EB is not Historical?

EB is the best mod I have encountered. Best graphics, awesome trivia, cool voice acting, and the thing that separates EB from others: Historical Accuracy.
However I noticed that there were some misconceptions that I found while playing the game.

1.Greek Hoplites - The phalanx is a rectangular mass military formation, usually composed entirely of heavy infantry armed with spears, pikes, or similar weapons. The troops were disciplined to hold a line which created a nearly impenetrable forest of points to the front. EB's depiction of the phalanx at first seemed correct(after all they did a very good job with the Spartiates), but it was when they fought that I was terribly disappointed. The phalanx held a solid block of men unstoppable if fought from the front. Rome:Total War vanilla was right on this one, EB however portrayed the hoplites fighting with their spears thrust overhand as if throwing a javelin. This made them look like gay freaks. WTF!

2.Roman Cohort - The lorica segmentata(plate mail) was used between 1st Century BC until 3rd Century AD. EB spans 272 BC until 14 AD but i wonder why they didn't put a unit that used the armor. The testudo was also removed(I wonder if this is a bug but my praetorians didn't do the famed formation when I pressed "F".

I think those are all the misconcepcions I have found and I hope the EB staff would take notice of this and make a patch 1.3 to correct their mistakes. Anyway thanks to the EB Team for their pains while making such a great mod and for fixing my RTW(Another mod destroyed my vanilla and in installing EB I was able to play as Rome again).

oh my lord you don't know what you just started!!!! you just mentioned lorica segmentata as something in widespread use and contested that overhand spear thrusts were not used by hoplites, even calling them gay freaks!

and i think you have a misconception between the phalangites and the hoplite phalanx, one is a shield wall the other is a spear wall. the overhand/underhand spear thrust has been debated ad nauseum, with overhand always coming out on top. It's in my opinion that both were used whenever the tactical situation presented the needed for either/or but overhand was more dominant.

if you are going to even try and contest these assertions then you are going to need some sources, lots of them. i don't even think anyone from EB itself will come in here to assault you with writing and excerpts

First post. Two points, both heavily discussed on the forum, one of them recently. I don't want to jump to conclutions, and if I'm wrong, I do appologise, hoping the OP will understand that his points tends to stir reactions here, but: Is this for real?

Edit: If I'm wrong, the OP might want to read the FAQ about the Lorica Segmentata:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...Barbarorum-FAQ

And for a discussion on the Hoplite use of spears, see here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-Pushing-Match

And yes, as fomalhaut says, don't mistake Hoplites for Phalangites.

i almost thought that as well. i was sure to read read read these discussions before i ever chimed in

You're very luck this was your first post here, otherwise we'd probably call you out as a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

You're very luck this was your first post here, otherwise we'd probably call you out as a troll.

---

why have mercy? just assume he's one, and deal with him. he's the guy who was careless enough to not read the FAQ before typing.

ok, in all seriousness, I don't think we should treat him as a troll, but I think he could have just read the darn thing.

Bah, speechless :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

You're very luck this was your first post here, otherwise we'd probably call you out as a troll.

---

... its a troll account.

1. Someone else could probably answer this one better than me, but iirc, overhand and underhand are both accurate, depending on the style of phalanx warfare. Classical greek hoplites fought overhand. The Macedonian/Hellenistic style phalanx was underhand.

2. In every source I've seen, Lorica Segmentata was used from the first century AD to the third. Outside of EB's time frame. Re: the testudo, my copy of EB does have testudo formation, although it depends on what Roman infantry you're using. If you're using anything from before the Marian reforms. I'm pretty sure it's only Marian and Imperial infantry that can make the turtle. That's because we only have a couple of sources that describe this tactic, and they're all from no earlier than the late republic. -M

EB not historical?

what the @%#*

Alas... another Lorica Seg. Fan... The Lorica was indeed used from the 1st century BC. But from the END of it! It's completly useless to create a whole new unit with lorica segmentata for 30 - 40 years of game. as the game ends in 14 AD. and here's a friendly advice :Do not never EVER ask about the lorica segmentata here. And stating EB isn't historical (try not to be too rough...) it's kinda (common find a word...)BOLD statement! as it EB has been desing by teams within which are many historians! (Without even mentioning us all history freaks that have not too many things betetr to to than open a new history book when we finish the preceeding one!)

