feed 150,000 men. It's as simple as that.

A million men in one place, in antiquity, is absolutely impossible unless they have massive access to food. Established cities like Carthage, Rome, and Alexandria were able to get to such totals because they had huge agricultural networks built up. But allow me to note once more that Rome's largest field army EVER was 80,000 men, and these were having trouble supplying themselves in grain rich Apulia.

Now, Arrian & Co. are essentially all quoting the same sources (probably Callisthenes). The difference with modern historians is that we can use mathematical models, estimations, experiments, and most importantly archaeology to verify our numbers. This was not possible in the ancient world. It is also interesting that Alexander's numbers seem to dwindle, and those of the persians rise, the later the source gets. What we are witnessing is the building of a myth. Alexander is a semi-mythical figure to them, and each successive Greek historian makes him seem all the more amazing.

But, back to our modeling of Gaugamela (and Issus, for that matter). 1 million men in the field would eat aproximately, let us say, 2 pounds of food a day and drink at least a gallon of water a day (we're at Gaugamela, which is quite a hot place). Now, let us say that the average ancient cart could hold 400 pounds of food and 2 barrels of water (50 gallons), and is drawn by either two horses, two asses, or two oxen. It requires two people to drive/manage.

Now, look at the location of Gaugamela (modern Irbil) in Iraq. Note how far it is from any significant source of fresh water.

Now let us do some calculation.

1 million gallons of water a day.
2 million pounds of food a day.

Now remember, we must count at least three times the amount of logistical support technically necessary. This is to account for the fact that all this food and water must be unloaded every day. It will take at least 3 days (at absolute best) to make a round trip to the nearest depot where they can resupply with fresh water, and meet up with the river to get more food. (Once again, look at the map).

So, we have at least 300,000 wagons to account for, and at least 600,000 logistical support personnel. This is not including those who actually cook, distribute, and process the food.

This is also 600,000 animals, if you remember the numbers from above.

Now, supporting these personnel and animals means that we need at least twice the amount that we originally planned for. That brings us to 4 million pounds of food and 2 million gallons of water. This is assuming that the animals eat the same amount of food as a human, which they most assuredly do not. The most common draft animals in mesopotamia, the oxen, eat quite a bit more. But for our thought experiment, we will assume that they are magical oxen that eat the same amount as people.

Now, if you haven't yet noticed, there is a logical progression here. The more people and animals involved in the effort (which brings us to another point, that some of these 'million' men require far more than others, especially the supposed 40,000 cavalry and their animals), the more that is needed to supply them. This is the same in modern conflict. 100,000 troops on the ground generally means 300,000 support personnel, to supply the actual combatants with all their needed supplies. This basically means that one million men in the field is a logistical impossibility.

The sheer size of such an effort requires a modern and rigidly planned logistical system. Remember, even the United States had trouble supplying its soldiers in Europe during World War Two, and this was with a massive fleet of ships and trucks, as well as centralized communication, not to mention logistical supply organization methods created using the latest scientific planning.

In our thought experiment, we're not even considering supplies like wood, cloth, rope, buckets, etc. We're also not even computing the massive costs of such an endeavor, which would certainly be staggering, in excess of a thousand pounds of gold in all, daily.

Now, if you still believe that they could have fielded such an army, I have a bridge in New York I want to sell you... Anyway, the most critical analysis gives the Persians 80,000, and the most generous modern analysis gives the persians 150,000 soldiers total. We can say 130,000 soldiers, and that is a number that makes me happy enough. Remember, this is still more than 3 times what Alexander had.

I'm not downplaying the man's accomplishments at all. I also cannot be considered anti-hellenic in the least, or anti-western. Remember, I actively read ancient Greek, and I am the coordinator for all EB's Hellenic factions. Teleklos Archaelou and I have done most of the work on the Greeks ourselves (not to mention the massive contribution of Spartan_Warrior, who has made the vast majority of our Hellenic units). The Hellenics (aside from Carthage), are my favorite factions in this game. I am a philhellene to the extreme, but I'm also a realist. One ought not believe in fantasy if one has reason to suspect that information is as such.

