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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

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.

---

It all depends of your starting locations. If your base is at 1 or 2 days of riding from the enemy's lands you want to sack then the risks are low. If you are forced to forage and pillage far from your base then i completly agree with you. It is then all up to the general's skill at organizing its operations. Rome's error as you depict it is the same that the one King Jean II le Bon commited at Poitiers, with the same results. It is interesting to notice than the french lost most if not every battle they engaged in the 14th century and in the meantime recovered nearly all their lost territory through harassment (of english pillaging parties) and pillage (of then english lands.)

dsyrow1, it isn't that I wouldn't want you to post or discuss the situation, it is that you refuse to take part in logical discussions and would rather simply attack us. You make invalid assumptions about EB that are completely off base and troll our threads with them.

For instance, you see SM posting an opinion (and he is one of our younger, more opinionated members) and assume 1) somehow all of EB takes extremist opinions and 2) that EB members don't question extreme views.

For you, when EB members question the validity of some sources because others are available, we're pissing on the classics. Someone like Teleklos doesn't belong in EB because he has different views? That could not be further from the truth. EB is so great BECAUSE we have different views, because we collaborate on sources, because each of us are able to double-check the others' work, many times in period languages directly from the sources. Because some of us have access to cutting-edge materials from our related fields, and we have some that actually do this work for a living and as such represent the very latest in contemporary thought and research.

Somehow this is threatening to you, and from the earliest days of EB you have done your utmost to take shots at us at every opportunity. You never come into a thread and give any sources of your own, or even support what you say. You always attack EB, EB members, and EB methods, without anything to support it other than your own imagination.

So no, I wouldn't want you to post a long discussion on it, because it will be full of your own assumptions built up into long hypotheses based on nothing at all other than conjecture, and then used to troll for angry responses.

Why in the world would I enjoy that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

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) .

---

What ? no answers ? Hhhhmmmmm
The next thing I will do , is to ask questions and than answer them... ~:confused: ~:confused:

Alexandros had aprox 47.000 inf, and 7000 cav.
Darius his forces where estimated by the historinas of that time up to 1M..but 100.000 is the max i guess.

but stil: the army of rome might be as big as you stated: it never was completely present at 1 Battle. the largest amount of men fielded in 1 battlefield were about 100.000 men...

@ 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."

I also want to add a small comment about your reply; after posting all these cheap crap earlier and using words like "REVOLTING" about someone’s opinion, your question was either trying to appear "civil" and conversational or trying to be divisive by asking Teleklos that, knowing him full well to be a "classicist" and you must be really disappointed that he didn’t take the bait. Even then you just can’t help your self with a dig about "his (apparent) interest" while trying again to appear “civil” by posting a bit more sensible things this time. EB fans sometimes have vastly different opinions about certain things and if in the end they don’t agree, then they agree to disagree and is all done in quite a civil manner for the betterment of EB and no one needs someone like you to come here and say what is right or wrong, correct or false, especially when your motives are obviously ulterior and destructive.

"If it IS an open question, then the point I'm making in this thread is just proven over and over again."

Even though I agree that is not exactly "an open question" what IS you point and HOW is it proven?
Does it have something to do with: "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." or "It took this thread to see under the covers and remind me again what kind of people flourish in this group."? Like I said, just cheap destructive crap..

"Critical evaluation of historians is one thing, but cynical despising of Classical tradition is another."

WOW…very impressive statement.. did you thought of that all by yourself? BTW please keep in mind that questioning or even disregarding is not the same as "despising" and as for "tradition" well.. "tradition" does not equal "fact". And while we are at it, where is YOUR "critical evaluation" on any of the historical depictions that EB portrays?

"And no, I'm not going to debate here whether it would have been better if Persia or Greece won."

Debating something like this can only be an exercise in sophistry, but who made you “defender of the faith” anyway? I am Greek and I may disagree with some of these but since I’m not willing to debate, I hold that they have every right to express their opinion and I will never call it "REVOLTING". So either debate (if you are good enough) or shut up.

"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!"

Yep.. no one should be allowed to say things like these with "complete impunity"!! I suggest 40 minus1 lashes and hemlock after that!! :whip: :mean: ~D Hellooo…why don’t YOU challenge it (repeat: if you are good enough) since it bothers you, instead of inviting others to do so?!

I didn’t have much time on my earlier post (working) and I haven’t got much time now (going fishing) so I can’t really respond properly to your snide "this little quote" but I’ll let you ponder this by Fenrhyl:

"I really hope that, the next time i'll read you, i'll have reasons to appreciate your participation as constructive and interesting"

I know we are not supposed to be "personal" here, but I find your posts to be divisive, destructive AND personal, even condescending so please heed the advice above..

O_Stratigos :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khelvan

You never come into a thread and give any sources of your own, or even support what you say. You always attack EB, EB members, and EB methods, without anything to support it other than your own imagination.

---

Hey, excuse me Khelvan, I have ALWAYS provided support for the historical arguments that I've made. It's not as if I pulled my ideas out of my butt -- views like mine were status quo JUST 50 years ago, so unless you are willing to come out and say that every scholar from the Rennaissance until the last two decades had been ignorant and deluded, please do not question my position as lacking all support or attribution.

