Over or Under?

[antisocialmunky]

I wouldn't say that people today have no idea how people fought back then, you probably have as much knowledge as a non combatant had back then. If you look at war today, most people have no idea how battles in modern warfare are fought and managed. They just know how the soldiers look, how they are armed, and some general idea that they shoot at other guys with guns and rockets and stuff just like people on this forum know how hoplites were equipped and have some general idea that they pushed and stabbed each other.

War, combat, and life or death situations breed a certain type of pragmatism that isn't readily evident in other parts of human experience because complexity and cleverness tend to break down in the face of trying to manage chaos. So it seems to me that you can get a pretty general picture of how these battles worked by just thinking through it and eliminating anything that seems too complex (unreliable) or dangerous (stupid).

At least that's my point of view.

PS. I'm wondering what people thing about this guy's ideas on Hoplite Combat:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co...le-part-1.html
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co...le-part-2.html

I think its one of the more realistic takes on hoplite combat because it seems to make sense from what's been observed in modern reenactment of medieval combat (which is magnitudes more common than hoplite reenactment). It also seems to make sense of other pieces of hoplite kit such as why highly-curved, single-edged chopping swords or daggers were preferred hoplite side arms.