Org Mobile Site
Thread: "Ancient Warfare" in Wikipedia
Originally Posted by Wikipedia:
In the case that the general's advantage was more slight, he might try to rout the enemy, as fleeing troops are far less organized and easier to kill than their steadfast brethren. This can be accomplished by attacking the weak troops (skirmishers) of the enemy with strong infantry, slaughtering many of them, and thus causing them to rout. Once one unit sees another unit routing, it is much more inclined to flee in the panic. An even greater achievement would be to break the will of the enemy general himself, (or kill him) causing him and his bodyguard to flee, leaving his army with little choice but to follow suit. This tactic attempts to start the domino effect, resulting in the entire opposing force fleeing the field of battle. Once the entire opposing force had been routed, it was not uncommon to use cavalry to destroy as much of the routing force as possible, weakening the enemy further.
Why do I get the feeling that the guy who wrote this plays RTW? :PIn the case that the general's advantage was more slight, he might try to rout the enemy, as fleeing troops are far less organized and easier to kill than their steadfast brethren. This can be accomplished by attacking the weak troops (skirmishers) of the enemy with strong infantry, slaughtering many of them, and thus causing them to rout. Once one unit sees another unit routing, it is much more inclined to flee in the panic. An even greater achievement would be to break the will of the enemy general himself, (or kill him) causing him and his bodyguard to flee, leaving his army with little choice but to follow suit. This tactic attempts to start the domino effect, resulting in the entire opposing force fleeing the field of battle. Once the entire opposing force had been routed, it was not uncommon to use cavalry to destroy as much of the routing force as possible, weakening the enemy further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare
Heh, I got that feeling too. Would mind providing the link to the article?
That's just stupid.
that TOTALLY looks like some amateur put in RTW as if it meant anything besides childish nonsense, which is SAD... the whole point of skirmishers is trying to get the enemy to attack them... WTF!? 
'oh no guys, our meat shields got attacked!' - 'now our most expendible / poorly equipped troops are gone - RUN!'
Seriously, tactics? what a joke! there is no tactical information involved in that description... makes me really sad for Wikipedia.
Even Caesar VS Pompey at Pharsalus had the whole factor of large horses plowing into ones' troops chaotically... it's really not the same as rabble running by... See Battle of the Bulge and the fleeing US forces who pass by the Airborne troops who hold fast and bravely, despite a potential 'domino effect' (which by the way, has NOTHING to do with 'ancient' warfare more than ANY other. if anything, 'ancients' were more accustomed to such than modern day people who run easier!).
'oh no guys, our meat shields got attacked!' - 'now our most expendible / poorly equipped troops are gone - RUN!'Seriously, tactics? what a joke! there is no tactical information involved in that description... makes me really sad for Wikipedia.
Even Caesar VS Pompey at Pharsalus had the whole factor of large horses plowing into ones' troops chaotically... it's really not the same as rabble running by... See Battle of the Bulge and the fleeing US forces who pass by the Airborne troops who hold fast and bravely, despite a potential 'domino effect' (which by the way, has NOTHING to do with 'ancient' warfare more than ANY other. if anything, 'ancients' were more accustomed to such than modern day people who run easier!).
People just gotta stop thinking of ancient warfare in terms of some computer games; that' not right. I have noticed such incidents of "RTW-ism" when talking to a couple of RTW fans in my school as well. I managed to persuade one into downloading EB, but he simply extended his "RTW-ism" onto EB and tried to explain warfare once again (in one of our debates), but this time in EB terms. 
. He's a KH fan, and for all I know, he could be on these forums right now! 
EDIT: Someone would check the history tab of the article. There, one can find the nutjob who wrote that paragraph! I am already on it, BTW.
. He's a KH fan, and for all I know, he could be on these forums right now! EDIT: Someone would check the history tab of the article. There, one can find the nutjob who wrote that paragraph! I am already on it, BTW.
it seems that weird paragraph was added in 4 years ago in October 04 by some unregistered user
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...&oldid=6538456
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...&oldid=6538456
The idiot didn't even cite anything! O tempora, O mores!!! 