In fact, if memory serves correctly, it is always you who, when pressed for sources, always ends up saying that your sources are never actual widespread books, but either 'experts in the field', or some obscure books written in obscure languages that no one ever heard of or knows about. So please don't get started on the sources. And yes, you don't have to repeat the token response that you provide on this subject every time we raise this issue up. I know your position already, and that's fine, but you should know better than to issue a challenge on the subject of sources, seeing as how it's always been so difficult for you to provide yours.


Urnamma,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

I'm not going to dislike the man because he has an interest in Persian culture. We're not fascists, for Christ's sake.

---

Again this is turning into a straw man argument. People can have interest in whatever they want, and I don't care. During the 18th century it was common among the scholars to find men interested in and studying the Sanskrit language for example, but the respect for the Classics was very strong throughout. It is one thing to have an interest in a certain culture, and it's completely another to find it superior. The former first has basis in personal opinions and values, while the second has basis in objective fact. Let's not obliterate the difference between the two.

Quote:

---

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

---

Then I guess you can see where I'm coming from. All I see is a lot of bullshit being spouted, and never get to see when, if ever, those people are called out on it. What I see on EB's public forums is that bullshit like this is NEVER called out on.

Quote:

---

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

---

Dissent is only possible when some things are first agreed upon in common.

My 'agenda' here was simply to express my concern that while EB had begun to appear to have become a 'moderate' mod focused only on history and quality of work, their original premise, the one that I was so opposed to originally is still there. And that premise is best expressed in people like Steppe Merc, and MANY other people like him who all somehow seem to end up being drawn only to EB and not any other mods. There is very obviously something about EB that draws people with these extreme views, and inundates it with them. I don't know where all of the moderates are -- I don't see them, unfortunately; in just this one example, Steppe Merc could say what he did with impunity, and no one cared. And the fact of the matter is, that as long as I've been in the TW community and reading TW forums, EB members have ALWAYS been making comments like these, and NEVER had other EB members call them out on it. So my 'agenda' is perhaps not so radical or strange after all...


Oh and by the way,

Quote:

---

Carthaginian literature, for one, was massive, but completely destroyed and obliterated by the Romans over time.

---

Carthaginian literature was neither destroyed nor obliterated by Romans or anyone else. It was given out to the local libraries and cities for safekeeping, and was lost through time because no one cared to speak, read, or write in Punic anymore.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, I'm just not going to let this one go. What have you done to study Greece or Rome?

---

Everything I can, actually.

Quote:

---

What have you done to help their legacy, exactly?

---

Wasn't it you trying to figure out my 'agenda', attempting to combine my playing the victim card with my apparent anti-PC'ness? You've answered your own question there. What I at least try is to do my own little part on forums like these to call people out on their -- bullshit, as you put it -- when no one else seems to be willing to any longer. Jared Diamond is the national hero, while Victor Hanson is made out to be a laughingstock.


Fenrhyl,

Quote:

---

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.

---

We are talking about constitutions here, not jurisprudence. The original French Republic was, at least ideologically, linked to the Roman Republic, but we all know how that turned out. Subsequent constitutions, both France's and the rest of Europe's -- with their single branch of government, direct elections, reverence for the word "democracy" (the word which was as much despised by the Americans before 20th century as it was in the Roman Republic), etc -- most closely resemble the Greek institutions. This, not surprisingly coincided with the shift in appreciation of Greece over Rome in the 19th century. So thank you for attempting to educate me, in such a non-patronizing manner too.

Quote:

---

I really hope that, the next time i'll read you, i'll have reasons to appreciate your participation as constructive and interesting.

---

It's quite interesting how I have never insulted you or Stratigos in any way (or even knew you existed), and yet you two have come out slinging personal attacks at me and at the same time blilthely demanding that I cease slinging mine in return.... ~:eek: I don't even know why you personally feel so offended by this discussion.


O_Stratigos,

Quote:

---

after posting all these cheap crap earlier and using words like "REVOLTING" about someone’s opinion

---

Something being a person's opinion does not automatically disqualify it from being revolting. In fact, apart from natural phenomena, only another person's opinion can really be called revolting.

Quote:

---

your question was either trying to appear "civil" and conversational or trying to be divisive by asking Teleklos that, knowing him full well to be a "classicist" and you must be really disappointed that he didn’t take the bait

---

What bait? You should leave the practice of mind-reading to the professionals, and stop trying to psychoanalyze my motives and thinking at every sentence break. I was simply asking Teleklos how he, as a classicist, could endure to stay in a team that seemed to have so little respect for the Classics.

Quote:

---

I know we are not supposed to be "personal" here, but I find your posts to be divisive, destructive AND personal, even condescending so please heed the advice above..

---

Hey, excuse me, all of my sharpest comments were directed at Steppe Merc, and none of those were personal attacks. Out of the criticisms that I did levy at him, at least part also were intended to apply to EB in general, but again none of those were personal. Instead, here are the comments that I got in return (from you and Fenrhyl):

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

after posting all these cheap crap earlier [...], your question was either trying to appear "civil" and conversational or trying to be divisive [...] and you must be really disappointed that he didn’t take the bait. Even then you just can’t help your self with a dig about "his (apparent) interest"

---

and many others. So instead of offering to me the advice of stopping the insults or shutting up, perhaps you could follow the advice yourself first.