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs43/f/20...robocaster.gif

haha the only thing he forgot is asking for a release date for EBII :D

oh and demanding latin names for things not latin ^^

Could we please stop treating anyone who brings up a controversial topic as a potential troll? This is a good way of ensuring the topic stays controversial.

TotalWarlord's arguments have indeed been hotly debated before, but that is because many people have heard only one side of the story. So yes, it's quite possible that a new member is not aware of this, especially if he didn't check out the FAQ. Shouting "OMG, how can you not know?!" at him will not convince him you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

1. Someone else could probably answer this one better than me, but iirc, overhand and underhand are both accurate, depending on the style of phalanx warfare. Classical greek hoplites fought overhand. The Macedonian/Hellenistic style phalanx was underhand.

2. In every source I've seen, Lorica Segmentata was used from the first century AD to the third. Outside of EB's time frame.

---

Just a few nitpicks:

1) It probably wasn't as absolute as this: both high and low styles are feasible with sarissa's and dory's, depending on what the situation requires. Swiss pikemen had a stance where they held their pikes at shoulder height (the phalangite shield useless in this stance, so Hellenic pikemen probably didn't use this). Underhand spear-fighting can make sense for hoplites too, say in one-on-one combat. The team went with overhand style since this is used on most Classical depictions, and seems suited to shield-wall combat.

2) Elements of a Lorica Segmentata have been dated to 10 BC, and this probably does not represent the first use of this armour. However, the team is of the opinion that it did not become widespread until 50 AD, and even at its most popular, many legionaries would still use chainmail.

It would be nice if a new Roman reform (Tiberian Reform) were introduced into EB, which would only become possible to get between 9 BC and 13 AD, and with very high eligibility requirements, which would introduce the lorica segmentata for praetorian cohorts only (since the main use of the armor during the Pax Romana would be to look nice and shiny on parade.)

So lorica segmentata would become a reward for a successful Roman campaign.

considering that the team even thought of dumping the imerial reform(tho i assume they sorted that by now and are not argueing anymore) in EB2 because it's acchived too late and seldom the chances of that happening are VERY slim. tho personally I'd be ok with some of the legionaries wearing it by chance(as M2TW gives this option) but not a whole regiment full of LS legions.
tho one could make a unofficial submod :)

Ludens, what I think annoys many here is that people bump in here with a bunch of lukewarm facts and claim that they know more than the EB-Team or the community(as it apparently has not pointed that out before. And most importantly they don't go into an existing thread and argue with the others or they first read existing threads, they open up a new thread and claim their ideas are absolute and that it has to be changed, not a suggestion, a demand. at least that is waht angers me every time I read one of these posts. As I'm not part of the EB team I'm not as enraged as when it'd be MY mod/share of the research.
from a mod I worked on I remember people always comeing up with how wrong my ancient greek would be as I write Oxybeles instead of Oxyvelis and so on. or that my research was not conform with the discriptions from Age of Empires: Mythologies(the DS tough version).
so rant over^^

*deep exhale* :disappointed:

Come on everyone give the guy a break, most of us would have thought the same things at some point in the past.

@TotalWarlord: Please don't use "gay" as a swearword, it is a pretty offensive use of the word.

When it comes to the hoplites, I didn't. My first idea of what hoplites looked like was from a cartoon by Marcia Williams which I got as a present when I must've been about 8 years old or so. The original English version is "The Illiad and The Odyssey" (the Dutch translation is "De Trojaanse oorlog en De reizen van Odysseus").

You must admit tough that it is really peculiar that a first post from someone is about such a topic... It's really very wierd isn't it?

As for lorica segementa, that is innaccurate. However, underhand hoplite spears is a topic of some interest of mine. However, I am busy right now and am unable to post.

I propose the team counts the LS threads: if they reach one hundred the end date will be switched to 146BC, when all interesting factions ends existing in history :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

You must admit tough that it is really peculiar that a first post from someone is about such a topic... It's really very wierd isn't it?

---

right, they made an account solely to discuss the innacuracy of EB. In that much effort he could have read the FAQ

Quote:

---

oh my lord you don't know what you just started!!!!

