Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m hypothetically battling you right now, OP. Naked. I’m winning. " You do realise who you're talking to right  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m hypothetically battling you right now, OP. Naked. I’m winning. You do realise who you're talking to right "Yes. Do you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
(I know it didn't quite happen as depicted in a certain film series but let me have it) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Battle of Thermopylae...
(I know it didn't quite happen as depicted in a certain film series but let me have it)"I do like the 300 version though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m hypothetically battling you right now, OP. Naked. I’m winning. " Could you hypothetically battle me naked, Estella? That sounds like a Sunday morning to remember. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Battle of Thermopylae...
(I know it didn't quite happen as depicted in a certain film series but let me have it)"Thd other Greek/Pedsian battles of the same war are equally jaw dropping in terms of numbers, strategy, great people and fate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m hypothetically battling you right now, OP. Naked. I’m winning. You do realise who you're talking to right
Yes. Do you?"We've been watching, analysing, waiting, studying the terrain.. Sent out the spies and diplomats well in advance. *Rolls sleeves up* Give it up x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Roman Empire was successful because of more than just relying on the army. Military might was important to gain the initial upper hand, but it's what came after that was important. Showing how life could be better by adopting the Roman way if life. Mixing with the locals to trade and learn was a 2 way thing. The system of auxiliary troops and colonies of veteran soldiers meant that after a couple of generations, saying "Roman's go home" meant your own family! The Roman's were in it for the long haul, not short term games. Their success was down to more than winning battles. But let's face it, having a well equipped, well trained full time professional army meant they were good in a fight too!" The Roman's only got their by fluke though.. well their attitude got them into a squabble with Carthage. It's only by eventually winning these wars that they found themselves in a known world dominating position. Much like the USA post World Wars. Doesnt take away anything from what you just said. Like all successful, long term prosperous Empires. They battled on all fronts. Not just physical warfare. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ll take the Battle of Banquan." that's going back a bit  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m rolling my sleeves up, I’m ready to fight a grape this morning "Tried to write the lyrics to a well known Nirvana song but using the word 'Grape'.. buf fabs on point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Battle of Thermopylae...
(I know it didn't quite happen as depicted in a certain film series but let me have it)
Thd other Greek/Pedsian battles of the same war are equally jaw dropping in terms of numbers, strategy, great people and fate."I'd always take the numbers quoted in accounts of Ancient warfare with a huge pinch of salt. Numbers are often hugely exaggerated by 'historians' of the time to make it sound more impressive. For example, the account of the Roman victory over Boudicca gives her army as 100,000. Very much doubt that figure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As i’m Welsh, i’ll take The Battle of Crug Mawr (1136), which is also known as the Battle of Cardigan. It marked the arrival of the longbow into medieval warfare. It was one of the largest battles fought on Welsh soil, and it saw a Norman army get their arses kicked in a set piece battle led by Owain ap Gruffudd, later Prince of Gwynedd. At the time of the Norman invasion of England, Wales was not a single political unit but was a collection of small Kingdoms which expanded and contracted dependent upon their individual rulers. Hence the shitstorm. " Youvd got go like anyone who sticks it up go the Normans. Filthy Mudbood Viking/Frog hybrids  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Battle of Thermopylae...
(I know it didn't quite happen as depicted in a certain film series but let me have it)
Thd other Greek/Pedsian battles of the same war are equally jaw dropping in terms of numbers, strategy, great people and fate.
I'd always take the numbers quoted in accounts of Ancient warfare with a huge pinch of salt. Numbers are often hugely exaggerated by 'historians' of the time to make it sound more impressive.
For example, the account of the Roman victory over Boudicca gives her army as 100,000. Very much doubt that figure.