In any case, I have no interest in discussing or defending the superiority of the Greco-Roman tradition here. I'm just making a comment that no one in EB seems to be willing to do this.

Anyhow, my original comment was intended to just make a passing disappointed comment, not start up a flame war, so I will refrain from posting in this thread any further...

why don;t you let it rest?
or Khelvan, Urnamma, Steppe merc, and all other EB member. just stop answering...this is going no where.

dsyrow1,
they agruement started with how large number ancients empire could field...and your 300-words response doesnt even mention it once! you tell me what your disagree with with EB...

~:cheers: ~D ~D Uh? What>? I am using one of m,y very limited threade respoeenses to say "close this?!" Friggin 40 minute fllllloood tititmteee.

Ya... I am goin nna need ya to work on Satrtuday...


Yes. I am slub again.


BUT I I LEARRAN MY LESSON !!!! i PROMISES!@@! ~D ~D ~:cheers: ~D ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

Hey, excuse me Khelvan, I have ALWAYS provided support for the historical arguments that I've made. It's not as if I pulled my ideas out of my butt -- views like mine were status quo JUST 50 years ago, so unless you are willing to come out and say that every scholar from the Rennaissance until the last two decades had been ignorant and deluded, please do not question my position as lacking all support or attribution.

---

You don't bother to quote them when in an argument with me, at least. You seem to conveniently disappear whenever pressed on them. Your modus operandi is to attack and then disappear when presented with a logical, supported argument.

Is it because you don't have these sources you claim to have, or you just can't be bothered to engage in such a discussion? I am guessing the former, based on your attitude, but I suppose it could be the latter. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

In fact, if memory serves correctly, it is always you who, when pressed for sources, always ends up saying that your sources are never actual widespread books, but either 'experts in the field', or some obscure books written in obscure languages that no one ever heard of or knows about.

---

Not at all, I always quote sources. Of course, where extra information is to be found in areas that others may not have access to, I always note it, as well as providing information about what sources are more reliable than others. You may choose this to mean I don't support my arguments or I do so with obscure things no one has heard of, but you're doing yourself a disservice if so.

Of course, I know what you think of any source not written by, or in the possession of before it was dug up, a Greek or Roman, so it isn't a surprise that you feel this way.

And I'll keep restating my position until you stop your insipid practice of entering threads and making attacks without supporting them. Stop trolling and you'll stop getting a response fit for a troll. Is that clear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

It is one thing to have an interest in a certain culture, and it's completely another to find it superior. The former first has basis in personal opinions and values, while the second has basis in objective fact.

---

It is quite convenient for you to brush off dissenting opinions as being based in the feeling that one culture is superior, especially when your own arguments are so often based around the premise that the Greco-Roman culture is far superior to anything else. Pot, kettle, black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

Then I guess you can see where I'm coming from. All I see is a lot of bullshit being spouted, and never get to see when, if ever, those people are called out on it. What I see on EB's public forums is that bullshit like this is NEVER called out on.

---

You don't bother to support why you think things are bullshit. You just pop in and call anything you disagree with "bullshit," and then you move on, not bothering to answer the responses. Just once I would love to see you sit down and write a response to the -actual topic in question-, rather than engage in an attack on the person writing the messages or the sources. You don't provide clear, supported arguments, you merely attack others. As you continue to do now.

Why do you think you receive the types of responses you receive? Try discussing things in a civil manner, supporting arguments without resorting to ad hominem (if that is possible for you), and you'll get civil responses. Blather and squawk about bullshit this and pissing on that, attack this person and that without bothering to support it, and you will be treated like the troll you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

My 'agenda' here was simply to express my concern that while EB had begun to appear to have become a 'moderate' mod focused only on history and quality of work, their original premise, the one that I was so opposed to originally is still there.

---

Translation: I don't have a goddamn clue what goes on in the EB mod, so I will continue to attack them because they have the nerve to look at sources other than those written by Greeks or Romans. Blasphemers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, I'm just not going to let this one go. What have you done to study Greece or Rome?

---

Everything I can, actually.

---

Your example of a supported statement, I suppose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

It's quite interesting how I have never insulted you or Stratigos in any way (or even knew you existed), and yet you two have come out slinging personal attacks at me and at the same time blilthely demanding that I cease slinging mine in return.... ~:eek: I don't even know why you personally feel so offended by this discussion.

---

Because people like O Stratigos, and many others, have often disagreed with certain things that EB has done, but been able to do so in a logical, reasoned manner. No one in this forum enjoys dealing with someone who comes simply to attack, argue ad hominem, and contribute nothing. We normally say "don't feed the troll," but the folks here aren't used to your particular brand of inanity, so I'll let this go on until everyone sees you for what you are.

You are free to go away and not return unless you're capable of making reasoned, supported arguments, rather than simply making attacks and questioning character. You may begin with why, for instance, you find Steppe Merc's statement "revolting." (Don't forget to support what you say)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

What bait? You should leave the practice of mind-reading to the professionals, and stop trying to psychoanalyze my motives and thinking at every sentence break. I was simply asking Teleklos how he, as a classicist, could endure to stay in a team that seemed to have so little respect for the Classics.

---

It doesn't take a mind-reader (do you know any professional mind-readers, by the way?) to recognize a troll for being a troll. One does not need psychoanalysis to see you for what you are.