Originally Posted by Methuselah:
The idiot didn't even cite anything! O tempora, O mores!!!
The idiot didn't even cite anything! O tempora, O mores!!!
But morals? Is it amoral to not cite in Wikipedia? Especially when half of the citations are crap made just to legitimize original research?
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus:
But morals? Is it amoral to not cite in Wikipedia? Especially when half of the citations are crap made just to legitimize original research?
You've got quite a point there. Today, everybody is immoral. Except for me, of course. But morals? Is it amoral to not cite in Wikipedia? Especially when half of the citations are crap made just to legitimize original research?
Is it just me, or right when Methuselah logged on, 
began?
began?Until your previous post, everyone was on-topic: the incompetence of those particular idiots who sometimes edit Wikipedia... 
Holy crap. At least he didn't explain ancient warfare with Age of Empires-terms. Still this article is absolutely RTW-ish and even though I'm anything but an expert about ancient warfare and therefore can't judge the authenticity of its content, I can say I have a strange feeling when reading it.
Originally Posted by PriestLizard:
Holy crap. At least he didn't explain ancient warfare with Age of Empires-terms.
"The principles of ancient warfare was to gather enough gold and food so the faction could advance to the next age"Holy crap. At least he didn't explain ancient warfare with Age of Empires-terms.
Originally Posted by Jaertecken:
"The principles of ancient warfare was to gather enough gold and food so the faction could advance to the next age"
Hah!"The principles of ancient warfare was to gather enough gold and food so the faction could advance to the next age"
This article is the single stupidest-but funniest- thing I have ever encountered on the internet that attempts to take itself seriously. Assuming the guy who wrote it wasn't laughing his ass off as he wrote it...
I'm surprised he didn't say that elephants were invincible behemoths and cataphracts wore purple...
I'm surprised he didn't say that elephants were invincible behemoths and cataphracts wore purple...
Originally Posted by Zradha Pahlavan:
This article is the single stupidest-but funniest- thing I have ever encountered on the internet that attempts to take itself seriously. Assuming the guy who wrote it wasn't laughing his ass off as he wrote it...
I'm surprised he didn't say that elephants were invincible behemoths and cataphracts wore purple...
interesting idear.This article is the single stupidest-but funniest- thing I have ever encountered on the internet that attempts to take itself seriously. Assuming the guy who wrote it wasn't laughing his ass off as he wrote it...
I'm surprised he didn't say that elephants were invincible behemoths and cataphracts wore purple...
well, I'd have to agree, this article is darn stupid.
This guy should be locked up (who wrote this)! he don't even know the difference between real life and a computer game!
These "historians" make me go and 
and 
and 
Skullheadhq
These "historians" make me go
and and and Skullheadhq
I've seen historical articles on Wikipedia before where the author has obviously based their research on RTW. I was pointed at one on German Wikipedia where someone had even copied some unit names from EB! These articles don't last long.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_Cavalry
Originally Posted by Wikipedia:
The Sacred Band Cavalry are trained from birth to be a superb heavy cavalry force. Their superbly bred Iberian horses are barded with fine lacquered lamellar and are trained by the finest Iberian horse trainers. The men themselves are picked at birth from noble families to serve the priesthood of Astarte and are trained from the outset as horsemen. Their training and discipline is such that they could be included among the world’s finest heavy cavalry. Armed with finely forged lances and falcate swords they are nearly irresistible in the charge and versatile in melee, though not so versatile as the heavy Iberian cavalry. They usually do not use the shield in mounted combat, preferring to sling it over the shoulder and use both hands to manipulate their fearsome lance.
Even better. But I guess it's still an improvement; about a year ago I remember it being directly taken from the Vanilla RTW unit description!The Sacred Band Cavalry are trained from birth to be a superb heavy cavalry force. Their superbly bred Iberian horses are barded with fine lacquered lamellar and are trained by the finest Iberian horse trainers. The men themselves are picked at birth from noble families to serve the priesthood of Astarte and are trained from the outset as horsemen. Their training and discipline is such that they could be included among the world’s finest heavy cavalry. Armed with finely forged lances and falcate swords they are nearly irresistible in the charge and versatile in melee, though not so versatile as the heavy Iberian cavalry. They usually do not use the shield in mounted combat, preferring to sling it over the shoulder and use both hands to manipulate their fearsome lance.