---

This :P

1-The way they fight is hardcoded, the spears issue is not. Overhand fighting is the most probable way hoplites fought.
2-The LATE 1st century, a part of the game represented by about 20 turns out of around 2000...not important. Not even considering the fact that the Lorica Segmentata took years to be common in the armies and even then it wasn't enough to be an entire unit.

1144 Turns actually.

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Could we please stop treating anyone who brings up a controversial topic as a potential troll? This is a good way of ensuring the topic stays controversial.

TotalWarlord's arguments have indeed been hotly debated before, but that is because many people have heard only one side of the story. So yes, it's quite possible that a new member is not aware of this, especially if he didn't check out the FAQ. Shouting "OMG, how can you not know?!" at him will not convince him you are right.



Just a few nitpicks:

1) It probably wasn't as absolute as this: both high and low styles are feasible with sarissa's and dory's, depending on what the situation requires. Swiss pikemen had a stance where they held their pikes at shoulder height (the phalangite shield useless in this stance, so Hellenic pikemen probably didn't use this). Underhand spear-fighting can make sense for hoplites too, say in one-on-one combat. The team went with overhand style since this is used on most Classical depictions, and seems suited to shield-wall combat.

2) Elements of a Lorica Segmentata have been dated to 10 BC, and this probably does not represent the first use of this armour. However, the team is of the opinion that it did not become widespread until 50 AD, and even at its most popular, many legionaries would still use chainmail.

---

It is hard to take a 1 post person seriously especially if they don't respond in some way afterwards. Also the post gets more outlandish as it goes. :\ Inform him however you must though.

I apologize to everyone that has been offended by this post. I had no intentions in anyway whatsoever to insult or mar the credibility of the EB Team as they made a very good job. All I can say is:
The EB team was right about the overhand method. However it also depended on the length of the spear the hoplite was equiped. Certainly a longer spear would be difficult to strike in the overhand fashion.

Well antisocialmunky I have been reading the responses from everyone who made a reply and was taking into perspective each ones opinion.

hey totalwarlord, thank you for replying! just imagine from our perspective that someone's very first post was were the two very, very controversial topics.

fomalhaut I'm very sorry for the fact that these topics were very controversial for as you see I am very quite new here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TotalWarlord

fomalhaut I'm very sorry for the fact that these topics were very controversial for as you see I am very quite new here.

---

And your very welcome!

Btw, do you know what the Occultus faction represents, we don't have a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TotalWarlord

fomalhaut I'm very sorry for the fact that these topics were very controversial for as you see I am very quite new here.

---

Its okay, i was quite confused when i started playing EB, but the over-hand under-hand thing IMHO is a question of where the hoplite is from, for example: the Syracusian hoplites fought in loose formations and that favours the underhand thrust where the interlocked "shieldwall" of main greece favours the overhand

just calm down and take your seat :grin:

I came, I saw, I lol'ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I came, I saw, I lol'ed

---

I just stopped reading after seeing lorica......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atraphoenix

I just stopped reading after seeing lorica......

---

Well, it could've been Lorica Hamata :)))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atraphoenix

I just stopped reading after seeing lorica......

---

I stopped when it said "vanilla was right on this one".

~Jirisys ()

Yes, it's been made sufficiently clear that the OP did not make a good impression. Can we move on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

Ludens, what I think annoys many here is that people bump in here with a bunch of lukewarm facts and claim that they know more than the EB-Team or the community(as it apparently has not pointed that out before. And most importantly they don't go into an existing thread and argue with the others or they first read existing threads, they open up a new thread and claim their ideas are absolute and that it has to be changed, not a suggestion, a demand. at least that is waht angers me every time I read one of these posts. As I'm not part of the EB team I'm not as enraged as when it'd be MY mod/share of the research.
from a mod I worked on I remember people always comeing up with how wrong my ancient greek would be as I write Oxybeles instead of Oxyvelis and so on. or that my research was not conform with the discriptions from Age of Empires: Mythologies(the DS tough version).