Oh, by the way, not that you care, but the team has much respect for the Classics. They are the primary sources we pull from, in the original language, no less. Even our *GASP* barbarian groups use the Classics as their primary source of information, because they are so valuable (and respected)! You may feel free to faint from shock, now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

Hey, excuse me, all of my sharpest comments were directed at Steppe Merc, and none of those were personal attacks.

---

A troll is a troll is a troll. Stop trying to justify your trolling, and either engage in civil discourse or leave.

I generally let threads live a very long time here, but trolls we do not tolerate. Even if you happen to be a very long-term EB-hating troll who we have a long history with, you still need to move away from the baseless attacks on character and toward reasoned, logical arguments. If not, I'll banish you as I banish all trolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

In any case, I have no interest in discussing or defending the superiority of the Greco-Roman tradition here. I'm just making a comment that no one in EB seems to be willing to do this.

---

Why would anyone in EB be "willing" to defend the superiority of the Greco-Roman tradition here? The team is attempting to look at all cultures and represent their historical strengths and weaknesses, not just the most popular ones. The team has respect for many different sources, not just from the cultures that have the most widely studied ones, and judges each source on its merits, not with blanket judgements based on the type of source, the nationality of the source, or the language it is written in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

Anyhow, my original comment was intended to just make a passing disappointed comment, not start up a flame war, so I will refrain from posting in this thread any further...

---

You're welcome to contribute, as long as you contribute, and not attack.

However, it is your modus operandi to make these sorts of baseless character attacks and then disappear when you are called out for doing so, so I expect you'll follow your word here. It is a shame, really, since you seem intelligent and knowledgeable, if extremely biased. It would be nice to actually have you engage in discussion without you making this sort of attack.

Just once, I would very much like for you to move from "troll" to actual "forum contributor." It would be a very pleasant surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

dsyrow1,why don;t you let it rest?

The agruement started with how large number ancients empire could field...and your 300-words response doesnt even mention it once! you tell me what your disagree with with EB...

---

lol... good point. So what are you 'really' upset about dsyrow1? You obviously have some beef with EB, so cut the eronious pseudo-passive agressive bullshit and tell us why?

~:)
my2bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

lol... good point. So what are you 'really' upset about dsyrow1? You obviously have some beef with EB, so cut the eronious pseudo-passive agressive bullshit and tell us why?

~:)
my2bob

---

afaik. he pissed at EB for saying Romans/Greeks aren't superior. he only thinks Telekos is "a good man" but basically he only "likes" good 'ol Tel because they share a passion for a Culture..He was looking for support...

afaik, to him: you, SM and Ranika...all the non-greek/roman EB-members are twits and you dont understand hsitory~;)

but lets quit it..we stated a question he's not going to answer, so it's a done deal..

getting back to the very first topic: teh spartans.
how do you spell "molon Labe" in ancient greek?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

A troll is a troll is a troll. Stop trying to justify your trolling, and either engage in civil discourse or leave.

Just once, I would very much like for you to move from "troll" to actual "forum contributor." It would be a very pleasant surprise.

---

He, khelvan -
our dog is called Troll, so please don't compare him with a special guy here.
He is so sensible ~;)

Firstly, Fenrhyl, I see where you are coming from now on the whole Charles Martel and Tours thing, and I now agree. There were a lot of facts I didn't know in your post there, and so it was good to know some more info on that time period. ~:) I guess the importance of Tours is more of a symbolic nature then, since it led to the unity of the frankish tribes, and pushed back the farthest reachings of the encroaching muslims.

dysrow1, as one of the people in EB working on the Romans, I can assure you they aren't being treated with any less regard then any of the other factions. VandalCarthage, cuncator, Tel, Prom, Aymar and me, along with many other members have put a lot of work into organizing and making Rome as true to her ancient self as possible, and I daresay we succeeded. The priority was put on the easterners, celts, and germans since they were terribly under represented in the original RTW. Which, may I remind was why EB was formed in the first place; to correct those mistakes.

Steppe (*Ahem*) Merc's opinions on the peoples of the steppe's, the persians, and all those people I can assure you 100% are his own. I have learned a lot about customs, traditions, and methods of warfare about them that I never knew before from him and his posts. Even though all this, I personally find Graeco-Roman culture more intriguing because of my heritage.

Among other things, superiority of one culture over another is morally and militarily absurd. The supremecay of one nation over another is only dictated by fortune, commitment from the population and resources at the disposal of the nation. Through research you will quite easily see that quality and skill at arms counts for near nothing in the final result of a war; The quality of the men leading, luck, and resources at one's disposal count a lot more. WWII is a perfect example. The German's had the better equipment and the better training; But against Russian fervour and the Allied quantative advantage they never stood a chance (If you want I can delve into this deeper. WWII is my area of expertise :bow: ).

Saying one nation is morally superior to another is also close minded. Morality is something personal, and while you might not agree with someone else's beliefs it does not mean yours are any better. The Romans knew this themselves. Hell, they'd even 'invite' over enemy gods once in a while to try and convince them to change sides! The Romans managed to mantain such a large empire with so few people (300,000 people controlling 60 million+ while guarding the borders from invasion is quite a feat) since as long as a different culture didn't infringe on Roman interests, they pretty much let it do what they wished.