Well I took the liberty of deleting the offending material (and yes I also spotted the purple cataphracts someone here inserted). The great thing about wikipedia is anyone can edit it and that means YOU! *points through the monitor*
So now that we have all basked in the glory of how wonderfully enlightened we all are on this subject, and how foolish others may be, I got to ask why not take the time to correct it? As the adage goes it's always easier to tear down bridges than build them up. Yes we can all spot where wikipedia got it wrong, but can we be part of the solution.
So now that we have all basked in the glory of how wonderfully enlightened we all are on this subject, and how foolish others may be, I got to ask why not take the time to correct it? As the adage goes it's always easier to tear down bridges than build them up. Yes we can all spot where wikipedia got it wrong, but can we be part of the solution.
Originally Posted by Sir Edward:
Well I took the liberty of deleting the offending material (and yes I also spotted the purple cataphracts someone here inserted).
No way. And here I was just being sarcastic...Well I took the liberty of deleting the offending material (and yes I also spotted the purple cataphracts someone here inserted).
It's a bizarre little world.
well someone out there must likes the way you think
Originally Posted by Sir Edward:
Well I took the liberty of deleting the offending material (and yes I also spotted the purple cataphracts someone here inserted). The great thing about wikipedia is anyone can edit it and that means YOU! *points through the monitor*
So now that we have all basked in the glory of how wonderfully enlightened we all are on this subject, and how foolish others may be, I got to ask why not take the time to correct it? As the adage goes it's always easier to tear down bridges than build them up. Yes we can all spot where wikipedia got it wrong, but can we be part of the solution.
About the puple part of the article: Well I took the liberty of deleting the offending material (and yes I also spotted the purple cataphracts someone here inserted). The great thing about wikipedia is anyone can edit it and that means YOU! *points through the monitor*
So now that we have all basked in the glory of how wonderfully enlightened we all are on this subject, and how foolish others may be, I got to ask why not take the time to correct it? As the adage goes it's always easier to tear down bridges than build them up. Yes we can all spot where wikipedia got it wrong, but can we be part of the solution.
-that was priceless..as for the rest: I'd have to agree. we must, as enlightened folk, better Wikipedia's articles of ancient warfare (and seeing that I have knowlege on late antiquity, perhaps that too). So, Who wants to do what? we might have to cover a lot if we want to improve the articles.
The talk page of the person who wrote the Sacred Band entry reveals that they also seem to have done the same thing with Balearic Slingers...
Unbelievable. He didn't even cite EB as his source. It was probably some elementary schoolboy who has never wrote a proper essay before......... OMG, THAT'S PLAGIARISM!!!
Originally Posted by Ibrahim:
So, Who wants to do what? we might have to cover a lot if we want to improve the articles.
I will start with editing the infantry section, the fact that there is a paragraph about cavalry in the section really makes me wonder.So, Who wants to do what? we might have to cover a lot if we want to improve the articles.
Sorry guys, but this paragraph is not stupid or absurd. It is not the best piece of info either. But MOSTLY it is accurate. And it has very little to do with RTW. I will point to some examples, I bet you can find much more of them ...
{In the case that the general's advantage was more slight, he might try to rout the enemy, as fleeing troops are far less organized and easier to kill than their steadfast brethren. This can be accomplished by attacking the weak troops (skirmishers) of the enemy with strong infantry, slaughtering many of them, and thus causing them to rout*. Once one unit sees another unit routing, it is much more inclined to flee in the panic. An even greater achievement would be to break the will of the enemy general himself, (or kill him) causing him and his bodyguard to flee**, leaving his army with little choice but to follow suit. This tactic attempts to start the domino effect, resulting in the entire opposing force fleeing the field of battle. Once the entire opposing force had been routed, it was not uncommon to use cavalry to destroy as much of the routing force as possible, weakening the enemy further.}
* This happened in battle at Raphia 217BC. Yes, situation was not typical, as Antiochos III placed skirmishers and light infantry in the main battle line because he had too few phalanx troops. But rout of those light soldiers caused mass rout of Seleukid army, including elite Argyraspides.