"Obviously, but even taking that into account. The Persians had the manpower and logistical knowledge to put huge numbers from all over its Empire onto the battlefield. As did the Greeks when they United. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As i’m Welsh, i’ll take The Battle of Crug Mawr (1136), which is also known as the Battle of Cardigan. It marked the arrival of the longbow into medieval warfare. It was one of the largest battles fought on Welsh soil, and it saw a Norman army get their arses kicked in a set piece battle led by Owain ap Gruffudd, later Prince of Gwynedd. At the time of the Norman invasion of England, Wales was not a single political unit but was a collection of small Kingdoms which expanded and contracted dependent upon their individual rulers. Hence the shitstorm. " An informative history lesson. Love it!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Celts vs Egyptians? Feudal Japan vs Khublais Mongols? Assyrians vs Roman's? Persians vs Aztecs? What would your ideal Army look like if you could pick n mix units and elements from history? Clearly in history mode and want to play. Dont care if its popular or not, provided one or two jump in. No wrong answers. Unless you think anyone pre gunpowder could have withstood the Mongol Horde. " With the exception of the well trained and disciplined army of the Roman Empire, I don't think any other pre gunpowder army could match the Mongols. They were literally born on horseback and the breeds they used were very resistant. The ferocity of their warriors was legendary. Small wonder they stretched from Asia to the gates of Europe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs "Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength. Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ll take the Battle of Banquan. that's going back a bit "Well I did study Classical Chinese! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Celts vs Egyptians? Feudal Japan vs Khublais Mongols? Assyrians vs Roman's? Persians vs Aztecs? What would your ideal Army look like if you could pick n mix units and elements from history? Clearly in history mode and want to play. Dont care if its popular or not, provided one or two jump in. No wrong answers. Unless you think anyone pre gunpowder could have withstood the Mongol Horde. With the exception of the well trained and disciplined army of the Roman Empire, I don't think any other pre gunpowder army could match the Mongols. They were literally born on horseback and the breeds they used were very resistant. The ferocity of their warriors was legendary. Small wonder they stretched from Asia to the gates of Europe." I'd have given you Romans over the Persians. Not the Mongols though. A less united, smaller force of Steppe people made life very difficult for the Roman's throughout their time and as they moved on to the later Byzantium period. They also gave the Persians loads of grief. The Mongols did suffer the occasional loss, but only with small broken off parts of their military. Never with a Full attacking force. Hannibal almost took Rome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ll take the Battle of Banquan. that's going back a bit
Well I did study Classical Chinese!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Celts vs Egyptians? Feudal Japan vs Khublais Mongols? Assyrians vs Roman's? Persians vs Aztecs? What would your ideal Army look like if you could pick n mix units and elements from history? Clearly in history mode and want to play. Dont care if its popular or not, provided one or two jump in. No wrong answers. Unless you think anyone pre gunpowder could have withstood the Mongol Horde. With the exception of the well trained and disciplined army of the Roman Empire, I don't think any other pre gunpowder army could match the Mongols. They were literally born on horseback and the breeds they used were very resistant. The ferocity of their warriors was legendary. Small wonder they stretched from Asia to the gates of Europe. I'd have given you Romans over the Persians. Not the Mongols though. A less united, smaller force of Steppe people made life very difficult for the Roman's throughout their time and as they moved on to the later Byzantium period. They also gave the Persians loads of grief. The Mongols did suffer the occasional loss, but only with small broken off parts of their military. Never with a Full attacking force. Hannibal almost took Rome." Not in Ghengis or Ogedais time at least. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
"Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Celts vs Egyptians? Feudal Japan vs Khublais Mongols? Assyrians vs Roman's? Persians vs Aztecs? What would your ideal Army look like if you could pick n mix units and elements from history? Clearly in history mode and want to play. Dont care if its popular or not, provided one or two jump in. No wrong answers. Unless you think anyone pre gunpowder could have withstood the Mongol Horde. With the exception of the well trained and disciplined army of the Roman Empire, I don't think any other pre gunpowder army could match the Mongols. They were literally born on horseback and the breeds they used were very resistant. The ferocity of their warriors was legendary. Small wonder they stretched from Asia to the gates of Europe. I'd have given you Romans over the Persians. Not the Mongols though. A less united, smaller force of Steppe people made life very difficult for the Roman's throughout their time and as they moved on to the later Byzantium period. They also gave the Persians loads of grief. The Mongols did suffer the occasional loss, but only with small broken off parts of their military. Never with a Full attacking force. Hannibal almost took Rome." True, but by the time the Mongols appeared, Byzantium was a shadow of its former self and had nowhere near the might of the old Roman Empire. Perhaps i'm a tad western centric
Mongols vs the Huns? Both from the steppes, ruthless and excelled at warfare on horse? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its like rome total war fab version " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its like rome total war fab version
"one of the best games in history i should add too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage)."I agree with you 100% I think Rome would win, but its make the Punic Wars look like Childs Play if the Roman and Persuans clashed at full might. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its like rome total war fab version "Exactly what I'd hoped for | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage)."The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its like rome total war fab version
one of the best games in history i should add too "I'm more Crusader Kings 2 guy. I prefer the diplomacy, intrigue, power personality of keeping the Dynasty going. Do love Total War, Civilisation and games of same genre. My ideal game would combine Crusader Kings and Total War. But start in a Stoneage era like Civilisation. Alternate real history. I'd have a swarm of horse archers combined with Roman or Japanese Heavy Infantry. Job done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage).