On the general topic of ancient historians and embellished history, may I remind you they didn't have TV or photos back then! To try and imbue their ancient readers with some sort of awe, and to trigger the emotions in the readers which the author experienced, embellishment was necessary. One great example is Polybius and his embellishment of the Gauls. He said they had huge swords, and shields as tall as a man! This of course, has been disproven by archaelogical findings (infact, the Celtic sword and shield of that time were about the same size as the Roman Scutum and gladius from that time). But it greatly conveys the ferocity the Gauls had, and puts the same sense of fear in the reader (who btw, would have most likely never seen a gaul arrayed for battle) as a legionary facing the gauls would have experienced.

The exaggerated numbers follows the same trend. An army of 100,000 men is a lot bigger than it sounds. It would cover various kilometers of land in a line, and if deployed in depth it would stretch out to the horizon and more. Josephus tells us how scary a formation of just two or three Roman legions on the march looked, now imagine 10 times as many people! Of course, reading and seeing is different. Just by reading '1 million advancing Persians' you'd get the same sense of size a Spartan would have had looking at Xerxes army massing without needing any psychological explanations relating to how reading is different from seeing (hence, one picture is worth a thousand words).

So the distrust of ancient writers regarding figures isn't just relating to them trying to embellish the accomplishment of their nations, but it is also since they had to convey emotions without visual support. That's why they aren't regarded as accurate figures.

It dosn't diminish Thermoplaye in any way at all, either way. If we take a low estimate of 50,000 persians on the last day and a high estimate of roughly 2,000 greeks (700 thespians, 400 thebans, 300 spartans, and a few hundred spartan helots), it is still 25 to 1 in favour of the persians!!

Oh yeah, and 20,000 casualties is also a terribly high figure. Since the persians who retreated were never pursued, a better estimation (taking the observed fact that casualties due to actual face to face engagement are anywhere between 1-5% dead, and an equal amount wounded) and taking in consideration that the persians got scared at their losses (so we use the higher 5% casualty figure), the persians would have had about 2,500 dead and an equal amount wounded. (still a lot: most victorious armies of about that size rarely lost more than 1,000 dead and wounded).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seydlitz

dysrow1, as one of the people in EB working on the Romans, I can assure you they aren't being treated with any less regard then any of the other factions. VandalCarthage, cuncator, Tel, Prom, Aymar and me, along with many other members have put a lot of work into organizing and making Rome as true to her ancient self as possible, and I daresay we succeeded. The priority was put on the easterners, celts, and germans since they were terribly under represented in the original RTW. Which, may I remind was why EB was formed in the first place; to correct those mistakes.

---

A valiant try, but it won't help, believe me. Hell, as the person who probably did a majority of research for the pre-marian Romans, I have a vested interest in seeing them represented correctly and finding their proper place in our mod. The Romans happen to be my favorite; they weren't a priority in work simply because of the amount of work we had to do to other factions compared to Rome, and for no other reason. They happen to be my favorite faction, though I must admit Baktria has grown on me recently.

EB may have been formed to make the barbarian representation better, but it evolved into much more than that, and I think referencing this beginning only serves to reinforce the misconceptions that someone like dysrow1 attempts to spread. EB has never been anything but an organization that endeavors to show all cultures correctly, no matter how well-known they are, or are not, with no bias against any particular culture in any way, as a team. Any imbalance is sorted out as our team naturally balances each other in our attempt to make all areas of the mod historically correct, as much as possible.

Did not see your sources.......history is not about logic ! you just can't say "100,000 men , no , it is to big , can't be , the food , the watter , the space , no , can't be" - this is an arrogant attitude ! You (EB) have your logic , and some one else have his logic , I ask you , that is the way tho learn history ?
Look at the sources , combine them , read modern historians and than . and only than , make your argument , again I say , there is no logic in history !!! and because of that history is not pure science .

I see you are ignoring my questions (a conspiracy for sure...) so please read this and open your minds (ignore my English)

From professor Livio Stecchini - "The size of the Persian army (at 480 bce)"

Herodotos reports about the Persian army - from 46 nationalities (7 , 59-88) , crossing in 170 times * 10,000 men = 1,700,000 fighting men (7 , 60 and also Aischylos 981) . to that number he added 1,700,000 non fighting men = 3,400,000 men ! Other sources came with different numbers , between 700,000 to 800,000 fighting men , so , about 1,700,000 fighting and non fighting men .
Herodotos tell us about the Persian cavalry - some 80,000 on horses and another 20,000 on camels . he mentioned a greek allies of some 300,000 men (8 , 85) .
In 1867 Gobineau questioned (for the first time ?) these numbers and was supported by Macan and by Munro in 1902 . Gobineau came to a conclusion that the Persian army was no more than 300,000 infantry and 60,000 cavalry !
"Gobineau thought that he had made a laughing stock of the Greeks...but the climate of opinion was changing rapidly among the scholars of ancient history . When in 1895 Macan published...he thought of himself as a radical critic , but by the time he published the last volume in 1908 , he found himself to be holding a rather moderate position . When in 1901 G.B. Grundy estimated the size of Xerxes army at several hundred thousands he was expressing an old fation view" .
in 1887 Hans Delbrueck stated that Xerxes army was no more than 55,000 man . later he was so encouraged by the praise bestowed upon him as a pioneer that he reduced Xerxes army to no more than 25,000 man , some where between 20,000 to 15,000 men !!!
Eduard Meyer said "There is no need explain that all these figures are absurd" , he estimated Xerxes army to some 100,000 men .
De Scanctis - 100,000 men .
Ernst Obst - 90,000 men .
Beloch and W.W. tarn - 60,000 men .
J.B. Bury - 180,000 men .
Robert Von Fischer - 40,000 (less than the Greek force!!!) .
Now ,the recent historians -
Giolio Giannelli - 300,000 men .
Ulrich Wilcken and Helmut berve - 100,000 men .

Stecchini's conclusion - 300,000 fighting and non fighting men + 50,000 cavalry .


Now , these are the sources . Every body (?) want's to get some attention , so how can one get's it ? By saying "yes the persian army was huge as the ancient historians said" - no ! it is boring , so ? By saying "The Persian army was no more than 25,000 men !" Ah , wow , that is new , yes , "the hell with historians , I know better , and it is more interesting"

That is my opinion , no offence , no nothing .

Herodotus is biased... if he inflates everything peopel will get scared, people will understand teh heroism of teh spartans...
besides: he wasn't even. and everybody that was coudl count them all...

How mcuh water do you think 1,000,000 men recuire. how much food? in those times... how mcuh wood for campfires. how much water. tents etc. It's practically impossible to get that many people in 1 place..

and about historians>logic.
I got a nice source from archimedes: he says that hevaier object fall faster than lighter ones...
but logic tells us all object fall at the same speed..the only factor is air-friction...
how's that for comparison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

Herodotus is biased... if he inflates everything peopel will get scared, people will understand teh heroism of teh spartans...
besides: he wasn't even. and everybody that was coudl count them all...

How mcuh water do you think 1,000,000 men recuire. how much food? in those times... how mcuh wood for campfires. how much water. tents etc. It's practically impossible to get that many people in 1 place..

and about historians>logic.
I got a nice source from archimedes: he says that hevaier object fall faster than lighter ones...
but logic tells us all object fall at the same speed..the only factor is air-friction...
how's that for comparison?

---

Did I said 1,000,000 people ? did any of the above said that ?
About Archimedes , you are talking here about science , not about history .
If we want to find logic in history , the Germans would have not invaded Poland , Napoleon would have not go to Russia with 600,000 men (oh , the food , the watter , the air , what about the air ~;) ) etc' but that is history , there is no logic , Hannibal faced the Romans 1:3 , why ? there is no logic and none of us can tell what went in Darius III mined when ha went ti Arbela with his 150,000 men .

i thought you wanted to make a point in your previous post...the source siad two parts: Herodotus claime 1M men..The historian 20,000. your previous postst would indicate you were with teh former.

so what was it your were trying to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seydlitz

Spartan Merc's opinions on the peoples of the steppe's, the persians, and all those people I can assure you 100% are his own. I have learned a lot about customs, traditions, and methods of warfare about them that I never knew before from him and his posts. Even though all this, I personally find Graeco-Roman culture more intriguing because of my heritage.

---

Dude, it's Steppe Merc. Spartan is the Warrior who makes the excellent units. ~D
But it's ok, I thank you for your assistance. ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

EB may have been formed to make the barbarian representation better, but it evolved into much more than that, and I think referencing this beginning only serves to reinforce the misconceptions that someone like dysrow1 attempts to spread. EB has never been anything but an organization that endeavors to show all cultures correctly, no matter how well-known they are, or are not, with no bias against any particular culture in any way, as a team. Any imbalance is sorted out as our team naturally balances each other in our attempt to make all areas of the mod historically correct, as much as possible.

---

This is true. I want the Greeks and Romans and Celts and Carthagianians to be as accurate as possible. I don't want the Parthians to be super men. That would be boring. I want to play as my favorite guys, against their historical enemies. And then, even play as my favorite guy's enemies. Even Greeks! ~;)

Quote:

---

Now , these are the sources . Every body (?) want's to get some attention , so how can one get's it ? By saying "yes the persian army was huge as the ancient historians said" - no ! it is boring , so ? By saying "The Persian army was no more than 25,000 men !" Ah , wow , that is new , yes , "the hell with historians , I know better , and it is more interesting"

---

Caesar, but historians are saying that it is far too large. Real ones. The point isn't to destroy ancient historians, but to help make sense of their works.

Quote:

---

Oh, by the way, not that you care, but the team has much respect for the Classics. They are the primary sources we pull from, in the original language, no less. Even our *GASP* barbarian groups use the Classics as their primary source of information, because they are so valuable (and respected)! You may feel free to faint from shock, now.

---

This is very true. Great information has come from the historians about factions that I'm involved with, especially the Iranian nomads. We don't have any of their own records, so we use archealogy with ancient acounts. We have at least one unit using the hoof/horn armor that Pausanias mentions, as well as Ammianus.
Just because we use ancient author's does not mean we take their words as law. We do not represent the Sarmatians as sons of Scythians and Amazons, like Herodotus says.

Quote:

---

I got a nice source from archimedes: he says that hevaier object fall faster than lighter ones...but logic tells us all object fall at the same speed..the only factor is air-friction...how's that for comparison?

---

I believe that was Aristotle. And anyway the classical world hardly slavishly followed him (unlike say the medieval church). Strabo, correctly noted that Aristotle was mistaken in his assertion about heavy object falling faster.

Quote:

---

Herodotus is biased... if he inflates everything peopel will get scared, people will understand teh heroism of teh spartans...
besides: he wasn't even. and everybody that was coudl count them all...

---

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here; the Persians were too stupid to count? I don’t know that anyone one is really going to say the Herodotus was right, and sure he was making a bit of a political statement in how he treated the climatic battles of the war. But, I really don’t think you can right him off as either biased or stupid. Herodotus is usually quite clear about the fact that he is being told something, but finds it silly or unbelievable. He is at the end of the day ill severed for sources when it comes to Persian numbers. He almost certainly had to rely heavily on reports from the Greek side, and I think we can demonstrate that even in modern wars reports for enemy size or casualties can be widely out of tune with reality. Just consider how many ‘kills’ of AFVs NATO claimed in its air campaign against Serbia, but in reality they vastly overstated their successes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

i thought you wanted to make a point in your previous post...the source siad two parts: Herodotus claime 1M men..The historian 20,000. your previous postst would indicate you were with teh former.

so what was it your were trying to say?

---

jerby , the point is in my final words in the post . please read them again .
From 1,700,000 men they left only 15,000 men , why ? they wanted attention , publicity etc'- it is written in the words of the scholar . Now , from 15,000 we got in to 100,000 to 300,000 men , why ? because modern historians saw the reason behind the early numbers (early , that is in the beginning of the 19' century) .

Caesar, why look at old (not ancient, but old) historians? The ones know know more, have more rescources available, and are all around more accurate.

caesar44, I will restate to you what I have already stated before (And either you ignored, or missed):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

On the general topic of ancient historians and embellished history, may I remind you they didn't have TV or photos back then! To try and imbue their ancient readers with some sort of awe, and to trigger the emotions in the readers which the author experienced, embellishment was necessary. One great example is Polybius and his embellishment of the Gauls. He said they had huge swords, and shields as tall as a man! This of course, has been disproven by archaelogical findings (infact, the Celtic sword and shield of that time were about the same size as the Roman Scutum and gladius from that time). But it greatly conveys the ferocity the Gauls had, and puts the same sense of fear in the reader (who btw, would have most likely never seen a gaul arrayed for battle) as a legionary facing the gauls would have experienced.

The exaggerated numbers follows the same trend. An army of 100,000 men is a lot bigger than it sounds. It would cover various kilometers of land in a line, and if deployed in depth it would stretch out to the horizon and more. Josephus tells us how scary a formation of just two or three Roman legions on the march looked, now imagine 10 times as many people! Of course, reading and seeing is different. Just by reading '1 million advancing Persians' you'd get the same sense of size a Spartan would have had looking at Xerxes army massing without needing any psychological explanations relating to how reading is different from seeing (hence, one picture is worth a thousand words).

So the distrust of ancient writers regarding figures isn't just relating to them trying to embellish the accomplishment of their nations, but it is also since they had to convey emotions without visual support. That's why they aren't regarded as accurate figures.

It dosn't diminish Thermoplaye in any way at all, either way. If we take a low estimate of 50,000 persians on the last day and a high estimate of roughly 2,000 greeks (700 thespians, 400 thebans, 300 spartans, and a few hundred spartan helots), it is still 25 to 1 in favour of the persians!!

Oh yeah, and 20,000 casualties is also a terribly high figure. Since the persians who retreated were never pursued, a better estimation (taking the observed fact that casualties due to actual face to face engagement are anywhere between 1-5% dead, and an equal amount wounded) and taking in consideration that the persians got scared at their losses (so we use the higher 5% casualty figure), the persians would have had about 2,500 dead and an equal amount wounded. (still a lot: most victorious armies of about that size rarely lost more than 1,000 dead and wounded).

---

I don't know about you, but also I do believe most soldiers in the greek army had more important things to do back then to sit an count how many soldiers the Persians had. And no, by a quick look you can't tell if the enemy has 8,000 or 80,000. Hell, it's hard for humans to grasp anything over a few thousand. Fear, awe, pride, sheer testoterone can make the numbers change a lot, and that is quite obvious by the fact that figures vary so much. Anything over 150,000 in numbers of fighting men should be taken as a bit iffy, as Urnamma and Steppe Merc ( ~;)) have already demonstrated by simple math and logic. Peter Connolley, author of Greece and Rome, goes with a maximum estimate of about 180,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry, plus about 60,000 support personnel, which is still stretching it.

cono94.

i'm sorry my message was so poorly spelled. what i meant was that they ahd no sky-cams or even time to count all of that 1M. and for the persians there wouldn't be a point to count them..they got a rough estimate...know it's 10 times more than the greeks..that's neough for them..i'd guess

Jerby

I agree that at best the Greeks were forced to use fairly rough estimates of people and ships (as in Themistocles to helmsmen "Andronicus, how many sail of enemy do you count... hmm hard to say maybe 1000 but it is difficult to tell the men-of-war from the merchant ships, anyway damn sight more than Aigina ever put out to sea that is for sure, are you confident about this wooden wall crap...). But whatever the number of troops the Persians brought, I rather suspect that had a very good ideal of the number. The Persians were heirs to what something like 2 or 3 thousand years worth of centralized bureaucratic empires. Empires that had been using mass armies and mass cuvee labor for centuries, somebody in Xerxes palace staff certainly could have put a number to the army and no doubt to how much it ate and drank and cost...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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

---

~:confused: My sources say more like 300,000 people at its height mate, it was afterall a major port city and Rome eventually reached a million so its not that unbelievable.