---

Understood, and I agree. But what Bobbin says is true as well. We all start with misconceptions about history, and because we know so little about it we assume them to be solid truth. Of course, if you're not familiar with a topic, it's best to ask rather than assume you know better. But it's a quirk of human nature that the less we know, the more we think we know. Check out the Dunning–Kruger effect for the extreme version of this.

I agree on that, but so many people just ignoring sticked posts is soooooooo annoying...

it's due to the large number of stickied posts, reducing the value of each one. one or two sticked posts would make each much more important and much less to read, rather than 1/4 the page like we have here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

But it's a quirk of human nature that the less we know, the more we think we know. Check out the Dunning–Kruger effect for the extreme version of this.

---

Heh heh... I have that!

~Jirisys ()

then you must be american ^_^

ha, thanks ludens! I'll going to use word a lot :)))))))

and yes I do agree with bobbin aswell :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

then you must be american ^_^

---

No, I'm just smawt.

~Jirisys ()

I believe overhand thrust makes more sense in an interlocked shieldwall formation, which is more prevalent in Hellenic world, but then I'm not so sure how to explain the fact that most wounds suffered in hoplite battles were in the thighs which I read in quite a few books. I mean, how could you strike at the other guy's thighs which are under his aspis with your spear-hand above your own aspis?

explained easily; what's the best place to make sure someone who is running away (with all their fancy equipment to take for yourself) can't get back up? stab them in the leg.

most casualities took place during the rout, and the thigh is a big juicy target for ending someones combat effectiveness and their ability to keep running away.

well i´m a big defender of push them make them fall and them trample them and since they had a helmet and a shield to protect their body ... as someone stated there´s plenty of evidences of many shields with marks resembling the counterbalance part of a spear meaning they got rustled down and then beaten up nicely phalanx style

Admittedly, when you pursuit some one in full flight, it's only natural to stab him in the thigh, especially if he happens to wear a bronze cuirass. But then the wound would be in the back of the thighs, while I'm under the impression that many wounds were in the front of the thighs, inflicted in toe-to-toe combat. I could be wrong, as I can't check it since I don't have any book by hand. But there's one instance I'm fairly certain, that Archidamos, the Spartan king, was seriously wounded in one thigh ( in fact that thigh got run through by a spear ), while he was receiving a furious charge of the Arcadians in the first rank of Spartan phalanx. Perhaps this suggests that in a charge the phalanx would employ a looser formation and charge with their spears holding at waist level, I imagine it would be easier to keep your balance while running and generate more momentum this way, maybe some reenactors have tested it?

I've read an explanation saying that because the kings fought on the right of the phalanx, he could have been on the edge of the phalanx and therefore not had any cover to one half of his body, thus allowing someone a clear shot at his leg.
I'm not entirely convinced by it I'd have to say though.

To be honest I've never heard of thigh wounds being the most common injury, but I imagine people receiving them wouldn't be a sign of a certain fighting style, it's more likely the result of the phalanx being disrupted and someone getting a lucky shot past the shields, it's not like the phalanx was always preformed completely flawlessly.

Well in a reading all comments in this thread I have concluded that:

1. In times of battle a Spartan was fighting an enemy, mostly almost as eager to end his life that he cared little about wether he was striking above or below his shield. In close combat however a spear was at a disadvantage due to its immobility, years of training would have probably taught the Spartan to draw a sword.

2. Though I was right in the fact that the lorica segmentata was indeed in the time zone of Europa Barbarorum. It is true that it is pointless to make an entire unit that spans only 30 to 40 years. Also the fact that it wasn't the main armor for legionaires in this time period.

Thanks to the people who enlightened me.

K guys lets not try to troll this person again.

EB isn't historical because the Spartan's didn't break phalanx to do slow motion killing sprees. Sorry just watched that film last night ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

EB isn't historical because the Spartan's didn't break phalanx to do slow motion killing sprees. Sorry just watched that film last night ^_^

---

Zack Snyder's hunky depiction of the 300 Spartans?