The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that. "The Persians were famous for their tolerance and leniency. In comparison to their forebears the Assyrians, they were positively kind. Roman's were rude, arrogant and demanding of all their client states. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage).
The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that. "Romans believed they were the exceptional, indispensable nation and that certainly gave them fervour in their conquests (initially at least). The parallels with modern day U.S.A. are uncanny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage).
The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that.
The Persians were famous for their tolerance and leniency. In comparison to their forebears the Assyrians, they were positively kind.
Roman's were rude, arrogant and demanding of all their client states."Hmm. The picture painted in Herodotus, of the Persians, is the opposite, and I'm fully aware of his limitations. It's not a civilisation I've studied in depth, but my premise is based very much on the striking images of cutting a soldier in half for the army to walk through, or Xerxes whipping the river. (I'm aware I'm potentially working from a false premise. Herodotus getting it wrong? Say it ain't so) On the other hand, the (earlier) Romans at least employed language of alliance with their clients and subjects, and integrated local custom. I'm aware it's propaganda which wasn't always followed through, and was later abandoned. But that's my premise. If this, then that sort of thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The technology question is also much more complicated. Why did the Battle of Leuctra go the way it did? Could the Spartans have adapted to a different method of combat? What were the implications of unsettling the dual Athenian-Spartan hegemony and creating an ongoing hegemony? Was it this, or other factors (such as the lingering psychological effects of the oligarchic revolutions at the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries) which led to the rise of Macedon? " * ongoing hegemony... Ongoing turmoil (in the form of the so called tri-wrangle that shaped the fourth century) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage).
The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that.
Romans believed they were the exceptional, indispensable nation and that certainly gave them fervour in their conquests (initially at least). The parallels with modern day U.S.A. are uncanny."One could argue that modern US is merely an evolution of Rome, Byzantine Christian, Holy Roman Empire, British Dominance, British influence in birth of US. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage).
The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that.
The Persians were famous for their tolerance and leniency. In comparison to their forebears the Assyrians, they were positively kind.
Roman's were rude, arrogant and demanding of all their client states.
Hmm. The picture painted in Herodotus, of the Persians, is the opposite, and I'm fully aware of his limitations. It's not a civilisation I've studied in depth, but my premise is based very much on the striking images of cutting a soldier in half for the army to walk through, or Xerxes whipping the river. (I'm aware I'm potentially working from a false premise. Herodotus getting it wrong? Say it ain't so)
On the other hand, the (earlier) Romans at least employed language of alliance with their clients and subjects, and integrated local custom. I'm aware it's propaganda which wasn't always followed through, and was later abandoned. But that's my premise. If this, then that sort of thing. "Greek propaganda. Persians rode to power on their leniency and forgiving attitudes, like I say, in comparison to the Assyrians before them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Erwin Rommel or The Desert Fox. I saw the film with James Mason that was made not long after W.W.2. An honest bio picture of a man of honour and a great warrior. Led me to read a book on him and really appreciate the genius of his leadership and compassion for his Men and the respect he had for all soldiers including the enemy. A true leader and a believer of the rules of war, did what he thought was best for his country, I just wished he'd been on our side "He was a very good tactician. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The technology question is also much more complicated. Why did the Battle of Leuctra go the way it did? Could the Spartans have adapted to a different method of combat? What were the implications of unsettling the dual Athenian-Spartan hegemony and creating an ongoing hegemony? Was it this, or other factors (such as the lingering psychological effects of the oligarchic revolutions at the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries) which led to the rise of Macedon? " I love that yourd nerding out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The elves would win every time. Combined with superior cyber-warfare capability. " I'm an Orc man myself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The elves would win every time. Combined with superior cyber-warfare capability. I'm an Orc man myself "I can imagine ...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical match up between the Roman empire at its zenith and the powerful Persian empire of Darius / Xerxes. The Parthians were push overs
Good choice! Well matched in terms of diplomatic, economic and military strength.
Who do you think would win? Or how'd it pan out? Detailed or micro response.
Rome would win, I think. Though persians might have an edge in cavalry, the roman infantry was heavier armed and very well trained. Roman artillery might have been better as well due to better advancements in technology. I believe they'd be fairly even in sea power, though i'd give the nod to romans again. This was the people who knew nothing of sea warfare, yet quickly learned and defeated a major sea faring power (Carthage).