And the 8,000 number for their hoplites at Platea seems fairly solid, I don't think a city of at most of 50,000 people (with half being women and including slaves etc.) could field 8,000 hoplites even if one included outlying districts and villages.

When the Celts destroyed the army of the Macedonians during the migration of Gauls that settled Galatia and Tylis, prominent ancient historians from Greece put the number of Celts into the hundreds of thousands. There is a HUGE problem with that. One, at the time, there were maybe a few million, at most (and that's a fairly liberal estimate, taking into account we don't know what's necessary about the countryside to make a more accurate assumption), in all of Gaul.

This migration occured due to overpopulation; this was a common Celtic practice since the Hallstatt period, though more settled La Tene Celts didn't engage it as often. Celts wanted wide spaces, and they liked Greece, and Greeks. Seemed a natural place to go.The thing is, every Celtic soldier, even with his family, even his extended family, in tow, if we count all of them, it isn't possible that they, all together, were more than MAYBE 200,000; that includes mostly non-combatants. The Galatians had three 'migrant armies', each more likely composed of between 15-25,000 soldiers. That's still a big damn army, since there are three of them, but it's hardly the hundreds of thousands that 'over ran' Macedonians; Galatian metalworking brings us a different understanding of what occured, and corroborates with Gallic metalwork of the same event. In truth, the Macedonians were defeated by an army of less than 100,000 men.

However, ancient historians care little for examining the likliehood of numbers, and to the Macedonians, due to the size of the Celts, that there were many of them (imagine seeing all three armies on the move; about 60,000 men in one place, followed by a huge caravan of followers), that they were probably very frightening to see. Of course they're not going to accurately count how many of them there are, and they would've invariably seemed like there were many more of them. However, after Brennos's (different from the one who sacked Rome; almost a century apart these two) failed incursion into Greece (committed suicide after Delphi by falling on his sword; an aside, that was a still a popular ritual suicide method in the middle ages), his army went north and dispersed among the two remaining armies. This ballooned the army sizes to rather unwieldy to numbers, so one of the armies, after driving the Thracians out, settled Tylis, a short-lived Celtic kingdom; some of that army joined with the remaining one, and they split into three armies of their own (and also split their families this way, based on their former tribes back in western/central Europe).

However, even so, when they arrived in Asia Minor, we are told only of about 40,000 Galatians, recorded as two armies of 20,000, by Bithynia; this is far more believable, and was essentially a 'peaceful', methodic count of individual men, rather than an estimation. So, where did the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Celtic warriors go that annihilated the Macedonian army? They certainly didn't all settle in Tylis; that region was not densely populated by Celts, even when they ruled it. The point is, ancient historians don't generally record the number of men in battle, because firsthand accounts almost invariably exaggerate. From there, many historians, who were, one must realize, to some extent, a type of story teller in many ways, had a penchant for increasing numbers and size of things and the like to make an enemy seem more fearsome and a victory more great, or a loss more devestating, but understandable; again, in this example, no one would expect the Macedonian army to survive an onslaught of a horde of a few hundred thousand Celtic warriors. Regardless of individual skill, equipment, command; they would lose such an engagement. However, in such an account, it's no longer the Macedonians' fault for the loss. It wasn't bad command, poor morale, or a tactical failure. They were simply overwhelmed.

That is much more palatable for the supporters of Macedonians. It's not true by a long shot, but real ancient historians recorded it that way for a combination of misunderstanding based on first hand accounts, and sociopolitical reasons involving wanting to save face, and this is just the reasons that are apparent. Even in victories people exaggerate, as I said. There are many reasons this was done. It's not an isolated incident at all, and to trust numbers of historians at face value without examination does a disservice to our understanding of history in general. To not examine a historian's account, against archaeological record, and other sources, is to be disserviceful; we will not gain a full scope of history.

Take for example this; Diodoros concluded Celts were drunkards because of the amount they would pay in slaves for wine. What do we know about Celts, culturally? For one, they had a ton of slaves. So many that slaves were common gifts. Slaves in Celtic lands were cheap. Wine, however, was a rarity in northern Celtic places, or in central/eastern European Celtic regions. Of course they'd trade slaves for wine; it's a matter of supply and demand. But if we trust Diodoros at the utmost, they were just drunks willing to surrender an 'expensive' commodity for a 'cheap', alcoholic commodity, when the truth was they were trading a commodity that was very common for them, for one that was very common for Greeks.

To expand upon Ranika saying how armies look bigger than they were, this was often a case with nomadic armies. They often marched divided, but they moved so quickly, those seeing them in one place and then another would assume they were seperate parts of the army, rather than the same part. This led to the over exagerations of the Mongol's numbers, which the Mongols incouraged, as did all nomads before them.

Quote:

---

but they moved so quickly

---

Armies and raiders yes, mass migrations with family and livestock, no. Even the Mongols only moved slowly when moving with their livestock (sheep just don't march very far in a day).