**
1) whole army of Achemenid pretender Cyrrus disintegrated when he died. Only contingent to survive were 10000 Greek mercenaries who were able to keep formation and return home.
2) Death of Pyrrus in Argos made his army disintegrate.
3) Death of Epaminondas at Mantineia turned battle that would be decisive victory for Beotians into a draw.
Actually if I had a bit more time, I'd simply place in this paragraph quotes from Onesander's "The General" - ancient text dealing with skills needed to effectively command an army.
Domino effect/mass rout is one of the most important aspects of ancient warfare, and in this point RTW was actually quite realistic. The problem lies in AI, that was not able to keep even the most basic formations and react at least somehow close to common sense. This made battle too easy for human player, who knows the basics, and knows how to use brain instead of predefined actions.
I had seen somebody already removed this paragraph. Would you place new one based on your experience from playing EB?
In fact both RTW and mods are not much more realistic than chess game. Mods have much better figures in realistic shapes and colours, but the rules are still not much better.
One of the important things showing this fact is poor quality of horse javeliners in game. Polibius claim that Aetolians, using such cav were the best horsemen in Greece, better than Thessalians, who, according to him, fight well only in major battles and are useless in "all other cavalry operations". In fact 50 well trained Sicilian horse javeliners were able to occupy 7000 men strong Beotian army (including few hundred cavalry) for the whole day. Without losses.
If you like to read about ancient tactics, I suggest a book "The Second Punic War. A Reappraisal", Cornell T., Rankov B., Sabin P., London, 1996.
{In the case that the general's advantage was more slight, he might try to rout the enemy, as fleeing troops are far less organized and easier to kill than their steadfast brethren. This can be accomplished by attacking the weak troops (skirmishers) of the enemy with strong infantry, slaughtering many of them, and thus causing them to rout*. Once one unit sees another unit routing, it is much more inclined to flee in the panic. An even greater achievement would be to break the will of the enemy general himself, (or kill him) causing him and his bodyguard to flee**, leaving his army with little choice but to follow suit. This tactic attempts to start the domino effect, resulting in the entire opposing force fleeing the field of battle. Once the entire opposing force had been routed, it was not uncommon to use cavalry to destroy as much of the routing force as possible, weakening the enemy further.}
* This happened in battle at Raphia 217BC. Yes, situation was not typical, as Antiochos III placed skirmishers and light infantry in the main battle line because he had too few phalanx troops. But rout of those light soldiers caused mass rout of Seleukid army, including elite Argyraspides.
**
1) whole army of Achemenid pretender Cyrrus disintegrated when he died. Only contingent to survive were 10000 Greek mercenaries who were able to keep formation and return home.
2) Death of Pyrrus in Argos made his army disintegrate.
3) Death of Epaminondas at Mantineia turned battle that would be decisive victory for Beotians into a draw.
Actually if I had a bit more time, I'd simply place in this paragraph quotes from Onesander's "The General" - ancient text dealing with skills needed to effectively command an army.
Domino effect/mass rout is one of the most important aspects of ancient warfare, and in this point RTW was actually quite realistic. The problem lies in AI, that was not able to keep even the most basic formations and react at least somehow close to common sense. This made battle too easy for human player, who knows the basics, and knows how to use brain instead of predefined actions.
I had seen somebody already removed this paragraph. Would you place new one based on your experience from playing EB?
In fact both RTW and mods are not much more realistic than chess game. Mods have much better figures in realistic shapes and colours, but the rules are still not much better.
One of the important things showing this fact is poor quality of horse javeliners in game. Polibius claim that Aetolians, using such cav were the best horsemen in Greece, better than Thessalians, who, according to him, fight well only in major battles and are useless in "all other cavalry operations". In fact 50 well trained Sicilian horse javeliners were able to occupy 7000 men strong Beotian army (including few hundred cavalry) for the whole day. Without losses.
If you like to read about ancient tactics, I suggest a book "The Second Punic War. A Reappraisal", Cornell T., Rankov B., Sabin P., London, 1996.