Yes and it's laughable innacuracies and offensive aspects have been discussed to death, but the film really does have some great great visuals and editing. the talk about Spartan's defending freedom, logic and democracy was kind of funny though. oh and the whole focus of the phalanx as a single unit without a weak spot being the basis of excluding the invalid never held any weight! since they never formed a phalanx in the first place. oh well :P

its still just a fun movie about die ubermensch defending the white race from the oppressive homosexuals, blacks, asians and arabs. Going so far so to literally have the Immortals as soulless monsters hahaha ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

its still just a fun movie about die ubermensch defending the white race from the oppressive homosexuals, blacks, asians and arabs. Going so far so to literally have the Immortals as soulless monsters hahaha ^_^

---

That's an uhm... interesting interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

That's an uhm... interesting interpretation.

---

i'd say that one holds the most weight out of any that could be. Miller is widely accepted to be a racist. watch the film or read the novel again and that's literally what it is; perfect white men against-

Xerxe's, a very effiminite, piercing filled man. implied to be homosexual or at least bisexual
Immortals - Asian monster men
Arabs, Blacks and Asians are throwaway bad guys, probably slaves. There are no white or mediteranean people in this army. Surely the large levys from Asia Minor would involve many 'white' men, Frank surely knew this, yet instead portrayed this evil empire of slaves as one purely of color run by a gay man of color.

also, Athenians are insulted as "philosophers" so a tinge of anti intellectualism is revealed

and how do the ubermensch finally fail their valiant stand against other races? the invalid reveals the goat path


there is a reason this movie fell in so well with white males 16-25 in my region (SW U.S.A.), because it reinforced, even subconsciously, racial identity of whites during a time when illegal immigration was THE issue and white identity felt very threatened.

@formalhaut

The movie is just meant as an action movie, it really surprises me how many people find messages in things like these. The message, as Leonidas in the movie states, is about the portrayal of few against many. Free people versus the oppressors. People who come to this movie want to see people kill each other. They want excitement and entertainment.

The average person who watched this gave NOTHING about the portrayal and representation about the various ethnicities from the vast empire. They want to see their stereotypical views battle each other. A Spartan is a white man with a beard, a Persian is a Persian (and some compare a Persian to an Arab in their view). Going on with stereotypes, calling the Athenians philosophers is not an assault on intellectualism it is simply stereotypical name-calling at what the place is known for. Which has been common and still is so until this day. Arabs have beards, French are snail and baguette eating Beret wearing moustachemen. Russians are drunk on vodka. I certainly don't try to offend people, it is just an example of raw stereotypes worldwide.

We have to make a second Godwin law by the way. Every discussion about historical correctness will spin down into a debate how bad 300 portrayed ancient persia.

~Fluvius

formalhaut's criticisms are more applicable to the comic as the film is basically just a frame for frame copy, but he is right about one thing, Frank Miller is well known for having "issues", particularly with Muslims and women.

But this talk isn't really for this thread or even the EB forums, discuss it somewhere else or over PM's please.

I almost choked in my drink, reading the OP. Thought he was actually joking, as it's the 2 subjects I've seen discussed here the most xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

formalhaut's criticisms are more applicable to the comic as the film is basically just a frame for frame copy, but he is right about one thing, Frank Miller is well known for having "issues", particularly with Muslims and women.

---

Persians != Muslims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

it's just an action movie

---

ill follow what bobbin says on this having no place here, but i would like to just reply to this; that analysis is too simplistic to a fault. The general idea of the film is one versus many, but who the "one" are and who the "many" are change depending on the cultural time and place.

The perfect example is, well, the other rendition of the 300 Spartans; Rather than racial, this film, filmed during the Cold War, was political. This used the legend of the 300 as a metaphor between communism and the free market/democracy.

Not to sound facetious or condescending, but rarely is a work of media simple as you say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

@formalhaut

The movie is just meant as an action movie, it really surprises me how many people find messages in things like these. The message, as Leonidas in the movie states, is about the portrayal of few against many. Free people versus the oppressors. People who come to this movie want to see people kill each other. They want excitement and entertainment.

The average person who watched this gave NOTHING about the portrayal and representation about the various ethnicities from the vast empire. They want to see their stereotypical views battle each other. A Spartan is a white man with a beard, a Persian is a Persian (and some compare a Persian to an Arab in their view). Going on with stereotypes, calling the Athenians philosophers is not an assault on intellectualism it is simply stereotypical name-calling at what the place is known for. Which has been common and still is so until this day. Arabs have beards, French are snail and baguette eating Beret wearing moustachemen. Russians are drunk on vodka. I certainly don't try to offend people, it is just an example of raw stereotypes worldwide.

We have to make a second Godwin law by the way. Every discussion about historical correctness will spin down into a debate how bad 300 portrayed ancient persia.

~Fluvius

---

Fluvius, i can't say how AGREE am i with you! it is ridiculous. it's the same in books, in movies. people tend to analyse them so deeply that they find second layer even third layer to the dialog and analyses "subliminious messages" so deep that the author himself didn't even tought about them :))))) And then the public "decide" what the author (or realisator) wanted to say! without even asking themself if maybe the realisator did put uberpowerful men just for the sake of... having awesome spartans, as the legend tell. Now. the spartans are white people (oh no... again an american propaganda because they're white actors) not to offence anyone, they probably should have depicted the spartans as african-american, and the persians aswhites.

one other subject : ASTERIX... A big serie about racism against the whole italian race... how about finding other secret meanings in those cartoon too? :)))

Yeah amazing how the mind can rationalize so many things...
Take art tought in schools, is almost turned into a mathematical equation...

Well that is only right. You can't understand classical art without appreciating Mathematics.

That's right, but it doesn't end there with metric and such...
I meant is not like you can take A and B, and everyone makes a wonder...

Cool, he has a pulse :)

Hey, don't worry about stupid questions or anything. The EB guys are very nice. Its just strange to see such strange questions in a first post especially when there are 2-3 Over/Underhand threads floating around currently.

Well, I suppose we haven't filled our LS thread of the month quota for a while so its nice to have a not-a-troll one when we do get a LS thread.

hopefully until then, you stay with the community!
i like to be able to discuss these topics with other enthusiasts, the only others i could hope to do so would be my classics and humanities professors.

question; have any of you shown EB to historians or enthusiasts? what did they say? were they happy to see the most accurate depiction of ancient political, economic and military conditions of the classical era yet seen in entertainment media?

or to members of the team, did the super experts brought from the outside for specific input happy to hear what your project was?

Whether or not the thread initiator is a so-called "troll," what I find isn't talked about (much at all) on the EB sub-forum is the simple and wide-spread xenophobia (for lack of a better term) of the greater EB forum community, the virtual lack of patience amongst the users for those not well-acquainted with EB and all things related. This phobia isn't universal but it is very real and it is very contagious (again, for lack of a better term) because it has become hegemonic in its hold over well-rooted members of this community. Some self-reflection is in order; I'm sure the Org has no need for negative trends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well that is only right. You can't understand classical art without appreciating Mathematics.

---

I'm an opera signer and an actor, I write loads of poetry, some even selling... and I hate mathematics ;-) Golden number... it's only a number after all, no matter how many building, painting and poetry have been created following it's property. Art is evolutive and we must unlearn, transfore in order to appreciate it's "almost" infinite extent. I say almost, because as a lover of classical art, i say all must have limits

Opera singer? Well than you must known that music is pure maths as well. Even pythargoras knew that already. Well maths and theft that is.

To me everything is math in its form...
I don't know if I managed to explain what I meant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Opera singer? Well than you must known that music is pure maths as well. Even pythargoras knew that already. Well maths and theft that is.

---

we can see you're no signer! somebody taking music as pure mathematic can be right, but not artistic! The Intentions come first hand. An example of pure mathematics in music would be modern music. Now THAT'S only maths. With the comming of dodecaphonism, serialism. the music have been degradated don to simple mathematics, while it's much more than that. mozart for example. Everything seems ordinate, clean, very mathematic in fact. Well take a score, and analyse it, for the fun of it! Nothing's equal! inspiration drove him first, and natural gift of corse, but for one, he told himself no calculation was involved, in his own composition! Now, it would be funny that somebody TODAY came and argue what hi himself told about his own work! I named mozart because he's the most known, but there are many MANY more!