As to the comments of Dysrow1, I'll not be dragging myself into personal attacks. Keep in mind that I've worked long and hard on EB, and that I do this 'historical shit' for a living. I breath it, and it is my favorite thing to think about in real life (when I'm not around women, for obvious reasons. ~;) )

EB has chosen to bring you what is, to the best of our knowledge, the best representation we can get of history within the confines of this game. This may be uncomfortable to some who like to pidgeonhole ancient peoples into set categories (I suspect that these same people would not dare to call modern people who live in nations less economically and socially developed than their own 'drueling barbarians', but I digress). If you don't like it, then by all means, don't play it. I resent it when people make light of the damn hard work that this team has put into proper research. I'm proud of each and every team member who, though some of them are still in high school and others are in their 40s, came together and acted in a professional manner to research and pull together this information.

If you think that the Gauls and Persians are drueling barbarians who are inferior to the Greeks, you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember that you hold the wrong opinion, and that the Greeks, like the Persians, are heirs to a cultural legacy that began with Sumeria and Egypt.

That's all I have to say for now. ~:handball:

Oh, and Caesar44, my comments are not specifically directed at you, so please don't clutter threads with smiley fits.

There were plenty of others making the claim of far more soldiers than the persians could realistically support. :balloon2:

A clarification is necessary at this point : i read many antiquity authors and medieval chroniclers. What i criticize is not their accounts (they ARE biased but archeology can tell us how and how much) but the interpretation modern historians make of them.

We have no idea of what an ancient author means when he gives us a number of troops comprising an anrmy. Does he count only soldiers in this number or does he count also the logistic handlers ? In the first case some numbers are horribly ridiculous, in the second case they are more believable and can survive strict analysis. But, anyway, that's not because some numbers SEEM to be ridiculous that they ARE actually false. WE could be wrong grom one end to another.

What i criticize in modern day historians is that they remain tools of power. For a recent example, look at some US historians trying to minimize France intervention during the independance war right after the quarrel about Irak. The answer on the French ambassy website was a perfect counter example of mimizing the role of yankees in the whole affair. Neither part was honest. Still, the people who consigned the events when they occur can be trusted if you don't forget to take into account their political biases. The best thing is to manage to find a neutral source.

I hope my comment can is better explained now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

A clarification is necessary at this point : i read many antiquity authors and medieval chroniclers. What i criticize is not their accounts (they ARE biased but archeology can tell us how and how much) but the interpretation modern historians make of them.

We have no idea of what an ancient author means when he gives us a number of troops comprising an anrmy. Does he count only soldiers in this number or does he count also the logistic handlers ? In the first case some numbers are horribly ridiculous, in the second case they are more believable and can survive strict analysis. But, anyway, that's not because some numbers SEEM to be ridiculous that they ARE actually false. WE could be wrong grom one end to another.

What i criticize in modern day historians is that they remain tools of power. For a recent example, look at some US historians trying to minimize France intervention during the independance war right after the quarrel about Irak. The answer on the French ambassy website was a perfect counter example of mimizing the role of yankees in the whole affair. Neither part was honest. Still, the people who consigned the events when they occur can be trusted if you don't forget to take into account their political biases. The best thing is to manage to find a neutral source.

I hope my comment can is better explained now.

---

Yes, but Arrian gives specific numbers of -soldiers- who total about a million. So my thought experiment still holds beautifully. Yes, historians can be the tool of the devil, but so can any other intellectuals. The key is retaining objectivity, not something that is easy to do in a very, very PC environment.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.

---

Is this supposed to be a "civil" question that requires an answer?

---

I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance. And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won. Everyone here is sitting comfortably in their democracies that Greece has won by blood for them, and then they blithely demand proof as if it's still an open question. If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again. Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

You know, after being truly impressed by the creativity and quality of content in the mod you guys have, it takes a thread like this to remind me what the soul of EB really is, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago.

Steppe Merc has really been a colorful poster here:.

---

Why thank you, I do try.

Quote:

---

That is just REVOLTING.

---

Why? Because I don't think that the Persians would have destroyed Greek culture, or could have invaded all of Europe?
And why is it bad to combat the lies that Persian infantry sucked?

Quote:

---

Who should we believe, then? You?

---

Real modern historians, like Urnamma, who discount them.

Quote:

---

Well, congratulations guys, you are certainly growing yourselves a worthy disciple here.