I have a hard time believing that 50 cavalry of any kind held off that many.
I can believe that only 300 spartans held at thermoplyae (yes i know it was more than just 300 spartans obviously, but i could believe it was only them) because the terrain favoured them so much.
50 cavalry vs 7000 men and a couple hundred cavalry? not a chance, dont care what sources say so.
Maybe 700 vs 50 cavalry....
There's just too many, eventually the bodies would pile up and the horses would become totally exhausted.
Not to mention that many men, they'd eventually bog down the cavalry within a few hours (thats bloody generous) and the horses would have nowhere to run. the riders would be pulled off the horses and killed.
I can believe that only 300 spartans held at thermoplyae (yes i know it was more than just 300 spartans obviously, but i could believe it was only them) because the terrain favoured them so much.
50 cavalry vs 7000 men and a couple hundred cavalry? not a chance, dont care what sources say so.
Maybe 700 vs 50 cavalry....
There's just too many, eventually the bodies would pile up and the horses would become totally exhausted.
Not to mention that many men, they'd eventually bog down the cavalry within a few hours (thats bloody generous) and the horses would have nowhere to run. the riders would be pulled off the horses and killed.
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS:
In fact 50 well trained Sicilian horse javeliners were able to occupy 7000 men strong Beotian army (including few hundred cavalry) for the whole day. Without losses.
Well maybe they are from the DMV and the other hundreds of cavs had to regristrate their mounts.In fact 50 well trained Sicilian horse javeliners were able to occupy 7000 men strong Beotian army (including few hundred cavalry) for the whole day. Without losses.
Otherwise I'd rather agree with CP. It sounds like warrior-stories*
*is this the right english word? In german its "warrior-latin"
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk:
I have a hard time believing that 50 cavalry of any kind held off that many.
I can believe that only 300 spartans held at thermoplyae (yes i know it was more than just 300 spartans obviously, but i could believe it was only them) because the terrain favoured them so much.
50 cavalry vs 7000 men and a couple hundred cavalry? not a chance, dont care what sources say so.
Maybe 700 vs 50 cavalry....
There's just too many, eventually the bodies would pile up and the horses would become totally exhausted.
Not to mention that many men, they'd eventually bog down the cavalry within a few hours (thats bloody generous) and the horses would have nowhere to run. the riders would be pulled off the horses and killed.
Where I said that there was a battle? I have a hard time believing that 50 cavalry of any kind held off that many.
I can believe that only 300 spartans held at thermoplyae (yes i know it was more than just 300 spartans obviously, but i could believe it was only them) because the terrain favoured them so much.
50 cavalry vs 7000 men and a couple hundred cavalry? not a chance, dont care what sources say so.
Maybe 700 vs 50 cavalry....
There's just too many, eventually the bodies would pile up and the horses would become totally exhausted.
Not to mention that many men, they'd eventually bog down the cavalry within a few hours (thats bloody generous) and the horses would have nowhere to run. the riders would be pulled off the horses and killed.
Beotian army was on the march, in long line. Horsemen scattered around them and started attacks and retreats. They were fast enough to make all attempts to catch them futile, and they were able to gang on some Beotians who were too brave and kept pursuing. And if Beotians kept formations, they will never catch single horseman.
There were three options for Beotians -
1) Keep moving in long line, and take losses.
2) Try to swarm Sicilians, as you propose - this will lead to massive chaos as soldiers would need to arm themselves and then attack somehow - this will most probably lead to disintegration of army as fighting force. Horsemen will simply flee to the closest city, some 1/2 an hour run at 20km/h. Beotians will need another day or two to rally troops. During this time they will be extremely vulnerable to any form of attack, even by much smaller, but organised infantry force.
3) Arm troops, form battle line and move at snail's pace in the heat, but keep formation and prevent most of the casualties - this is what Beotians did.
The success of Sicilians was not in massacre of Beotians, but in forcing them to move in fully armed and in battle formation. This stopped their progress. Later attacks were not to kill many opponents, but to keep Beotians in most exhausting and slow movement possible.
This is example of "all other cavalry operations" that Polibius (himself cavalry commander) thought to be most important.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO