It's better than most games, but don't assume that everything in the Total War series is historically accurate. Some units have been made into something they weren't, and others are completely made up. Just don't use any information you've learned from it in a quiz, and you'll be okay If it was an ambush, that would be reasonable, but it wasn't. The people on there were complete idiots. Anyone who's played Rome: Total War would know that the Roman infantry is overpowered
Ha, that's true about historical accuracy. Though I think they've gotten better with that with the newer installments and Rome's expansion pack, Barbarian Invasion evened things up quite a bit between the Romans and the barbarian factions. Though they did have gallow glass soldiers as the main heavy infantry unit of the Celts during that era. Though in this case, I meant more about having to use strategy in battles rather than just trying to overwhelm the enemy like it is in most rts games.
The Celts being a single faction isn't what I'd call historical accuracy What I like is that you could use strategy to do exactly that. I go on multiplayer a lot, and when I use the Stormbreaker Charge, the other side always routs. I don't actually know why, as I just threw a load of units into an army, but it does
Am I the only one who thinks that Attila could have save the Wester Roman Empire if he would have defeated them at the battle of Chalon's? The set up to the battle was that a female member of the Wester Roman emperor (I think it was his daughter but I'm not sure), didn't like who she was arranged to marry, so she sent a letter asking for Attila to help her. In respose he decided to take her as his bride, and wan'ted Gaul as the dowry. Of course the emperor of the Western Empire wasn't thrilled about this idea. So the Western Roman army and an allied Visi-Goth force fought against Attila at the battle of Chalon's, defeated him and temperarily halting the Hunnic advance. However, had he won that, the Emeror would have been forced into surrender. One of two things could have happened, either Attila would have been sastified with his Roman bride and would have taken Gaul as part of his empire or he would have demanded to become the new emperor of the western empire. Either way, it would then become Attila's best interest to protect the remainder of the western empire. The Roman legion, with the help of the Hunnic calvary would have been an elite force. They could have taken back their European territory by destroying the Goths and forcing the germanic tribes out of Gaul. Or they could have retaken Carthage from the Vandals, which would have greatly helped the western empire to stay around for much longer.
Or Attila gets sucked in to the labyrinthine Roman politics and gets assassinated. Then Rome continues to implode. Yay!
As much as I hate the idea of the barbarians being stupid, ignorant bandits, when many of them actually made technological and social advances similar to those of the Romans, I don't think the Huns would have considered their best political interests. Their empire was essentially just torched land; they were raiders, and they were marauders. The steppe warriors have a long tradition of sacking everything they find; the only ones who showed some consideration for the economy of their empire were the Mongols, and they killed almost as many people as World War Two. But, I doubt that the Huns, who relied on missile cavalry, would have been too successful in western Europe if it had been more united. The Mongols decided to turn back, and there is debate whether or not they'd have been effective in the densely-populated areas of western Europe. The Huns were apparently from Mongolia, and steppe equipment doesn't change that much over thousands of years.
They did pretty much man handle the goths back when they were in eastern europe, they were pretty much destroying the Franks until the Romans intervened, and they effectively sieged several Eastern and Western European forts. If he did take over the western empire, Attila would have also had Roman heavy infantry at his disposal.
I doubt the Huns would have used them. They had no cultural connection with heavy infantry; there'd only really be any use in having them if their opposition had them, and the only opposition (the only independent countries that were not defeated) were using both guerrilla tactics. They were also using missile cavalry.
Hey guys, check out this website. http://www.juniorgeneral.org The goal of the site as they say on their homepage is to... "...promote the use of historical simulations as a tool for teaching history by providing free resources that anyone can use...." They make little counters that can be printed and cut out to recreate battles from all over history, and yes, there is a considerable lot for ancient history alone. Some samples. Alexander's Macedonians Celts There is also a "blanks" gif that you can copy and paste to make your own soldiers with Paint.
