PDA

View Full Version : Very OT: What if....



Lord_Rhah
12-09-2005, 10:55 AM
Hannibal, (The Carthaginian general, not the leader of the A-Team) had sacked Rome?

I realise this is very OT, but the people on these boards seem to know their history, and im fairly sure some of you guys must be interested in that time period.

Personally, i would say that Hannibal's decision not to take Rome is one of the most important single decisions ever taken. Can you imagine the world without the Historic influence of the Roman empire? Obviously this is all conjecture, but its possible that had Carthage become the dominant force in that time frame, (in the same way that Rome would become) It would possibly mean that the most advanced civilisations would not have been the europeans, but the North African nations, with possibly a complete role-reversal of the two regions.
Also, no Roman catholic church, and possibly Christianity would not have had the same influence it did. I believe the Carthaginians were fond of sacrificing babies to the God Ba'al. I cant see them being very "accomadating to Christians (not that the romans were anyway)

Anyway, maybe i've been spending to much time on Wikipedia (and playing RTW for that matter)

anyone have any thoughts?

MLudner
12-09-2005, 01:29 PM
Well, Hannibal Barca decided against attacking Rome herself because he realized he did not have enough manpower to accomplish the task. Rome's absolute refusal to be cowed into surrender despite having lost over 100,000 soldiers during 2 years of fighting in 3 major battles (Trebia, Trasimenvs & Cannae) played a major role in his decision as well.

There were other major powers around, though, that would have inevitably contested the Carthaginian's goals. The Diadochi would have been the most potent of them. Ptolemaic Egypt would have been a serious threat, but Phillipos Vth's Makedonia would have contested as well - despite his alliance to Kirjath-Hadeshath (Carthago to Rome, Carthage to us) during this war. The Antigonid and Seleukid states could not be discounted, either, because they were very aggressive and powerful. Only under Hannibal and his daddy, Hamilcar, was Kirjath-Hadeshath made an effective land power. Without them Kirjath-Hadeshath was pretty well hapless on land. Once even the tyrant of Syrakusa, Agathokles, had invaded Kirjath-Hadeshath and he commanded only one city. The only thing that saved Kirjath-Hadeshath from him was the fact that Agathokles did not have enough men to take the city and was fighting two wars at once with Kirjath-Hadeshath (one in Africa and the other back in Sikilia).

Airmail109
12-09-2005, 01:57 PM
Now how could I turn this "what if" thread into another french bashing thread......

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 02:55 PM
What if the French invaded and conguered England due to an embarrassing loss at the world cup this year?

Now, can I post more pics of Sophi Marceau? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-09-2005, 02:59 PM
But the world cup's next year http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MLudner
12-09-2005, 03:16 PM
You forget that Pirschjager's magic beer bubbles can see into the future! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Bearcat99
12-09-2005, 03:29 PM
I dont think it would have made much difference... Rome was pretty well established by then.... I dont think much would have changed.

fighter_966
12-09-2005, 03:32 PM
Well there is still tittle tattle why Hannibal
didnt took Roma when he had a chance. One theory
is that Romans had diffrend kind of attitude
towards warfare And Hannibal waited romans to surrender after battle of Cannae and Romans
saw Cannae just a great loss but not defeat..
In other words if Hannibal wanted to win he should have destroy whole Roman imperium and Hannibal couldnt understand this kind of thinking .I think that he didnt have Siege-
equipment with him and his way of wageing
a war was more "moving"Still he is one my favorite generals

waffen-79
12-09-2005, 04:00 PM
Now, can I post more pics of Sophi Marceau? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Please do

MLudner
12-09-2005, 04:07 PM
Most ancient siege equipment was fabricated on-site during siege operations. The artillery was the most complex to create and was the only thing normally brought along from the start of a campaign in case it was needed. The reason for this was that siege towers, galleries and such were big, heavy and unwieldy to move around and would represent a serious impediment to the army's mobility during field operations by greatly increasing the army's trains. The Romans themselves were the most proficient army in history when it came to siege operations. There are only 2 cities in history that withstood a Roman siege: Numantia in Spain - which did not survive the second siege - and a fortress in northern Mesopotamia during TRAIANVS' invasion of the Parthian Empire. That fortress was on a very precipitous mountain and TRAIANVS decided he did not need to take it and by-passed it rather than besiege it. Had TRAIANVS decided he did need to take it I have little doubt Numantia would have remained the only city to do this.
In fact, so dogged were the Romans in siege warfare that once a Roman general was laying siege to a Greek city and he had decided to build a circumvellation around the city rather than try and storm its formidable walls in order to starve the place into surrender. The Greeks, upon seeing this, sent a deputation before the Roman general and informed him that the city had enough food and water to last them 10 years! They figured he would give up and go on his merry way.
Imagine their shock when the Roman general did not even so much as blink before calmly replying, "Then, we shall take your city in the eleventh year."
The Greeks surrendered immediately.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Annibas (Hannibal's name in his native tongue), son of Amilkas, knew how to fight and win wars; he a veteran general before he ever invaded Italia and had won many victories before descending upon Roma from the Alps in 535 A.V.C. (218 B.C.). It was lack of sufficient manpower and the unflinching determination of the Romans - no panzies, those people in those days - to fight on, no matter what it took. If Annibas had had the men he would have taken Roma.
However, whether or not even that would have caused the Republican Empire to fall is another matter. The Empire might have survived even that.

ploughman
12-09-2005, 04:13 PM
Why did Hannibal leave Italy even though he'd had Rome by the throat?

fighter_966
12-09-2005, 04:15 PM
They at least Medieval times carried ballistas and other artillery with army.. those werent made
in a spot because there were few people who could shoot and construct those machines.In 14century Germans were famous for their trebuchets..

fighter_966
12-09-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Why did Hannibal leave Italy even though he'd had Rome by the throat?
Romans attacked to Africa

Inadaze
12-09-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Why did Hannibal leave Italy even though he'd had Rome by the throat?

The Romans attacked Carthage and Hannibal was ordered to return. Scipio the Younger then defeated Hannibal at Zalma, I can't remember when though...

carguy_
12-09-2005, 04:23 PM
Dammit,waffen!Eerytime I see your siggirl I fall for her. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

MLudner
12-09-2005, 04:41 PM
Lacking the manpower to actually take Roma herself he began trying to separate Roma's allies from their bonds to Roma. However, most of Roma's allies in Italia remained on Roma's side despite Cannae. The Romans there-after refused pitched battle and dogged Annibas' footsteps, harrassing his army at every chance, but avoiding full battle. The Romans attacked those cities and peoples who had been stupid enough to actually detach from Roma and side with Annibas. When Annibas marched to the rescue the Romans would fade away and attack somewhere else. The Romans then began conducting aggressive operations in Iberia (Spain) against the Carthaginians there; in Sicilia against Syrakusae, which had switched to the side of Kirjath-Hadeshath after Cannae; and dispatched another army to campaign against Phillipos Vth of Makedonia, who had declared war on Roma after Cannae. With these periphery campaigns and their constant nipping at Annibas himself they wore Annibas down over time; this went on for YEARS. In Iberia the Romans suffered a painful pair of defeats at the hands of Annibas' brother, Asdroubas (Hasdrubal), in which both PVBLIVS CORNELIVS SCIPIO and his eldest son, GNAEVS SCIPIO were killed. They were replaced by P.C. Scipio's youngest son, also PVBLIVS CORNELIVS SCIPIO, veteran and survivor of TICINVS, TREBBIA, TRASIMENVS and CANNAE. He reorganized the Roman forces in Iberia, then crushed Asdroubas at ILIPA. Asdroubas abandoned Iberia and followed his brother over the Alps. Once in Italia Asdroubas was intercepted by two Roman Consular armies under the leadership of the brilliant GAIVS CLAVDIVS NERO on the banks of the METAVRVS river and his army crushed and himself slain. Annibas found out about when CLAVDIVS' cavalry rode up to the walls of his camp and flung the head of his fallen brother into his camp. So fast has CLAVDIVS and his army moved that they slipped away from Annibas, marched 500 miles, crushed Asdroubas, then marched 500 miles back into the south of Italia beofre Annibas had even been aware they had gone.
The surviving SCIPIO was then sent to Sicilia to take command of the on-going siege of Syracvsae. This was where the Roman survivors of CANNAE had been banished to after the defeat. SCIPIO soon took Syracvsae, despite the brilliant scientist ARCHIMEDES' work against him.
SCIPIO then raised an army - including the survivors of CANNAE - and invaded Africa. Annibas had no choice but to abandon his now failed Italian campaign and take what he could of his army back to Africa to protect Kirjath-Hadeshath itself from the rampaging Romans.
On 19 October 551 A.V.C. (202 B.C.) Annibas was defeated on the plains of ZAMA by PVBLIVS CORNELIVS SCIPIO, known to history as SCIPIO AFRICANVS. The veterans of CANNAE finally had their revenge.

ploughman
12-09-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Lacking the manpower to actually take Roma herself he began trying to separate Roma's allies from their bonds to Roma. However, most of Roma's allies in Italia remained on Roma's side despite Cannae. The Romans there-after refused pitched battle and dogged Annibas' footsteps, harrassing his army at every chance, but avoiding full battle. The Romans attacked those cities and peoples who had been stupid enough to actually detach from Roma and side with Annibas. When Annibas marched to the rescue the Romans would fade away and attack somewhere else. The Romans then began conducting aggressive operations in Iberia (Spain) against the Carthaginians there; in Sicilia against Syrakusae, which had switched to the side of Kirjath-Hadeshath after Cannae; and dispatched another army to campaign against Phillipos Vth of Makedonia, who had declared war on Roma after Cannae. With these periphery campaigns and their constant nipping at Annibas himself they wore Annibas down over time; this went on for YEARS. In Iberia the Romans suffered a painful pair of defeats at the hands of Annibas' brother, Asdroubas (Hasdrubal), in which both PVBLIVS CORNELIVS SCIPIO and his eldest son, GNAEVS SCIPIO were killed. They were replaced by P.C. Scipio's youngest son, also PVBLIVS CORNELIVS SCIPIO, veteran and survivor of TICINVS, TREBBIA, TRASIMENVS and CANNAE. He reorganized the Roman forces in Iberia, then crushed Asdroubas at ILIPA. Asdroubas abandoned Iberia and followed his brother over the Alps. Once in Italia Asdroubas was intercepted by two Roman Consular armies under the leadership of the brilliant GAIVS CLAVDIVS NERO on the banks of the METAVRVS river and his army crushed and himself slain. Annibas found out about when CLAVDIVS' cavalry rode up to the walls of his camp and flung the head of his fallen brother into his camp. So fast has CLAVDIVS and his army moved that they slipped away from Annibas, marched 500 miles, crushed Asdroubas, then marched 500 miles back into the south of Italia beofre Annibas had even been aware they had gone.
The surviving SCIPIO was then sent to Sicilia to take command of the on-going siege of Syracvsae. This was where the Roman survivors of CANNAE had been banished to after the defeat. SCIPIO soon took Syracvsae, despite the brilliant scientist ARCHIMEDES' work against him.
SCIPIO then raised an army - including the survivors of CANNAE - and invaded Africa. Annibas had no choice but to abandon his now failed Italian campaign and take what he could of his army back to Africa to protect Kirjath-Hadeshath itself from the rampaging Romans.
On 19 October 551 A.V.C. (202 B.C.) Annibas was defeated on the plains of ZAMA by PVBLIVS CORNELIVS SCIPIO, known to history as SCIPIO AFRICANVS. The veterans of CANNAE finally had their revenge.

Thanks.

MLudner
12-09-2005, 05:34 PM
You are welcome. The 2nd Punic War is one of the wars I am most interested in and I have read everything I could get my hands on about it, including POLUBIOS, LIVIVS, DIO and many modern authors.

BTW: that war lasted for 17 long years; a generation of Romans grew up during it. CANNAE, the epic defeat of two Roman Consular armies under the command of GAIVS TERRENTIVS VARRO occured in 537 A.V.C.; ZAMA took place in 551! The LEGIONARII who survived CANNAE were on active service for 14 years before their final victory.
Whew! That's a long haul, boys and girls.

Badsight.
12-09-2005, 05:45 PM
Carthage

after the Romans took it , didnt they level then sow the entire area with salt ? killing off the ability to live there ?

MLudner
12-09-2005, 05:57 PM
Indeed, they did. After the 2nd War the Romans were really, really p!ssed at the Carthaginians .... really, really p!ssed. They never got over it.

MLudner
12-09-2005, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
They at least Medieval times carried ballistas and other artillery with army.. those werent made
in a spot because there were few people who could shoot and construct those machines.In 14century Germans were famous for their trebuchets..

Indeed, Medieval armies were no where near as capable or proficient at arms as were the armies of the Ancient World.

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
But the world cup's next year http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Nit-picker! Hair-splitter, um, you know, all the rest of them too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I'll return after my coffee. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now, can I post more pics of Sophi Marceau? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Please do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright, alright already! Stop begging, jeeezz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/soma13.jpg

Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 08:54 PM
Ahem, Waffen, Carguy.......

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Boyarskaya_Liza2.jpg

20 year old Russian actress, Liza Boyarskaya

Blond or brunette, she's still "drop dead gorgeous".

BTW, I had to edit that pic. Check your PTs for uneditted version http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

panther3485
12-10-2005, 12:04 AM
Could you guys have a little bit of consideration for us old farts? Thanks to your pics (which were totally unexpected on this thread), I've already got a steering damper and had to turn up my pacemaker two notches! This could be dangerous for my health!

panther3485

Pirschjaeger
12-10-2005, 12:43 AM
No thx necessary, you're welcome. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

darkhorizon11
12-10-2005, 12:53 AM
I agree with Ludner I don't think Hannibal had the manpower to just "take" Rome. Were talking street warfare in a huge city. Not to mention Hannibal lost most of his army in the Alps, his only strong point was the elephants, which like tanks, are vulnerable, in a city with lots of cover for snipers (archers and spearthrowers at the time). He probably would have exhausted himself and been defeated quicker.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-10-2005, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
But the world cup's next year http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Nit-picker! Hair-splitter, um, you know, all the rest of them too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I'll return after my coffee. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Put more bromide in it - it'll help you concentrate on toga's, elephants and ancient siege engines..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
They at least Medieval times carried ballistas and other artillery with army.. those werent made
in a spot because there were few people who could shoot and construct those machines.In 14century Germans were famous for their trebuchets..

Indeed, Medieval armies were no where near as capable or proficient at arms as were the armies of the Ancient World. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to disagree in 100year war English army
was very capable..remenber Azincourt for example

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-10-2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
They at least Medieval times carried ballistas and other artillery with army.. those werent made
in a spot because there were few people who could shoot and construct those machines.In 14century Germans were famous for their trebuchets..

Indeed, Medieval armies were no where near as capable or proficient at arms as were the armies of the Ancient World. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to disagree in 100year war English army
was very capable..remenber Azincourt for example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And let's not forget the Mongols.

Ankanor
12-10-2005, 05:48 AM
Hanibal had only one chance to attack the city of Rome, after the Cannae disaster. But one has to consider the situation - Hanibal had limited manpower. Rome raised 2 legions right after Cannae, of course they were youths and freedmen, but they were a fighting force. The Cannae victory had happened for a number of reasons - superior Carthagenian cavalry, Roman shortsightedness and a need for a fast and crushing victory over Hanibal, as well as the military genius of Hanibal himself. None of these could be exploited in a siege. Even if he had the opportunity to attack Rome, Hanibal did not have the ability and resources. one third of his army was either dead or wounded, the only supplies he could rely on were from the Italian farmland, which the romans could deprive him with guerilla tactics. The Sea was Roman, a siege to Rome could not be successful without the posession of Ostia. And once Hanibal had stopped to besiege Rome, he could be swiftly surrounded, denied a pitched battle and be starved to death/surrender. Remember, Rome did not call abck the Spanish and Sicilian Legions.

About the destruction of Carthage. After the second Punic war, Rome had sworn with the holiest oaths that there wouldn't be another war. But a roman senator, Cato would end all his speeches with "and I also think Carthage should be destroyed. It's a danger for Rome." Eventually, the Senate got tired of him and tricked Carthage into the third and final Punic War. Carthage was sacked, razed, its sitizens either killed or enslaved, the fields sown with salt. B.C. 146

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 05:49 AM
Little trivia Perhaps?
What are these? and also what these names mean?
Scorpion
Mangonel
Trebuchet
Truncheon
Ballistae

neural_dream
12-10-2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Little trivia Perhaps?
What are these? and also what these names mean?


scorpion. What you see http://www.heatherwind.com/comRPG/TGScorpion.jpg

mangonel. Like a catapult. http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/buildings/castle/info/mangonel.gif

trebuchet. Gigantic mangonel lookalikes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. To siege castles. You may've seen them in "Kingdom of Heaven" http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/k/Kingdom_of_Heaven/co9.jpg

truncheon: http://www.goblinworkshop.com/pics/renders/205-381s.jpg and today http://www.policelot.com/photos/Low%20res%20pics/Truncheon%20WPC%2011%20inch.JPG

ballista: Big scorpion. This one is DaVinci's design http://www.artprintcollection.com/images/DaVinciGiantBallista.jpg

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 07:57 AM
The veterans of CANNAE finally had their revenge.

Ehmm... You mean both of Romans, who survived Cannaehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 08:00 AM
trebuchet. Gigantic mangonel lookalikes

Umm, but clearly I see mangonel to be a neuroballistic machine, while trebuchet is a baroballistic one!

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
trebuchet. Gigantic mangonel lookalikes

Umm, but clearly I see mangonel to be a neuroballistic machine, while trebuchet is a baroballistic one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mangonell means kicking donkey
Scorpion well its scorpion
Trebuchet is old french word from latin
trebuchetum and that means scale of justice
well orginal Truncheon is mix between sword and
axe but suppose it came many forms..

Ankanor
12-10-2005, 09:58 AM
The basic design, the ballista is like a giant crossbow. But unlike the Da Vinci model shown above, ballistas used the power created from the twisting of elastic material - bundles of tendons, hair and the like. ballistas could shoot either rocks or spears or, in the naval type, hooked spears(long range boarding hooks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) . The scorpion is only anti-personel artillery. The Catapult/Onager(wild donkey) is the biggest of the three that uses torsion to store energy, it is essentially only one arm of the ballista, only bigger in size. it can be spoon-shaped or with a sling at the end. The spoon shape allows for the usage of more diverse ammo - fire pots, large rocks, smaller stones for anti-personal usage, etc. A typical Roman Legion had a balllista(apparently a scorpion) for each century(for a total of 59) and an Onager for each cohort, for a total of 10.

about the mangonell, my data indicates it wasn't used for throwing rocks, as in your picture, but large arrows instead.

I sometimes wonder if the Trebuchet used also some twisted elastic fibers for additional effect. It simply doesn't make sense to make a weapon that has range inferior/compartible to the contemporary bow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The archers on the walls will have a field day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif .

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
The basic design, the ballista is like a giant crossbow. But unlike the Da Vinci model shown above, ballistas used the power created from the twisting of elastic material - bundles of tendons, hair and the like. ballistas could shoot either rocks or spears or, in the naval type, hooked spears(long range boarding hooks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) . The scorpion is only anti-personel artillery. The Catapult/Onager(wild donkey) is the biggest of the three that uses torsion to store energy, it is essentially only one arm of the ballista, only bigger in size. it can be spoon-shaped or with a sling at the end. The spoon shape allows for the usage of more diverse ammo - fire pots, large rocks, smaller stones for anti-personal usage, etc. A typical Roman Legion had a balllista(apparently a scorpion) for each century(for a total of 59) and an Onager for each cohort, for a total of 10.

about the mangonell, my data indicates it wasn't used for throwing rocks, as in your picture, but large arrows instead.

I sometimes wonder if the Trebuchet used also some twisted elastic fibers for additional effect. It simply doesn't make sense to make a weapon that has range inferior/compartible to the contemporary bow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The archers on the walls will have a field day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif .
They have trebuchet in Danmark its range was somewhere 250-350 meters -surprisinly accurate
all stones grouped within 2m!!

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
The basic design, the ballista is like a giant crossbow. But unlike the Da Vinci model shown above, ballistas used the power created from the twisting of elastic material - bundles of tendons, hair and the like. ballistas could shoot either rocks or spears or, in the naval type, hooked spears(long range boarding hooks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) . The scorpion is only anti-personel artillery. The Catapult/Onager(wild donkey) is the biggest of the three that uses torsion to store energy, it is essentially only one arm of the ballista, only bigger in size. it can be spoon-shaped or with a sling at the end. The spoon shape allows for the usage of more diverse ammo - fire pots, large rocks, smaller stones for anti-personal usage, etc. A typical Roman Legion had a balllista(apparently a scorpion) for each century(for a total of 59) and an Onager for each cohort, for a total of 10.

about the mangonell, my data indicates it wasn't used for throwing rocks, as in your picture, but large arrows instead.

I sometimes wonder if the Trebuchet used also some twisted elastic fibers for additional effect. It simply doesn't make sense to make a weapon that has range inferior/compartible to the contemporary bow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The archers on the walls will have a field day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif .
Wau where did you get that information?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

waffen-79
12-10-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Ahem, Waffen, Carguy.......

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Boyarskaya_Liza2.jpg

20 year old Russian actress, Liza Boyarskaya

Blond or brunette, she's still "drop dead gorgeous".

BTW, I had to edit that pic. Check your PTs for uneditted version http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Thanxs m8!!!!!

neural_dream
12-10-2005, 10:12 AM
I'll guess:

Playing historical RTS games, and being interested in medieval history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

Ankanor
12-10-2005, 10:37 AM
If you're asking about the "mangonell", it's from an old russian military book, "artillery through the ages" or something. But the engine had a different name there, if I'm not mistaken. The power for the shooting is derived from an elastic wooden plank. the projectile is placed on the frame, the free end of the plank is pulled back and then released.

Edit: further checking in the mighty WWW shows the weapon I just described to be called the medieval scorpion. About the Mangonell there's a lot of controversy. It seems it was a kind of a catapult, a siege engine using torsion, like the Roman Onager(single-armed, the arm resting in a bundle of elastic fibers, the other end being either spoon-shaped or with a sling)

I'm interested in history, particularly Ancient one. And yes, neural dream, I play quite often Rome:Total War http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
trebuchet. Gigantic mangonel lookalikes

Umm, but clearly I see mangonel to be a neuroballistic machine, while trebuchet is a baroballistic one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mangonell means kicking donkey
Scorpion well its scorpion
Trebuchet is old french word from latin
trebuchetum and that means scale of justice
well orginal Truncheon is mix between sword and
axe but suppose it came many forms.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not about actual names but about, well, yes - principle of action http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Baroballistic: baros - greek for weight or scale, ballein - to throw i.e.: machine using countrewight to throw projectiles. Neuroballistic: neuron - greek for muscle, i.e. machine using stored energy in, animal muscles, ropes etc.

MLudner
12-10-2005, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The veterans of CANNAE finally had their revenge.

Ehmm... You mean both of Romans, who survived Cannaehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the 10,000 +. There were 80,000 Roman troops on hand that August day in 216 BC; 45 - 60,000 died and the rest were sent to Sicilia to besiege Syracvsae after the city switched sides. There are three different numbers given by ancient sources as to Roman losses at CANNAE. The most relieble is POLUBIOS, who says 60,000 fell. TITVS LIVIVS says 45,000 - odd. A third says 70,000, but this fails to account for several factors and would account only for the TRIARII - there were 10,000 of them - who had been left to guard the camps.

MLudner
12-10-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
I agree with Ludner I don't think Hannibal had the manpower to just "take" Rome. Were talking street warfare in a huge city. Not to mention Hannibal lost most of his army in the Alps, his only strong point was the elephants, which like tanks, are vulnerable, in a city with lots of cover for snipers (archers and spearthrowers at the time). He probably would have exhausted himself and been defeated quicker.

Thank you, but only 1 of Annibas' elephants was left after the battle of the TREBBIA in December of 218 BC. He kept it around only as a show-piece, and it did not last all that much longer.

MLudner
12-10-2005, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
They at least Medieval times carried ballistas and other artillery with army.. those werent made
in a spot because there were few people who could shoot and construct those machines.In 14century Germans were famous for their trebuchets..

Indeed, Medieval armies were no where near as capable or proficient at arms as were the armies of the Ancient World. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to disagree in 100year war English army
was very capable..remenber Azincourt for example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost any decent army from the ancient world would have butchered the English at Agincourt. Only a Medieval Army would have been stupid enough to attempt to charge longbowmen across a muddy field. Even the Parthians would not have done it. At CARRHAE in 700 AVC / 53 BC the Parthian commander initially intended to charge with his Kataphractoi - heavily armored cavalry with the rider armored from head to toe and the horse from nose to tail wielding a Kontos - but when he saw the discipline and steadyness of the LEGIONES he cancelled the charge because he knew it would not work and sent in the horse-archers as a stop-gap until he could figure out what to do. That, the Romans were not ready for and did not have enough foot archers and slingers to protect themselves from unending harrassment and they were gradually worn down. The stop-gap worked.
It was the only time, though. Typically, the Romans learn fast.
The Romans, for example, would have advanced with the Legiones. The showers of arrows would not have stopped them and the stakes the longbowmen were standing around would not even have been an annoyance to the LEGIONARII.
The crippling problem for Medieval armies is the lack of good infantry.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 03:57 AM
You can can reason your case very well . Azin court was just example. But I disagree that legionaries could have advanced when brits were firing ..Because of arrows knights had that suit of armour and 100 lb bow can easily penetrate that from 150 yards ..I am archer my self shooting 65 lb recurve..

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 04:15 AM
The crippling problem for Medieval armies is the lack of good infantry.

Go tell the Swiss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The veterans of CANNAE finally had their revenge.

Ehmm... You mean both of Romans, who survived Cannaehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the 10,000 +. There were 80,000 Roman troops on hand that August day in 216 BC; 45 - 60,000 died and the rest were sent to Sicilia to besiege Syracvsae after the city switched sides. There are three different numbers given by ancient sources as to Roman losses at CANNAE. The most relieble is POLUBIOS, who says 60,000 fell. TITVS LIVIVS says 45,000 - odd. A third says 70,000, but this fails to account for several factors and would account only for the TRIARII - there were 10,000 of them - who had been left to guard the camps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt! What I meant was that in popular view almost noone survived from Roman army part which found itself encircled.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The crippling problem for Medieval armies is the lack of good infantry.

Go tell the Swiss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
They at least Medieval times carried ballistas and other artillery with army.. those werent made
in a spot because there were few people who could shoot and construct those machines.In 14century Germans were famous for their trebuchets..

Indeed, Medieval armies were no where near as capable or proficient at arms as were the armies of the Ancient World. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to disagree in 100year war English army
was very capable..remenber Azincourt for example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost any decent army from the ancient world would have butchered the English at Agincourt. Only a Medieval Army would have been stupid enough to attempt to charge longbowmen across a muddy field. Even the Parthians would not have done it. At CARRHAE in 700 AVC / 53 BC the Parthian commander initially intended to charge with his Kataphractoi - heavily armored cavalry with the rider armored from head to toe and the horse from nose to tail wielding a Kontos - but when he saw the discipline and steadyness of the LEGIONES he cancelled the charge because he knew it would not work and sent in the horse-archers as a stop-gap until he could figure out what to do. That, the Romans were not ready for and did not have enough foot archers and slingers to protect themselves from unending harrassment and they were gradually worn down. The stop-gap worked.
It was the only time, though. Typically, the Romans learn fast.
The Romans, for example, would have advanced with the Legiones. The showers of arrows would not have stopped them and the stakes the longbowmen were standing around would not even have been an annoyance to the LEGIONARII.
The crippling problem for Medieval armies is the lack of good infantry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed! Military art of medieval Europe was far, far behind even basic tactilac thinking of Romans. Not Medieval only in fact: some part of Willem van Oranje (1533-1584) successes against Spanish came from his reform of infantry tactics, which came from studing Roman military/historical treatises.

neural_dream
12-11-2005, 06:05 AM
Kataphraktoi, Trebuchets, Onagers, Longbowmen. Now someone mention Mangudais or Teutonic Knights and I'll reinstall my Age of Empires 2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.
http://www.game-research.com/grafik/artikler/aok_2.jpg

Friendly_flyer
12-11-2005, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
I disagree that legionaries could have advanced when brits were firing ..Because of arrows knights had that suit of armour and 100 lb bow can easily penetrate that from 150 yards ..I am archer my self shooting 65 lb recurve..

There's a certain difference between medieval armour and a roman shield. The armour typically used in such tests is reproductions of 14th century German-style plate. They are usually around 2mm thick with a rather fluffy back-padding. A Roman SCVTVM was made from about 8 to 12 millimetres of oak plywood, covered with rawhide and glued linen in several layers. Having used bout breastplate and such a SCVTVM on occasions, I can safely say that penetrating the latter is much harder. On close range the heavy bodkin-arrows would possibly have penetrated, but then the lightly armoured archers would be in range of a hailstorm PILAE.

Anyway, the Romans, not likely to send heavy cavalry to attack an artillery unit across a muddy field for the sake of honour, would probably just lay siege or set up a couple of BALISTAE witch have far longer range than the longbows.

Yours truly in front of a working copy of the Hatra Balista in Denmark:

http://folk.uio.no/lise/foto/2k1Lise/2k1LiseHjemsted68.jpg

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
I disagree that legionaries could have advanced when brits were firing ..Because of arrows knights had that suit of armour and 100 lb bow can easily penetrate that from 150 yards ..I am archer my self shooting 65 lb recurve..

There's a certain difference between medieval armour and a roman shield. The armour typically used in such tests is reproductions of 14th century German-style plate. They are usually around 2mm thick with a rather fluffy back-padding. A Roman SCVTVM was made from about 8 to 12 millimetres of oak plywood, covered with rawhide and glued linen in several layers. Having used bout breastplate and such a SCVTVM on occasions, I can safely say that penetrating the latter is much harder. On close range the heavy bodkin-arrows would possibly have penetrated, but then the lightly armoured archers would be in range of a hailstorm PILAE.

Anyway, the Romans, not likely to send heavy cavalry to attack an artillery unit across a muddy field for the sake of honour, would probably just lay siege or set up a couple of BALISTAE witch have far longer range than the longbows.

Yours truly in front of a working copy of the Hatra Balista in Denmark:

http://folk.uio.no/lise/foto/2k1Lise/2k1LiseHjemsted68.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe.. We,ll never know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
But AVE to you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 07:20 AM
I suppose you dont wanna be a test target for 100lb bow when useing that equipment do you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Well neither do I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 09:04 AM
Just to keep Fritz & Waffen interested, I'd like to point out that like Charlotte Church, Kathryn Jenkins and Catherine Zeta Jones, the longbow is Welsh.

http://www.charlottechurch.com/gallery/1572807982.jpg

http://www.wru.co.uk/images/news/102893.jpg

http://members.tripod.com/catherine_zeta_jones/gallerynew.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/welshflag.gif

We only became British as a nation following the 1704 act of union between England and Scotland, Wales remains a principality rather than a kingdom.

You might also like to study Crecy and Poitiers rather than Agincourt as an example of how a medieval English army handled an armoured enemy (normally the unfortunate French) in a set-piece battle.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 09:45 AM
This is a quote from chronicle Itinerarium Cambrie about Welsh longbow:William de Braose also testifies that one of his men at arms was struck by an arrow which went through his thigh,high up where it was protected outside and inside the leg by iron armour and then through
the skirt of his tunic.Next it penetrated that part of saddle which is called alva or seat(so to speack thickest part)and finally it lodged in his horse driving in so deep that it killed the animal.. so Are we still agreed that Roman
army would have holiday killing medieval army??
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Friendly_flyer
12-11-2005, 10:43 AM
A holyday? No.

Nothing like the Welch longbow was in use during the "classical" Roman time. By classical I mean the period of heavy infantry, from 200 B.C to 200 A.D. The bows of the day where usually smaller, and was not really a principal weapon. A chirobalista might have fired just as hard, but had a much lower rate of fire, and was never seen by the hundreds or thousands, like the longbow.

This means that the Romans would be in for a chock, but tactic and cold bloodedly calculating the odds, the Romans would still have won in the end. Contrary to the French cavalry, expecting an easy victory, the Romans were not in the habit of panicking when things went badly. Remember that the British victory was seen as a miracle, despite the Frenchmen really having all odds against them (a sea of mud, heavy horses and limited armour on their horses).

Here‚‚ā¨ôs a picture of headdress and hairdo from the period when the longbow was at its peak, demonstrated by Sophi Marceau. (See Pirchjaeger, I found a on topic way to post a picture of Mrs Marceau)

http://www.mittelalter-netzwerk.de/Bilder_extern/Laterna_Magica/Sophie_Marceau_1.jpg

Actually, a number of discussions would be a lot better with pictures of Sophi Marceau in them.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 10:58 AM
Well, it's not as though the Romans had never faced massed archery before. The composite recurve bows in common use in the Ancient World were, in fact, longer ranged and more penetrating than English longbows. What was also a vital factor at Agincourt is the fact that missile weapons are more dangerous to mounted units than infantry. This is because the unshielded mounts are terribly exposed to the volleys, even when they are armored.
In one war between Rome and the Sassanids the Sassanids had given up trying to charge the LEGIONES with CLIBANARII (Literally, "Baking oven-men", essentially the same thing as KATAPHRACTOI, except the horses would mostly have armor on only the front of their bodies and the riders would back-up their KONTOI - lances - with bows) and they opted to stand and try to shoot the Romans to death with their bows. The LEGIONES replied by dropping their PILA and charging with only swords. They advanced through a storm of archery, impacted the standing Persian KATAPHRACTARII and CLIBANARII, and massacred them in close combat. Some 2,500 Persians were killed. All of 75 Romans died.
The LEGIONARII can also respond to massed missile fire with a formation called a TESTVDO ("Tortoise") in which they form a box covered by shields on all sides and above and can advance in that manner. This formation is so steady that in CAESAR's raid into southern BRITTANIA this formation was actualy ridden over by British chariots and held up.

Swiss pikemen are the first decent infantry of the Medieval Era and spelled doom for the Knights since at long last someone on mainland Europe could finally do what only Scottish sciltrons had been able to do: Stop charging knights.

The Swiss are NOT the world's first pikemen. The Ancient World had even better pike formations. One big difference is that the Ancient pikemen, wielding a sarissa, 16 + foot long pikes, could also wield a SHIELD at the same time. Medieval pikemen never figured that out and this left them exposed to archery and swordsmen - as the Spaniards displayed; "Pikes up!" Their formations were never as dangerous as the Makedonian and Diadochi versions that the Romans defeated. Medieval pikemen attempted various counters, such as having every other man wield a halberd or a shield, but these measures also served to reduce the effictiveness of the formations by reducing the number of pikes presented to the enemy.
A Makedonian PHALANGZ (Actual Hellenic spelling. The "PH" is not actually pronounced like a "F", but like a P with an aspiration; sort of like a separate P + H) projected the sarissai of the first FIVE ranks past the front rank and the remaining 11 ranks held their sarissai at incrementally increasing angles up, which formed something of a roof over the formation which served to break-up volleys of arrows and greatly reduce their effect upon the line.
Even then, if swordsmen - LEGIONARII, for example - penetrated the hedgerow of sarissai for what ever reason the PHALANGITAI tended to get massacred. At PYDNA in 168 BC, for example, the PHALANGZ at first pushed the LEGIONES back, but they eventually crossed onto rough ground that caused gaps to appear in the PHALANGZ. AEMILIVS PAVLVS told the CENTVRIONES to take over - thus releasing them to exploit whatever conditions they found themselves facing - and the LEGIONARII penetrated the PHALANGZ. By sunset over 20,000 Makedonians had perished at a cost to Roma of 100 of her citizens.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 11:00 AM
Who said anything about the Swiss being the world's first pikemen? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MLudner
12-11-2005, 11:34 AM
Bow Tech:

A Welsh longbow is what is called a Self-Bow. It is made by using the wood of a yew tree cut from the trunk at the junction of the inner and outer wood. The inner wood in spongy and springy, while outer wood is stiff and more rigid. The shafts are carved and then treated and aged before being finished.
EARLY ancient bows used this technique.
Then came the SKYTHES - Scythian. They introduced the Composite Recurve Bow. The CRB starts as a self bow, using wood similar to the yew. However, to add to it's power layers of horn and sinew are glued onto the outer surfaces of the bow. The bow is made so that it recurves - bends forward when unstrung so that the ends come quite close together. Because of this the bow did not need to be long to develop great power and allowed the bow to be useful even from horseback, as to where self bows had to be long in order to develop such power.
The Self Bow can only be drawn to the chin.
A CRB is drawn back past the back of the archer's head.

By comparison, the Welsh longbow is actually lower tech than the Composite Recurve. Many people make the mistake of thinking technology developed in a linear manner when this is not the case. The Ancient World was much more techologically advanced than the Medieval Era, when Roma fell European technology sank into pre Classical Era level and took almost a thousand years to catch up.

The world's first ever steam engine, for example, was invented by an Ancient Hellenic scientist in the 1st Century AD. Medieval Europeans were baffled by the concept of an odometer that could consistenly track a mile even on the ground. Even Leonardo Davinci tried and failed to create one.
Almost 2,000 years earlier the brilliant ancient Hellenic scientist of SYRAKOUSAI, ARCHIMEDES, invented a fully functional odometer that was allowing the Romans to precisely mark their roads by the mile.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 11:36 AM
Didn't say you had, Old Chap; just said they were not.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 11:40 AM
Oh, BTW: self-correction.

SCIPIO did not take take SYRAKOUSAI, MARCELLVS took it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 11:41 AM
Well sarissoforoi were perfect weapon for perfect conditions and... no badluck. And so it happened that both only Philip and Alexander had... Sarissas were of different lengths, so that those of all 'active' rows would end at the same distance from front of fomation - very dense 'fence' of tips. Unless formation was broken - nothing could stop them.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 11:52 AM
May I ask whos bow were more powerful than longbow. From ship called Mary Rose they found
110-140 lb bows. And may i remind you that Mongol
recurve was 160lb and that was 1300 century http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MLudner
12-11-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
May I ask whos bow were more powerful than longbow. From ship called Mary Rose they found
110-140 lb bows. And may i remind you that Mongol
recurve was 160lb and that was 1300 century http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


The Mongols were using the exact same bow as the SKUTHES. The CRB orginated in Central Asia and was in common use from Mongolia to the Ukraine. It was not a new invention when the Mongols were using it; it was very, very old yet more advanced none-the-less than the Welsh bow. The SKUTHES were a nomadic, central asian steppe peoples who migrated into the Ukraine in the pre-Classical Era of the Ancient World. The CRB then spread into the hands of Mesopotamian peoples like the Achaemenid Persians and PARTHI. In fact, it was those bows the Hellenic HOPLITAI were facing at MARATHON.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 12:34 PM
The Mongol bow was stronger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif .You wanna proof Skythes lived in a same area as muslims when
Crusaders came and muslim bows DIDNT penetrate
crusaders armor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifExplain that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

waffen-79
12-11-2005, 12:38 PM
Hey guys, I have 2 questions

1. Is the Spanish city Barcelona named after Hannibal Barca, (you know Barça - Barca).

2. Why on earth Caterine Zeta-Jones married M. Douglas??? btw have u seen her in The movie about the Russian Czarina: Katerina(spelling) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif?

I really like this thread, Imagine how all the major religions would be affected if because the fall of rome, judea wasn't invaded.

I play reguraly RTW (without the exp pack)


@ Low_flyer, Friendly_Flyer & Fritz u guys really know how to SPICE UP a thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
Hey guys, I have 2 questions

1. Is the Spanish city Barcelona named after Hannibal Barca, (you know Barça - Barca).

2. Why on earth Caterine Zeta-Jones married M. Douglas??? btw have u seen her in The movie about the Russian Czarina: Katerina(spelling) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif?

I really like this thread, Imagine how all the mayor religions would be affected if because the fall of rome, judea wasn't invaded.

I play reguraly RTW (without the exp pack)


@ Low_flyer & High_Flyer u guys really know how to SPICE UP a thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I can answer to number 2 M. Douglas has money enough and he seems to be symphatic fellow (in that order)But if I would be Catherine Z I would have married Zorro http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 12:50 PM
Barcelona is named after the football team that Ronaldinho plays for. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Here's a still from 'Kingdom of Heaven', a film about the crusades, to (a) keep up the pretext that we know what we're on about, and (b) smuggle in another chick-pic.

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1145044/photo_25.jpg

ploughman
12-11-2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
Hey guys, I have 2 questions

1. Is the Spanish city Barcelona named after Hannibal Barca, (you know Barça - Barca).

2. Why on earth Caterine Zeta-Jones married M. Douglas??? btw have u seen her in The movie about the Russian Czarina: Katerina(spelling) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif?

I really like this thread, Imagine how all the major religions would be affected if because the fall of rome, judea wasn't invaded.

I play reguraly RTW (without the exp pack)


@ Low_flyer, Friendly_Flyer & Fritz u guys really know how to SPICE UP a thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't know but Cartagena is New Carthage. How about that then?

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Barcelona is named after the football team that Ronaldinho plays for. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Here's a still from 'Kingdom of Heaven', a film about the crusades, to (a) keep up the pretext that we know what we're on about, and (b) smuggle in another chick-pic.
NIIICE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1145044/photo_25.jpg

Ankanor
12-11-2005, 01:27 PM
Skythes lived in today Ukraine. The muslims in the Holy places were Egyptians, Arabians and from Iraq. The complex recurve bow is a cavalry bow. But the real secret of the English bowmen was not the longbow, but the Bodkin arrowpoint. the used before that broadhead was ineffective against armor because too much of the armor had to be penetrated for a decent hit. The Bodkin arrow could use the holes in the ringmail - the most common armor available, to its advantage. The broadhead arrowpoint couldn't. to compare the two, the bodkin is a nail, the broadhead is a knife.

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 01:36 PM
The world's first ever steam engine, for example, was invented by an Ancient Hellenic scientist in the 1st Century AD.
The guy was Heron of Alexandria. It was a steam engine only by general principle, i.e. boiling water lead to operation of mechanical device - in this case opening temple doors. It was however nothing close to steam engines of late XVII in British mines, not to mention Watt's one.
Heron is also, in a way, inventor of jet engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Aeolipilia, Aeol's ball, was a sphere with two curved pipes sticking out. Water was boiled inside, and steam coming out of those pipes generated thrust to rotate the ball http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ankanor
12-11-2005, 01:44 PM
Yet, he invented it 1700 years EARLIER http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Friendly_flyer
12-11-2005, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Don't know but Cartagena is New Carthage. How about that then?

There's a bit of a story to this:

Cartage had a bad habit of annoying the wrong empires wit the result that they got razed repeatedly. Cartage (really Karthago) means "New City", after having been razed at one time. After the Romans razed it again, it was rebuilt under the name of Chartagena, meaning "New New City". True to form, they managed to irritate the Romans once more. When the city was rebuilt it was given the name of Nea Cartagena, which means (you guessed it) New New New City.

A small note on longbows:

The longbow in it self is a technically rather unremarkable instrument. As Muldner correctly pointed out, it's just an overblown self-bow. What made the longbow such a devastating weapon was that the British had large bodies of men trained to supreme proficiency with it. In skill the longbow men was comparable to the legionaries of Rome, often being so thoroughly trained that it easily shows in the skeleton.

ploughman
12-11-2005, 02:20 PM
Quite, it is relatively easy for an osteo-archeologist to spot a practiced longbowman, his left or unfavoured arm will have noticeably greater bone and muscular development.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 02:21 PM
And his spine would be twisted.

It's hard to comprehend the practice those guys put in.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 02:24 PM
I think we got little bit lost with subject.
about were the medieval armies worse than
legion .I dont think so as Azingourt maybe was little bit bad example Ishould have suggest
Crecy or Poitiers which Low-Flyer mentioned.Still..King Rikard Lionheart read
Roman militarymanual while he was crusaiding so
Medieval warfare owns a lot to Romans. Only that didnt help against Mongols because their way of wageing war was like Bliztkrieg.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
And his spine would be twisted.

It's hard to comprehend the practice those guys put in.
I have been shooting for ten years 65lb bow its not that hard But I would like to see my skeleton http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
12-11-2005, 02:30 PM
Well, technically the final defeat of an organised Roman military unit took place at Constantinople in 1453 AD. The Roman army existed continually as an institution from the founding of Rome in the 9th Century BC untill the fall of Constantinople to the Turks some 2,300 odd years later.

Cool eh?

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
OK, try doing it since you were child of maybe seven or eight years of age and double the pull on the bow. That'll morph your sketelon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And they also shoot food for they families and they started really young.. Youre right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I started when I was about twenty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif and maybe if I d been living in that time Id be dead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Well, technically the final defeat of an organised Roman military unit took place at Constantinople in 1453 AD. The Roman army existed continually as an institution from the founding of Rome in the 9th Century BC untill the fall of Constantinople to the Turks some 2,300 odd years later.

Cool eh?
Its called tradition Wau I didnt know that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ploughman
12-11-2005, 02:44 PM
I can pretty much guarantee that, unless you're name is Lazarus, you would indeed be dead today had you been born in 13th Century England. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 02:45 PM
Isn't there a present day Turkish guards unit that still gives orders in a Saxon dialect because they're descended from a Varangian guard unit made up of Anlo-Saxons who fled when the Normans invaded England? Or am I getting confused again? Sometimes all this trivia in my head becomes dislodged in transit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ploughman
12-11-2005, 02:48 PM
Crazy enough to be true. I believe it and I've only just heard about it.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 02:50 PM
I picked it up somewhere.....most of my non-aviation books are packed up in boxes here somewhere, might have to go foraging later.
Any experts want to save me a search?

A quick google dug this up...

"After the successful invasion of England by the Normans, however, a large number of Anglo-Saxons and Danes immigrated to the Byzantine Empire by way of the Mediterranean. One source has more than 5,000 of them arriving in 235 ships. Those who did not enter imperial service were settled on the Black Sea, but those who did became so vital to the Varangians that it was commonly called the Englinbarrangoi from that point. In this capacity they were able to war against the Normans under Robert Guiscard in Sicily, who unsuccessfully sought to invade the lower Balkans as well."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian

ploughman
12-11-2005, 02:59 PM
Lots of reference to emigre Anglo-Saxons serving in the Varangian Guard in the 11th and 12th centuries as a result of the Norman Conquest, I haven't found anything suggesting it's identity survives in the modern Turkish army as yet.

Intersting, and to think ten minutes ago I was utterly oblivious of it.

ASM 1
12-11-2005, 05:49 PM
Since we have had all SORTS of replies to this thread I what I really wanna know is

Originally posted by Lord_Rhah:
Hannibal, (the leader of the A-Team) had sacked Rome?



or does that not bear thinking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

sorry its late and I am tired lol

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-11-2005, 05:56 PM
It's too conjectural to call. A better question might have been 'What if Hannibal had defeated (rather than sacked) Rome?' And Lord_Rhah touched upon the variables there in his original post. Anyone seen him here since, BTW?

MLudner
12-11-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
The Mongol bow was stronger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif .You wanna proof Skythes lived in a same area as muslims when
Crusaders came and muslim bows DIDNT penetrate
crusaders armor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifExplain that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The Ukraine is Muslim? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Has anybody told the Ukrainians about that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seriously,

You are mistaken. The SKUTHES lived on the southern steppe north of the Black Sea in what is today the Ukraine.

They penetrated Crusader armor when they got within range. The stories of Crusader Knights with numerous arrows sticking from their armor was the result of longer range harrassment fire. This is aside from the fact that I am not certain that Islamic troops were using the same bow as I am speaking of. The Arabs who swept through the Middle East in the early 7th Century AD and destroyed the Sassanid Persian Empire after driving the Romans north of the Taurus Mountains that border southern and eastern Anatolia - modern day Turkey - may not have adopted the Composite Recurve Bow.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The world's first ever steam engine, for example, was invented by an Ancient Hellenic scientist in the 1st Century AD.
The guy was Heron of Alexandria. It was a steam engine only by general principle, i.e. boiling water lead to operation of mechanical device - in this case opening temple doors. It was however nothing close to steam engines of late XVII in British mines, not to mention Watt's one.
Heron is also, in a way, inventor of jet engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Aeolipilia, Aeol's ball, was a sphere with two curved pipes sticking out. Water was boiled inside, and steam coming out of those pipes generated thrust to rotate the ball http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Still a steam engine. It was never fully developed, though; you are right. The Roman economy was - tragically - a slave economy and that quashed the further development of the device.

Pirschjaeger
12-11-2005, 07:10 PM
Since we're on the sub topic of Romans, I have a question. What were the reasons the Romans couldn't beat the Barbarians? The Romans wrote about how uncivilized and unorganized the Babrarians seemed to be. But I've always thought the Roman invasions and attempts are what brought the Barbarian tribes together. I seem to remember reading the only real success the Romans had with the Barbarians was only in hiring them.

Now, back on the main topic, spice, I submit a good reason for the Barbarians to put up such an aggressive defense.

Me likes spice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/barbarianwarrior.jpg

Fritz

MLudner
12-11-2005, 07:28 PM
BTW: Ancient sources show the Composite Recurve Bow could launch arrows to a range of over 561 meters, a Welsh bow can get an arrow about half that distance.

The proof of the superiority of Ancient Armies over Medieval I draw from the fact that Ancient Armies were capable of things Medieval armies simply were not. In the Medieval Era, until the arrival of pikemen and gunpowder, cavalry charges were unstoppable because the ill-trained, unprofessional and more often than not lower morale infantry of the time would break before the charge.
Charging a LEGIO or a PHALANGZ in such a way would have led to bad results for the Knights - though, admittedly worse charging a PHALANGZ ... wall of spear or sarissai very, very unpleasant for mounted troops; generally prickly and uncomfortable. This is because the infantry of that day were better trained, better organized and of higher morale. They would stand; they might not like it, but they would stand. The Romans really disliked fighting the SAVROMATI (The next nomadic invasion of the Ukrainian Steppe that had destroyed the SKUTHES) because the they - unlike the Parthians and Sassanids - would launch charges at a full gallop and come thundering into the LEGIONARII at full speed. Because of this fighting the wild and very warlike SAVROMATI tended to be a bit bloodier for the LEGIONES. The LEGIONARII, however, stopped these charges regularly as much as they disliked them. The method was to assume double close order (The normal formation was only 4 ranks deep with a yard between files. Double Close means they halve the frontage and stand 8 ranks deep with a half yard between files) with the first 4 ranks kneeling with their shields angled back and PILA planted into the ground and angled into the charging enemy. The back 4 ranks remained standing. After the cavalry impacted the four back ranks would volley their PILA, then push into melee with the now very screwed cavalrymen.