The interesting question here, to me, is how hearts and minds of soldiers play into this. Presuming that Herodotus is correct and Persian (subject) forces were coerced, this compares to the way Romans at least pretended to assimilate the civilisations they conquered. Willing combatants making more effective combatants and all of that.
Romans believed they were the exceptional, indispensable nation and that certainly gave them fervour in their conquests (initially at least). The parallels with modern day U.S.A. are uncanny.
One could argue that modern US is merely an evolution of Rome, Byzantine Christian, Holy Roman Empire, British Dominance, British influence in birth of US. "I completely agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Erwin Rommel or The Desert Fox. I saw the film with James Mason that was made not long after W.W.2. An honest bio picture of a man of honour and a great warrior. Led me to read a book on him and really appreciate the genius of his leadership and compassion for his Men and the respect he had for all soldiers including the enemy. A true leader and a believer of the rules of war, did what he thought was best for his country, I just wished he'd been on our side
He was a very good tactician."Agreed and his management skills, as his troops would follow him in to hell, as they did in the scorching heat of the desert | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh no, I'm sure. But my argument is based on my sources, and unfortunately for that series of battles at that time, the evidence is 99.9% Greek and by far the easiest to piece together is Herodotus. I'm just saying "if this is true, then..." which is ultimately all we can say given the often patchy and uneven nature of the source material. " Agreed, Heroditus is one very few sources of the period. But there are plenty of surviving stories of the Persian Empire pre-Greece. They were a long lived Empire. Which doesnt necessarily mean the Persians fighting the Greeks were as tolerant and forgiving as their early counterparts. So either of us could be correct. We weren't there Who knows | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fighting the urge not to go back to bed...after a night spent play fighting 4 sproggs." I'm fighting the urge not to implode, unable to Fab your new avatar | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh no, I'm sure. But my argument is based on my sources, and unfortunately for that series of battles at that time, the evidence is 99.9% Greek and by far the easiest to piece together is Herodotus. I'm just saying "if this is true, then..." which is ultimately all we can say given the often patchy and uneven nature of the source material. Agreed, Heroditus is one very few sources of the period. But there are plenty of surviving stories of the Persian Empire pre-Greece. They were a long lived Empire. Which doesnt necessarily mean the Persians fighting the Greeks were as tolerant and forgiving as their early counterparts. So either of us could be correct. We weren't there Who knows "Oh quite. And I'm quite happy with my flawed argument for the purposes of! Just an interesting thought exercise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roman ground infantry but with mongol cavalry. The Romans had good cavalry ability but as a rapid hit and run force the Mongols had blitzkrieg down to a tea...the bow and arrow in the right hands such as the English archers of Agincourt would be most effective artillery or aerial attack force...maybe up against Alexander...his elephants were crushing but at times wayward "Mongol horse archers were so effective, that they only needed foot soldiers for siege warfare. Often using recently conquered people, to storm the walls of their neighbor's. I mentioned gunpowder earlier, I meant rifles, Mongols had access to chinese gunpowder, more akin to fireworks and cannons, very early on in their campaign. Though not used in open warfare. Their bows far exceeded strength of Welsh Longbow. They just circled, swarmed and stung often much larger armies in number. Feigned retreats and ambushes were a favourite tactic on all terrain types. They'd not need a heavy Infantry. But for a set piece Battle, I'd love to give them a few Roman's in full riot gear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh no, I'm sure. But my argument is based on my sources, and unfortunately for that series of battles at that time, the evidence is 99.9% Greek and by far the easiest to piece together is Herodotus. I'm just saying "if this is true, then..." which is ultimately all we can say given the often patchy and uneven nature of the source material. Agreed, Heroditus is one very few sources of the period. But there are plenty of surviving stories of the Persian Empire pre-Greece. They were a long lived Empire. Which doesnt necessarily mean the Persians fighting the Greeks were as tolerant and forgiving as their early counterparts. So either of us could be correct. We weren't there Who knows
Oh quite. And I'm quite happy with my flawed argument for the purposes of! Just an interesting thought exercise. "8m still trying to answer your what ifs- | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"?..Granted, war sucks, but it seems to be part of our DNA unfortunately." "One of the things that I learned in the war is that we're not the top species on the planet because we're nice. We are a very aggressive species; it is in us. People talk a lot about how well the military turns kids into killing machines, and I'll always argue that it's just finishing school." Quote from the Vietnam war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