One of my favorite ancient civilizations is that of the Phoenicians. I feel they are a very significant ancient people for three reasons. 1)We inherited the Phoenetic alphabet from them, at least most westerners did. Some people (like the Gaels) retain a non-Phonetic alphabet, but their alphabet still formed the basis for several writing systems both Semetic and non-semetic alike. 2)They were great explorers that set up colonies from the middles east to west Africa, and (perhaps) even as far as the Americas? Its a very controversial topic, Ill talk more about it later... 3)Because they were a sea-faring people they condicted trade throughout the mediterranean, set up colonies in far places when people were still afraid of the unknown world with mythical beasts like "sea serpents", and may have influenced the exploitation of european metals leading to the iron age (long before their use in the med the "barbarian" celts in modern Britain were using Iron, and, interestingly, so were the so-called "black" sub-saharan Africans). There are some people who are so bold as to believe that the Phoenicians may have sailed across the Atlantic even and founded colonies in the Americas. They have a basis for their hypothesis, but I am not willing to give my opinion either way, I shall just say that its unlikely, but we cannot underestimate the ingenuity of ancient peoples as we learn time and again^^. http://phoenicia.org/america.html We know that the bold Phoenicians were a successful seafaring culture, and that between them and their "clients" such as wealthy Egyptian patrons they could have funded a major expedition. Could they travel as far as the Americas? The Atlantic trade winds have a tendency to take sail ships in a southwesterly direction (interestingly, the Mayans claim that a mysterious white haired people appeared and taught them civilization, they were called gods, could they have been sailors? Also keep in mind that ancient astronaut theorists believe they were aliens, and that the Mayan civilization was heavily influenced by the earlier Olmec peoples, who make no mention of white haired men as far as I know). Some people even go so far as to claim that not only did the Phoenicians discover America long before either the Vikings or Columbus, but other ancients as well, based on coinage and artwork from several ancient people found along coasts. I am not entirely convinced, there can be several alternative explanations, but it is interesting nevertheless. http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700a.htm One of the most interesting items that could serve as some kind of hard evidence is this coin.
Lets take a cloer look at this coin! "This detail of a gold coin shows what McMenamin believes is a map of the Mediterranean area, surrounded by Europe, Britain, Africa, and (at left) the Americas. The image appears on coins minted in Carthage between 350 and 320 BC." Finally, Im not sure if you guys have heard about this, but in the Histories of Herodotus it is purported that an Egyptian Pharoah hired Phoenician sailors to circumnavigate Africa. It is another controversial issue, many experts find it to be highly dubious, and considering how bad ancient geography was, there may only be a little truth in this. Believe it or not some amateur sailors and modern scholars have built a reconstructed ship in Phoenician style and have set out to examine the feasability by doing it in our age. You can check out the project and read their blogs to see how they are doing. They have only just now reached Oman, but theyve been sailing for about a year and a month to date. According to Herodotus the original crew took several years, so lets see how they do. Theyve had some maintenace issues already, and while the people of the coasts have been very friednly and supportive so far, they are very concerned with the pirates of east Africa (as am I). http://www.phoenicia.org.uk/discovering-the expedition.htm You can track the progress of their ship via a Googleearth style map here. This is their latest blog mission log... Position Report 51 Date: 8th September 2009 Location: 70 N/Miles from Salalah, Oman Message: Short Blog from Expedition Leader Philip Beale: We are still making painfully slow progress towards Salalah at about a knot per hour. So much for the forecasts of strong winds! We are however seeing big waves of 4-5 meters and the high point of the day was catching several sightings of a large whale. We are still challenged by some technical problems but working on them. Unfortunately the Satellite tracker is not transmitting our latest position. If you are able to plot our course (you can do this on Google Earth) or our position at 10:00hrs local time was 16.20N and 53.00 E. My heart goes out to them! May the mighty god Poseidon bless their passing...^^
I support any theory about the discovery of America. It's been known for a while now that the existence of a continent there was known to most people in Europe, and possibly even Africa. We know that several European peoples can claim, through their own records and those of others, to have discovered America; the Norse even settled, although, according to their own sagas which speak much of the Irish maritime skill, the Irish had already been there. It wouldn't surprise me if it's been known about in Europe since Roman times. The Greeks calculated many distances related to earth, and even the solar system. They had almost exactly the same recordings that we have been able to prove as true today. They weren't the only ones - in fact, there were others who had been practicing astronomy and democracy for centuries before the Greeks thought of them. But they were the best at it. (although, granted, they did get many of their maps wrong - somehow that didn't stop them being useful) Those pictures aren't bad, really. The first one and the two groups of soldiers on the bottom are the best; only the two to the right of the first one are completely inaccurate. They don't really mention the differences between Pictish and Gaelic warriors, though: Picts: - Many of their warriors used little armour, and wielded powerful crushing weapons regardless of their lack of protection against the weapons of their opponents. Others wore robes that came down to their knees, with belts where they'd have kept either a sword or an axe, and many of these had chainmail beneath their robes. - More of a focus on cavalry than other Celtic races. They specially bred horses to be more efficient and agile than those of their opponents in the rough countryside. They actually had a lot of knowledge of how to breed animals, the result being many bizarre species, such as the Eriskay pony and the Soay sheep. It has even been suggested that they created the sheep on Orkney, that only eat seafood. - Their cavalry were almost entirely missile cavalry, armed with javelins. - Their depiction of the Battle of Dunnichen seems to represent a Pictish phalanx. For Pictish drawings of themselves, see here, here. Evidence of Pictish skills with breeding things can be found here, unless you want to do what others have done and assume that it implies some knowledge of evolution. Gaels: - Some heavy infantry, but mostly there to support the guerrilla soldiers. They mainly used battleaxes, war axes, and swords, but javelins and darts were also used by Gaelic soldiers on the battlefield. Other weapons, from special weapons for cavalry, including spears used to stab from above, to bows have been mentioned in records, but there is no information to suggest what battles they were used at. - There was cavalry, although the focus was mainly on chariots. The Irish abandoned them after they began to colonise the territories of the Picts, and establish themselves as a significant power in Pictland. They were one of the last cultures in Europe to use them in warfare. For the Gael's impression of its soldiers, click here. If I'm honest, I prefer the Picts, but only because of the sheep.