---

Too bad I was part of the team before even Khelvan was. ~D

Quote:

---

I've lately started to judge EB solely on its wonderful skins and many unique ideas, and started to think that maybe I didn't mind EB at all now, but in fact quite appreciated it and its high quality. It took this thread to see under the covers and remind me again what kind of people flourish in this group.

---

What kind? I assure, my views on Rome and Greece are my own, and are hardly echoed by everyone. I do respect the Greeks and the Romans. I just don't think they are the best at what they did.

Quote:

---

Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.

---

My opinons reflect my own, not the team.

Fenrhyl, I agree. I'm not saying that Greco Roman historians were all wrong. They have some good information, and are helpful particullary in the study of cultures that do not have their own histories, or that we just don't have. But they can't be taken as literal proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Oh, and Caesar44, my comments are not specifically directed at you, so please don't clutter threads with smiley fits.

There were plenty of others making the claim of far more soldiers than the persians could realistically support. :balloon2:

---

Read your post (no. 76 in this thread) , it opens with "caesar"...but never mind , please continue...(smiley fits again...)
Why not just make your comments , why the stings ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance. And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won. Everyone here is sitting comfortably in their democracies that Greece has won by blood for them, and then they blithely demand proof as if it's still an open question. If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again. Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another.

---

Well, I don't think it would be better if Persia had won, but not for any reason of Democracy, which most of the Greeks found just as tyrannous as any other form of government. (Voltaire saying something about a lion's paw and a thousand rats comes to mind).

Teleklos is a Classicist, yes. Him and I have had many hours of conversations about the subject, I assure you. Once again, read the fact that I am the hellenic coordinator. You're really becoming uncivil here. Steppe Merc is entitled to his opinion, just like you are yours. Remember that you're ignoring Plato, Aristotle, and many, many others who were not in favor of Democracy. It is also worth mentioning that the USA is a republic, who owes its form of government to Rome...

Why do you insist on believing that giving 'barbarians' equal historical respect with Greeks is tantamount to treason? Don't all ancient peoples deserve the truth to be told about them, or is that just for the literate ones? What about Carthage and the Phoenicians? Are they barbarians too, for not being Greek enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

Read your post (no. 76 in this thread) , it opens with "caesar"...but never mind , please continue...(smiley fits again...)
Why not just make your comments , why the stings ?

---

Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but please don't make posts with more than 5 smileys. It becomes obnoxious.

And please...

If anyone wants to accuse us of having people with different opinions on the team, without having to kill eachother because of that..I say go ahead...

I, for one, am proud of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

The reality is that the muslims were not invading, they were just pillaging. In fact the 732 battle who took place between Tours and Poitiers was a minor one. The real muslim defeat took place in 728 when the muslims had laid siege to Toulouse and were caught between the anvil (the walls of the city) and the hammer (the strong headed Duke of Aquitania.) The slaughter was so great that hundred of years later the muslims would mourn its anniversary each year, calling this day the "martyr's paveway" because most of the battle tok place around the old roman road. This battle definitely stopped muslim expansion in Europe.

---

You make it sound like pillaging is better than invasion there mate ~;p May I remind you as well that the Muslims who settled Spain had originally only been there to pillage as well. Plus, the Muslims on that particular trip had their families along with them.

Now, what you are claiming here is that in 728 the Muslims besieged Toulouse and got the crap kicked out of them and that is why Muslims expansion into western Europe was stop. Well, chronologically, 732 is after 728...If Muslim expansion had been stopped in 728, how come they where still able to raise an army large enough to threaten Charles Martel into meeting them in open conflict?

Italy and France where ravaged by pillaging Muslims throughout the Middle Ages, but never where large armies raised to block them. Muslim pillaging parties where usually only one or two boatloads of pirates who attacked coastal armies.

What invaded Southern France in 732, was not a pillagging party. It was an Army there to feel out the land, perhaps even settle it (remember, many Muslims brought their families with them that trip as well). Nothing that large would have penetrated that far in land just looking for booty. It's the same thing as saying the Golden Horde and the Huns where just their to pillage, but the general consensus to everyone is they where invaders.

It is said that Charles Martel stopped them in 732, because as far as I remember no other large muslim force tried to take France after Charles Martel had his way with them. :bow:

Otherwise though, I generally agree with you. Most of History, especially that which is taught at schools, is full of bias. Especially that which is written in a time of political social upheavel, like after or during a major revolution, or when a system is replaced by another after a war.

I don't think Khelvan would like me to post much here, and certainly not to engage in discussions which would mean even more posts from me, but you (Urnamma) said:

Quote:

---

Why do you insist on believing that giving 'barbarians' equal historical respect with Greeks is tantamount to treason?

---

I don't, and never have. It is one thing, however, to want to accurately study both Greece and Persia in great detail in order to understand them both well, and it's QUITE another thing to equalize the two cultures, or even prefer Persia to Greece. Just because I can come out and say that Persians were pansies and prone to slavishness does not mean I somehow close my eyes to historical evidence, or become and ignorant person. it is in fact historical evidence which points me to that direction.

Yes, I know that Rome served as the founding principle for America, but Greece served as more of the founding principle for the European countries in the 19th century, the place which I assume many EB members are from. And don't worry, despite Rome's legacy, it gets picked on even more than Greece does, from all the sentiments I've heard EB members say. So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?

And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it with complete impunity, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give the comment a second look! That is a uniquely EB attitude towards the Greco-Roman legacy, from EVERYTHING that I've seen the team's members say.

Steppe Merc,

Quote:

---

I assure, my views on Rome and Greece are my own

---

Yours and EVERYONE else's in EB whose comments I've seen on the issue. Except they all have their own pet cultures that they want to extoll instead, at Greece's or Rome's expense.

For the sake of what ever , please tell us , I you (EB Historians , no sarcasm here) can :
1. How many soldiers Alexander of Mokdon had in Issus and Arbela (sources !) ?
2. How many soldiers the Persians had in Issus and Arbela (sources !) ?
3. If you don't belive in the numbers of ancient historians why do you belive in any thing they say ?
4. All , that is , all , the historians who wrote about Alexander did it 300 to 500 years after he died , what proof we got of his existence ?
5. Polybius and others said that the Romans had 80,000 soldiers in Cannae , why do you belive it ? Because it match your logic ?
6. You have said that the USoA is not a Democracy , but a Republic , since when a Republic can't be a Democracy ? (GB is a Monarchy , but still a Democracy) .

Urnamma

Quote:

---

Guys, 5th century Athens had at most 50,000 people.

---

I was refering not to the city, but the whole of Attica.

Quote:

---

Logistics is the problem, not the amount of grain they had. We'll do some simple economic analysis. To transport goods overland when you do not have proper wagons, and no access to sea lanes, generally increases the cost of the goods by 50% ever fifty miles or so. Now, to feed 100,000 people in a large area, when most of those people can produce their own food is not particularly hard. Feeding many people when one has a large navy to move mass amounts of grain is also not exceedingly hard.

---

My comments were still in reagards to the earlier topic of how large Xerxes invasin force was/could be. As I noted I missed the posts that shifted the topic to Gaugamela.

I not sure Hannibal is necessarily a good example. He was planning on traveling trough hostile or at least neutral country, and had abandoned his baggage train. So you are right he had to take a fairly small force that could survive on foraging. Darius III in contrast was sitting in the middle of his own Empire, and had access to Tigres and Euphrates rives systems for moving supplies. As I noted before some of the numbers tossed about 200,000 + are realistically incredible, but I willing to allow a bit more flexibility then cut the Persians down to less than a 100,000. If Xerxes invasion is any guide the Persians seem to have organized their forces in divisions. If Darius had done the same, concentrating his force only with Alexander's approach, the logistics are a bit less strained for 150,000 + (or so) army.

Just in passing I though the canal and irrigation infrastructure of the area had taken a terminal beating during the Mongol invasions, is it certain that today’s situation is the same as the one Darius was looking at. In terms of supply access, he looks to have only been about 18 or miles from the Tigres and a little more than 3 from a significant tributary river.

Quote:

---

Now, Arrian & Co. are essentially all quoting the same sources (probably Callisthenes). The difference with modern historians is that we can use mathematical models, estimations, experiments, and most importantly archaeology to verify our numbers. This was not possible in the ancient world. It is also interesting that Alexander's numbers seem to dwindle, and those of the persians rise, the later the source gets. What we are witnessing is the building of a myth. Alexander is a semi-mythical figure to them, and each successive Greek historian makes him seem all the more amazing.

---

I'm pretty sure Arrian favored Ptolemy as his source for Gaugamela. Adamantly Ptolemy certainly had a vested interest in inflating Persian numbers.

Quote:

---

I don't, and never have. It is one thing, however, to want to accurately study both Greece and Persia in great detail in order to understand them both well, and it's QUITE another thing to equalize the two cultures, or even prefer Persia to Greece. Just because I can come out and say that Persians were pansies and prone to slavishness does not mean I somehow close my eyes to historical evidence, or become and ignorant person. it is in fact historical evidence which points me to that direction.

---

Well if you think Persians were pansies, you're wrong. Persians were quite good soldiers, and were probably among the best civilized archers and skirmishers at the time. They fought differently, not worse than Greeks. You don't get an empire the size they did through poor soldiery.
Their cavalry was also far better than Greeks could have, save Alexanders heavy horse and the Thessalians, both of which I respect. The best Hellenic cavalry of course came with the fusion of Iranian and Hellenic tradition in Baktria.
They were no more effiminate than the Greeks or Romans either. I will not get into the how numerous powerful Greeks and Romans had lovers of both sexes, however.

Quote:

---

Yes, I know that Rome served as the founding principle for America, but Greece served as more of the founding principle for the European countries in the 19th century, the place which I assume many EB members are from. And don't worry, despite Rome's legacy, it gets picked on even more than Greece does, from all the sentiments I've heard EB members say. So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?

---

I'm sure Rome's feelings won't be hurt.

Quote:

---

And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give it a second look! That is a uniquely EB attitude towards the Greco-Roman legacy, from EVERYTHING that I've seen the team's members say.

---

So only people who are Greco Roman centric are right in their bias?
I happen to place Iranian cultures in high regard. I think that many culture's militaries were at least eqaul to the soldiers soldiers than Greeks or Romans. I do not think that the Scythians philosphy was better than the Greeks, however.

Quote:

---

Steppe Merc,
Yours and EVERYONE else's in EB whose comments I've seen on the issue. Except they all have their own pet cultures that they want to extoll instead, at Greece's or Rome's expense.

---

Pet cultures? Is that a joke? Each culture was real, and all of them had good and bad things. Of course people specilize in a certaint group, and thus know their strengths. They also know more of their weaknesses.
However, Greece and Rome are always heralded as the best, and their strengths are always put foward. It is not the Iranian or Celtic scholars that put Rome and Greece as the culture to beat in the first place.

Besides, Rome has many supporters in our mod. There is nothing wrong in that. It is good for Urnamma to point out to me the Greek's successes against nomads. It is good for Ranika to point out that while tone particular tribe in Britian fought very well against the Romans, they retreated before the Roman's Sarmatian allies, because they claimed that they were related. It is good for Prom to point out that Rome ended up conquering Gaul despite the Celt's invention of soap, and general cleanliness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

I just want to add a small comment about this little quote. It was intended with nothing but utter respect for Teleklos, trying to point out a seeming incongruency between his (apparent) interest in, and respect for, the Classics, and the team he's part of which seems willing to crap on them whenever it gets the chance. And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won. Everyone here is sitting comfortably in their democracies that Greece has won by blood for them, and then they blithely demand proof as if it's still an open question. If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again. Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another.

---

I am used to working in an environment where people tolerate other views, and when they think that other people are wrong, it usually doesn't help to bash them over the head until they submit. The only way a mod as big as EB has stayed together (with minimal emigration) and provided so much detail over so many various factions is that those of us who really like certain factions and cultures are generally tolerant of each other and each others' opinions, whether or not we agree with them. The silliest thing I can think to do is get sarcastic or aggressive with someone if I'm trying to convince them that their point of view is misguided - and actually my available time limits me in the amount of 'arguing' I would even think about doing over lots of possible topics. The leadership in EB has done a spectacular job of keeping various 'interests' in the mod from overwhelming others, and when gaps emerge we tend to pour into it for a while to try to fix things. If we were constantly belittleing each other and fighting among ourselves, I don't think we would have gotten this far.

I think of myself as an extreme moderate in most situations, a realist, and someone with a lot of common sense (none of which seems to help me in my profession to be honest), and I think that Aymar and khelvan and Urnamma too have been very moderate and reasonable when dealing with issues that SM or Prometheus or myself or alin or sharrukin or others have raised in support of the various factions and cultures in which we are most interested. In my opinion, this is especially notable given the age of most modders and interested fans (just my opinion again, but the fiery intensity of youth and its numerous benefits for a mod like this need to be carefully handled and managed by those with more experience in dealing with divergent personalities and by those made more mature with age--otherwise it would have fallen apart long ago). For these reasons I don't see any incongruity in my actions or membership. I think (besides the name of the mod itself) it's very well balanced (where we could find serious information and interested individuals).

Teleklos, as usual, is showing why the older, wiser folks are in charge, not me. :bow:
I'm not trying to insult Rome or Greece. I think that they had a big part in history. I do like Central Asian cultures more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

I don't think Khelvan would like me to post much here, and certainly not to engage in discussions which would mean even more posts from me, but you (Urnamma) said:

I don't, and never have. It is one thing, however, to want to accurately study both Greece and Persia in great detail in order to understand them both well, and it's QUITE another thing to equalize the two cultures, or even prefer Persia to Greece. Just because I can come out and say that Persians were pansies and prone to slavishness does not mean I somehow close my eyes to historical evidence, or become and ignorant person. it is in fact historical evidence which points me to that direction.

Yes, I know that Rome served as the founding principle for America, but Greece served as more of the founding principle for the European countries in the 19th century, the place which I assume many EB members are from. And don't worry, despite Rome's legacy, it gets picked on even more than Greece does, from all the sentiments I've heard EB members say. So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?

And you can't discount Steppe Merc's position as just ONE view, because not only does it appear to be completely okay for him to come out and say it with complete impunity, but no one will even challenge or confront him about it, or even bother to give the comment a second look! That is a uniquely EB attitude towards the Greco-Roman legacy, from EVERYTHING that I've seen the team's members say.

Steppe Merc,
Yours and EVERYONE else's in EB whose comments I've seen on the issue. Except they all have their own pet cultures that they want to extoll instead, at Greece's or Rome's expense.

---

What the hell are you talking about? Of course it's OK for him to believe as he does. He knows I disagree with him, but I'm not going to dislike the man because he has an interest in Persian culture. We're not fascists, for Christ's sake. When he spouts bullshit, I generally call him out on it. You're not privelaged to see a lot of the behind the scenes conversations (on the hidden forum or through MSN), but SM knows my opinion and respects it. Believing Greece and Rome are absolutely and positively superior to everyone else is about the same as believing that Hannibal was black because he was born in Africa, in my mind. It ignores the massive influences on both cultures. I'm not sure what your agenda is here, but you play the apparent victim card quite well, for someone who seems to be anti-PC.

Nobody despises the classical tradition, but I'll be the first to tell you that a lot is cut out of it. Carthaginian literature, for one, was massive, but completely destroyed and obliterated by the Romans over time. Carthago delenda est indeed...

I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't ever been in an environment where RESPECT of one another's dissenting views is commonplace.

Speaking of spitting on the men that built it, you may wish to thank the Germanic barbarians for creating the system of law that most of Europe follows today, and perhaps thank those evil celts and saxons for creating what would become the common law.

Edit: SM, please don't make personal attacks. Edit that post please.

Urnamma is right, I am wrong many times. ~D

Quote:

---

So those of them who are American are just as guilty of despising Rome as those of them who are European of despising Greece (or not appreciating it enough). It's very popular today to sit in your soft and comfortable chair, and spit on the men who built it. Does this make my position clear?

---

I'm sorry, I'm just not going to let this one go. What have you done to study Greece or Rome? What have you done to help their legacy, exactly? From my position, you're sitting here complaining about people who are trying to accurately depict them.

You people do realise that you are getting angry about people that have been dead for 2500 years- and that there is no religion involved? Calm down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seydlitz

Whole comment

---

Your point is interesting. The fact is that the muslims did not fortify or even tried to keep an hold on what they conquered. They went through it, pillaged it, took slaves and went forward, got more loot and then turned tails and ran like mad to their encampement because they knew they could not take on the franks army head on. If the pillaging had been successful they would have been able to build a real army. Don't forget that they were fleeing from their enemies, not actively seeking to engage them. And once again i point at the fact that they retreated to Narbonne, they did not bother to prepare strongpoints in the cities they broke open (if they actually did... reports are very unclear about this, they may have prefered to pillage the surrounding farms and faubourgs without taking on the cities themselves... there is no logic in seeing a smaller force succeed where an invasion army miserably failed.)

Now let's try to think like a scholar of this time (that is a religious man.) To whom will you give the Aura of the victors ? To a man who inflicted a crushing defeat to an invasion force but pactised with the enemy in order to secure his hold over his lands or to a man who beat a pillaging force but was true to his oath towards the church ? I'll take the second choice, because in this set of mind the former was a traitor. And i'll add that for a long time the defeat mourned by the muslims is the one of 728. That's not to say that the 732 event is not significant (it allowed the franks to reunite their kingdom and caused the muslim power in spain to undergo a crisis), it's a simple example of how history is a tool of power.

To answer your question : Pillaging and war are not different matters, pillaging is a way to win a war through depleting the economy and ressources of your adversary. The french used this method against the english in the 100 years war with success. It is longer than crushing an enemy on the field but a battle is always risky while harassing towns and villages with a few hundred or thousand men can grant you large amounts of loot (which you can use to muster a stronger army) and demoralize the enemy with little risk. Often mutual pillaging would occur between phases of full fledged war and more than often a simple pillage operation would end up causing a battle. That's how Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt occured. A smart general can also lure the enemy in a trap by setting its troops to pillage the land, if the enemy decides to send a force against the looters then it is possible to have him walk right into a prepared ground that will give you some advantages in the battle to come.

PS : by the way, the muslims did come back after 732 : they did some forays in the rhone valley until Pépin le bref (pipin the short) decided they had to be chased south of the Pyrénées and did it right and sound.

In a sense you are right, the 728 battle stopped the invasion, the 732 battle removed any hope to start it again. We should look at this battles as the two pinpoints that highlight the turn of a tide that involved much more than the clash of armies. it is a flaw that old battles nerds like me often fall vicitm to : forgetting that battles are just the consequences of the politics, needs and desires of folks rather than their prime motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

You people do realise that you are getting angry about people that have been dead for 2500 years- and that there is no religion involved? Calm down.

---

Hey, I think religion should be discussed in a civil manner too. ~;)

And we are making a game about something that has been dead for 2500 years. ~:)

But I agree with you. Nothing good can come from this discussion anymore.

A small point: Pillaging is actually rather risky in a wartime, especially when you are pillaging in the vicinity of an enemy force. As an example: When Hannibal was marching through Italy, before the battle of Cannae, he would spread out part of his army to pillage the countryside and gather supplies for the army. However, one of his most dangerous enemies, Fabius Maximus, would constantly harass these parties, as they were vulnerable when they were seperated from the rest of the army. He also refused to engage Hannibal head-on, and thus he turned Hannibal's pillagers against him, whilst remaining undefeated. The only reason he did not finally defeat Hannibal in this fashion was because Rome became impaitent with his refusal to engage in battle; and when Fabius lost track of Hannibal after he slipped through a siege (I cannot remember the location- maybe one of the EB members knows) Rome had had enough. So, not all combat, and not all of the risks occur on the battlefield- a significant amount of risk occurs just in movement.

*looks at current point of conversation, eyeballs original topic*
hmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

comment about Rome and Greece

---

Can you please point me to the New York Arenas ? I'd love to see the nubians gladiators fighting Everglades alligators to their deaths.

I propose you take a (long) moment to study the origins of your country, historically and philosophically. You obviously need to fill some serious gaps in this subject.

For your information, the french republic is a mix of germanic customs laws and roman canon laws. It has few in common with greek-like democracies and is just remotely linked to the roman republic. We had 5 constitution and our power and decision structure is one of the most efficient and robust in the world (i am not bent to say it's the best, it would be arrogant and non-sensical, it is just good and perfectible.) Some european countries (but not the majority) copied it in some measure. This is far from a "greek oriented" Europe.

I suggest you build yourself an educated and constructed opinion before you spit again your nonsense at the face of people who are usually nice, tolerant of each others ideas and willing to share them with whomever is willing to discover what they know. I do not post here often, partly because my english is not yet good enough to express myself as well as i want to and partly because my field of knowledge is about the medieval timeline, but i greatly appreciate this place which, compared to many forums i read, is a haven of knowledge. I really hope that, the next time i'll read you, i'll have reasons to appreciate your participation as constructive and interesting.