*By the "you're no signer" I ment no offence!*

Duguntz, no worries. The mathematization of many fields has been a topic of heated debate, and even today we see work done to fight what many deem to be nonsense. My philosopher friend is one of several folk I know writing papers arguing against the process. For the most part, mathematization was an early 20th cent. phenomenon, as I am aware. But like with all things, it takes longer to be debunked in public than in academia (gap can be upwards of half a century).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

oh my lord you don't know what you just started!!!! you just mentioned lorica segmentata as something in widespread use and contested that overhand spear thrusts were not used by hoplites, even calling them gay freaks!

and i think you have a misconception between the phalangites and the hoplite phalanx, one is a shield wall the other is a spear wall. the overhand/underhand spear thrust has been debated ad nauseum, with overhand always coming out on top. It's in my opinion that both were used whenever the tactical situation presented the needed for either/or but overhand was more dominant.

if you are going to even try and contest these assertions then you are going to need some sources, lots of them. i don't even think anyone from EB itself will come in here to assault you with writing and excerpts

---

Hahahahaha!
Blatterin' trollz aheaz!
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Opera singer? Well than you must known that music is pure maths as well. Even pythargoras knew that already. Well maths and theft that is.

---

That gives off the implication that music is easy to model when infact its incredibly complex. Just because you have some sort of descriptive model doesn't imply you have a good generative model. Its like saying archeology is just a bunch of digging or modding is just purely typing in some edu files.:p Well, I dunno if that was your intent but that's how it came across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duguntz

we can see you're no signer! somebody taking music as pure mathematic can be right, but not artistic! The Intentions come first hand. An example of pure mathematics in music would be modern music. Now THAT'S only maths. With the comming of dodecaphonism, serialism. the music have been degradated don to simple mathematics, while it's much more than that. mozart for example. Everything seems ordinate, clean, very mathematic in fact. Well take a score, and analyse it, for the fun of it! Nothing's equal! inspiration drove him first, and natural gift of corse, but for one, he told himself no calculation was involved, in his own composition! Now, it would be funny that somebody TODAY came and argue what hi himself told about his own work! I named mozart because he's the most known, but there are many MANY more!

*By the "you're no signer" I ment no offence!*

---

That is where the stealing and substance abuse come in. ~;) More seriously though, music in particular lends itself very well to study in terms of Mathematics and for much of Western history that is more or less how music was studied (Pythagoras being merely a particular famous example).

Anyway for a bit of OT fun: http://pierement.zoo.cs.uu.nl/muugle/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Whether or not the thread initiator is a so-called "troll," what I find isn't talked about (much at all) on the EB sub-forum is the simple and wide-spread xenophobia (for lack of a better term) of the greater EB forum community, the virtual lack of patience amongst the users for those not well-acquainted with EB and all things related. This phobia isn't universal but it is very real and it is very contagious (again, for lack of a better term) because it has become hegemonic in its hold over well-rooted members of this community. Some self-reflection is in order; I'm sure the Org has no need for negative trends.

---

I don't really have anything to say other than: I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Whether or not the thread initiator is a so-called "troll," what I find isn't talked about (much at all) on the EB sub-forum is the simple and wide-spread xenophobia (for lack of a better term) of the greater EB forum community, the virtual lack of patience amongst the users for those not well-acquainted with EB and all things related. This phobia isn't universal but it is very real and it is very contagious (again, for lack of a better term) because it has become hegemonic in its hold over well-rooted members of this community. Some self-reflection is in order; I'm sure the Org has no need for negative trends.

---

I can agree with that, although I think in some cases the hostility isn't because the new member isn't familiar with EB, but because they frequently try to dictate history and find fault with EB based on what they heard in a high school history class or read on the internet. Also, the presumption of coming in as a complete novice and trying to tell the community that they're wrong is kind of insulting. If they're going to critique EB, they should at least do some reading - both on the EB forum to try to understand the rationale of the changes, and in libraries to make sure they have their facts straight. -M

exactly, it's just not o.k. to make such contentions claiming a piece of historical work is 'not historical' based on the evidence of nothing. i doubt there is some EB-phobia or something, its just some basic etiquette is assumed.

I don't put EB on a pedestal but i respect it dearly, and if i were to ever come across reading that contradicted something in EB, i would make a discussion thread based on the reading, a link or at least citing the source if its printed, and have a discussion. Not "I RED DIS IN A BUK AND UR RONG"

Can we just drop it now please? Or I'm going to lock the thread.