The Gates of Nineveh These are the gates of Nineveh: here Sargon came when his wars were won Gazed at the turrets looming clear Boldly etched in the morning sun Down from his chariot Sargon came Tossed his helmet upon the sand Dropped his sword with its blade like flame Stroked his beard with his empty hand "Towers are flaunting their banners red The people greet me with song and mirth But a weird is on me," Sargon said "And I see the end of the tribes of earth" "Cities crumble, and chariots rust I see through a fog that is strange and gray All kingly things fade back to the dust Even the gates of Nineveh" -Robert E Howard a portion of a wall in the ruined Assyrian capital of Nineveh (note: though Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire, King Sargon's Akkadian capital was more than likely Akkad, and his Akkadian empire preceded the later Assyrians by a few generations at least) OZYMANDIAS I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Percy Bysshe Shelley It often pains me to see what were once great cities in ruins, great monuments reduced to rubble, and once great peoples reduced to mere footnotes in the texts of antiquities, a mere speedbump on the modern man's path to peer into the vastness of the past... ...but there is a way to cheat death, there is a way to fool fate. Like the dinosaurs, we can leave deep prints, we can do great deeds, we can build great things, and though they may turn to dust, let our children's children's children step over our monuments, aye, and tumble on them. Let them look and wonder, for ages hence, what people made them, what hubris! Dare they try to be remembered? I think that the ancients, in their wisdom, knew what fate awaited them. Are we so foolish that we cant see what will inevitably come for us as well? They knew the way to cheat death, by forcing us to remember them... "All men reach and fall...reach, and falll..." Ptolemy in Stone's "Alexander". However, as Achilles said in the film "Troy" "Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach? Immortality! Take it! It's yours!" Or "I'll tell you a secret. Something they don't teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again..." Compare with a bold quote from the Norse Eddas. "Cattle, kindred, all men must die; yet I know of one thing that will never die, that is the glory of the great deed..." The men of old had the right idea, immortality is ours, or at least as near as we can attempt. Bold deeds have a way of etching their way into the annals of history, and may be why, for example (with the help of a little history and a jar of ink), why the name of SPARTACUS will no doubt be remembered for ages and evoke images of bravery, defiance, and unbreakable heroism. He was no doubt merely a man, and we no doubt uplift him far beyond what we attribute to him, but we cannot help but immortalize men who reach. We cannot help but feel the pain and the message of a bleeding lamb, such as, say, a Christ. Such men exemplify what is the very best of us, they make narratives that teach us boys not only that we must become men, but how. In the modern age, with lack of rites of passage as in the old world, such heroes are needed. "What daring! What outrageousness! What insolence! What arrogance!... I salute you..." King Osric, Conan The Barbarian "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts" - Plotinus "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties- in form and moving how express and admirable; in actions, how like an angel, in apprehension, how like a god..." - Hamlet What hubris these mortals possess, dare they defy the ages and the frailty of their frames...
Just for fun, I did a partial recreation of 300. Though I couldn't quite get exactly three hundred spartans, so it was 320. I had them go against over four thousand persian infantry (Parthian's light spear men). I killed like around 1,500 before they just started running away. I didn't even lose a single soldier.
(sigh) That movie (300) made me so very upset. It was good, but people just hyped that damn movie up way beyond what it deserved. I get so sick of people gagging on Spartan you-know-what that it just makes me sick. On a good note in caused some interest in people for ancient history, but filled peoples' head with a bunch of nonsense, 300 was a comic book for frag's sake. The makers of the movie made it true to graphic novel form, but its not historical at all. -Bare-chested Hoplites? (face palm) One of the reasons why Greek armies fared so well against the Persan armies is because they had better armor and could stand up that much better in close combat. -I think its funny how they portray the Spartans as these noble free men making a daring stand against a vast slave army, when the Spartans not only had a huge population of slaves called Heolots that did their manual labor, but they also slaughtered a huge number of them every autumn during their Crypteia. -What the hell was up with their Persian army? What the hell was that giant thing??? Why the hell did the Immortals look like Samurai? ARGHH!!! There's historical fiction and then their's fantasy. Did I see Baphomet sitting cross-legged in the Persian camp playing a Pan pipe? WTF were these people smoking man? -I think its funny how they portray the Spartans taking such a strong stand against Persian temptations and bashing the other Greeks when the Spartans won their war against the Athenians by striking a deal with the Persians for an intervention. That's selling out no matter how you spell it. -The whole thing about Spartans killing deformed babies and eugenically breeding a race of quasi-supermen is a truth with omission. The Spartans did practice eugenics to a degree, deformed babies were often 'euthenized', but ALOT of people killed infants in the ancient world, sometimes just because a female child was considered less desirable than a male one. You see some of it in the Bible, it was also not uncommon for parents to hide or find babies and adopt them (like Moses or Sargon or even King Arthur). Look up foundlings. -Sparta is after all only one city in the city-state of Lakonia -It wasnt just the Spoartans that fought at Thermopylae, they had more than just "300" people, there were over 5000 Greeks at Thermopylae! Thats even larger than a typical Phalanx formation (armies which larger numbers were called great phalanxes and often made up of several smaller ones). The numbers of the Persians involved in the fighting vary from historian to historian. Herodotus says over a million, but most modern historians believe it was several hundred thousand for the entire invasion force. -The Spartans had to fight and end battles as quickly as possible because they had an agrian economy that needed seasonal tending. If the city-state was at war for too long it would destroy their economy and culture along with it. This is a weakness that later armies, like the Romans, would solve with professional armies as opposed to warrior classes. Also, they lived in constant fear that one day while the armies were away those Heolot slaves of theirs would revolt, which they actually did on several occassions to the dismay of their masters. -Uh, alot of people also seem to forget that the Greeks "lost" the battle of Thermopylae. True, they accomplished their goal (they went there to their deaths, they just wanted to slow down the Persians on their march route and inflict enough losses to give them a shock), it was an heroic loss, but not a victory. -Far from being undefeatable, they lost battles to Persians, Athenians, Thebans, Macedonians, and Romans. There's good and then there's overrated. In some battles (Marathon) they showed up late. At Leuctra many of them fled in terror (the whole thing about Spartans never retreating is a myth, they had great incentives to not come home unless victorious. If they fled in battle they had to shave off half their beards and any Spartan could kick them, spit at them, call them insults without fear of reprisal because they were not allowed to object. Essentially, they would have to live as hermits. This does not mean though that if a battle goes badly they will not consider shame against death, some people would just rather live Enough for their weaknesses, now for one of their UNDERplayed strengths... -In the march from Sparta to Marathon the Spartans covered 150 miles in three days for an average of 50 miles a day. Thats hella hard for men wearing heavy armor. In combat training we did a 12 kilometer hump wearing a considerable load, probably much more than an ancient army foot soldier, but even that mild distance beat us all up. After marching for days with boots your feet will blister and turn into beef patties, I dont know how the hell they did it in sandals Its the reason why they use forced marches in training to this day, it is an important thing to keep infantry mobile, and Spartan training in that aspect was second to none. It is a feat that is a true credit to their hardiness that had since not been repeated by any of their contemporary armies or for centuries since. Even Alexander's army with mixed cavalry couldnt match the results.
Yeah, 300 was a good action flick, but not that accurate. True, but I think that's the reasoned it's been recalled so much, similar to the battle at the Alamo. People generally like the heroic last stand stories. The idea of three hundred Spartan warriors (with about a thousand soldiers from Thesbia) making a stand to hold off the Persians and give their allies time to retreat is inspiring. Besides, in a manner of speaking it was a victory. Though they lost control of that pass, the allied Greek force did accomplish most of what it set out to do. Though it does make me wonder why the later battles of the Greco-Persian Wars aren't recalled as often, where the Greek did win some decisive victories. Like the battle of Plataea,where a Spartan led alliance manged to slaughter most of the Persian invaders.
Or how Alexander pushed around the Persian army in many battles. I feel bad for the Persians in a way. It seems that the only thing people know of them is that the Greeks, a group of much, much smaller nations, defeated them over and over again.
All the Greek nations of the ancient world were independent, unless entered into a short term alliace with each other. Before the twentieth century, there was no country of Greece. The ancient Greeks were a group of nations that constantly fought for regional dominance.
Macedon was a country, rather than a city with the surrounding lands. It was significantly larger than the others, although its borders weren't that safe because of Dacia and other 'barbarians.' Well, okay, they actually were barbarians