I know about Poitiers and the 100 Year's War, though maybe not as much as you guys. I have a number of good books on the armies of the era and I have never been over-impressed with Medieval Armies. Late Medieval armies, such as those fighting the 100 Year's War, were better than earlier Medieval and late Dark Age armies. They still would not have, however, matched-up well with Ancient Armies.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Since we're on the sub topic of Romans, I have a question. What were the reasons the Romans couldn't beat the Barbarians? The Romans wrote about how uncivilized and unorganized the Babrarians seemed to be. But I've always thought the Roman invasions and attempts are what brought the Barbarian tribes together. I seem to remember reading the only real success the Romans had with the Barbarians was only in hiring them.

Now, back on the main topic, spice, I submit a good reason for the Barbarians to put up such an aggressive defense.

Me likes spice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/barbarianwarrior.jpg

Fritz

Weight of numbers. The Roman army was too small and only became smaller as time progressed. In the end it was so bad (numerically) that the Empire really could not protect itself anymore.

A good example are the Huns (Mongols, in case you didn't know that). Atilla invades Gaul. The MAGISTER of Gaul, one FLAVIVS AETIVS and the last great Roman General, manages to recruit several Germanic tribes - including the Visigoths and Franks - to back-up his pathetically small Roman Field Army and gives battle to Atilla and his Huns at the CAMPVS MAVRIACVS. He is victorious, forcing Atilla to abandon the invasion of GALLIA. AETIVS, however, does not destroy the Huns and Atilla because he wants to continue to use them as a foil against the Germanic barbarians pressing the shrinking frontier as he had so successfully done in the past.

However, Atilla is no longer willing to be a foil. Either within a matter of a few months or in the following year Atilla invades Italia and is only turned back by an out-break of - likely - malaria amongst his troops and the tongue of Pope Leo.

One might wonder why AETIVS did not move to intercept Atilla this time.
The barbarians who had sided with him in GALLIA laughed him out of their villages this time. They failed to see why they should fight for Roma, for this time the Huns were not threatening THEM; now it was just ROMA, and who among them cared a whit about that?
Thus, AETIVS was helpless; his pathetic little army on its own would not have even represented a speed bump to the Huns.

Numbers. They came and the LEGIONES killed them. More came, and the LEGIONES continued killing them. More and more came and the LEGIONES killed more and more of them.
They kept coming.
The LEGIONES kept killing them. But the LEGIONES became fewer and fewer in number and the barbarians became more and more in number.
For the Empire these were very bad numbers. As Abraham Lincoln might have put it; trying to keep the bar4barians beyond the frontier was like trying to shovel fleas ..... with smaller and smaller shovels all the time.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 09:54 PM
Alright, poo on yer Welsh Bows!

Yes, I said: "Poo on yer Welsh Bows!"

I just saw an experiment where they fired a reproduction catapult far, far, far more powerful than even a Composite Recurve Bow, let alone the Welsh Bow, from 150 yards into a suit of LORICA SEGMENTATA, the armor worn by LEGIONARII in the 1st Century AD until some unknown point in the 4th.
Now, I already knew that LORICA SEGMENTATA was probably the best infantry armor ever devised as not only did it grant excellent protection, but it was light, flexible and reasonably priced.
When they launched the bolt - with an AP head - I expected it would punch the armor. I was more than surprised when the bolt bounced all three times (Though the first slipped up through the plates and would have lightly wounded the LEGIONARIUS wearing it)!
Wow.

That would be the armor these fine gentlemen are wearing:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c312/PROXIMVS/11.jpg

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 12:45 AM
The reason I think Roman imperium lost at least
militarily was that they took barbarians to legion.
These werent so enthuastic to defend former enemy. And about bows I have not shot any armor
to pieces although my prime hobby is archery so I cant say wheter they were so strong or not but Iwoudnt be standing within 200
meters as a target when somebody is shooting 100lb bow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
btw remember most of the Caesars were killed by their bodyguards which at later times were
germans.Mludner did you read my text about longbow?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
The reason I think Roman imperium lost at least
militarily was that they took barbarians to legion.
These werent so enthuastic to defend former enemy. And about bows I have not shot any armor
to pieces although my prime hobby is archery so I cant say wheter they were so strong or not but Iwoudnt be standing within 200
meters as a target when somebody is shooting 100lb bow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
btw remember most of the Caesars were killed by their bodyguards which at later times were
germans.Mludner did you read my text about longbow?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
And Your legionaries still have bare hands and
legs targets so to speak..At Azincourt English
bowmen shot 40000 arrows per minute (there were
8000 bowman each shot 10 shot perminute and these were aimed shots...) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifand also bare face

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 01:04 AM
At Azincourt English bowmen shot 40000 arrows per
minute (there were about 8000 men each man shot
10 shot per minute and these were aimed shot)
Your legoinariis have bare hands face and legs
good targets I know they have shield ...Btw Did you read my text about Welshbow ..its range is around 300 meters .But as we all know the range is not the efficient shooting distance its bit shorter. To notice I dont underestimate legionaries they were professional soldiers and
their training was more advanced than in surrounding states and they didnt give up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 01:15 AM
At Azincourt English bow men shot 40000 arrows per minute. There were 8000 man who shot 10 shot per minute and these were aimed shots.Legionariis have bare hands and face and
also legs Good targets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifI know they have shield but would it help??I dont mean that legionariis were poor soldiers far from it they were tough ..Best Army at ancient times.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 01:25 AM
At Azincourt English shot 40000 arrows per minute there were 8000 man who shot 10 per
minute(these were aimed shot).Legoinariis
have bare hands bare face and also barelegs.
I know they have shield but would it help ??
Range of Welsh 100lb bow is around 300meters

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 01:31 AM
Sorry Iam repeating myself but for some reason
my writing dont show in general pages .It shows
only when I click your name??

Ankanor
12-12-2005, 02:38 AM
Like I said, at Agincourt and Crecy the English army could not be flanked. The French could go only one way, through the sea of mud in one case and up the hill in the other. The French did not have adequate missile troops and did not employ them in a proper way. The horses of the "formiddable" french knights - as disciplined as as band of howling drunken barbarians, had no armor whatsoever. The french can be compared to the bull that attempts to horn the red cloak the matador is waving in front of his eyes. And last, but certainly not least, these are teh French http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Their military "ability" is surpassed only by the WW2 Italian Army that had to use poisonous gas to defeat the spear and sword equipped inferior numbered army of the Ethiopians , managed to occupy Albania after of 20 years of close relationships and the eventual accommodation of the Italian as a second official language in albania. Then they were soundly beaten by the inferior Greek army and had to ask Hitler to help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-12-2005, 03:06 AM
Thank you for an exceedingly mature perspective...

Welsh longbow arrows penetrated a four inch thick oak door during the siege of Abergavenny Castle in 1182. Fact.

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/longbow/longbow.html

http://www.longbow-archers.com/

http://www.archers.org/default.asp?section=History&page=longbow

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 03:06 AM
Does this mean if the French and Italians went to war, it would end up a draw, with both sides losing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sorry, couldn't help myself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Thank you for an exceedingly mature perspective...

Welsh longbow arrows penetrated a four inch thick oak door during the siege of Abergavenny Castle in 1182. Fact.



Aha, that's all fine and dandy, but did they every try to penetrate the skin of one of Oleg's LaGGs? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I didn't think so, even the Welsh know their limits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fritz

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-12-2005, 03:09 AM
The medieval French actually kicked the English out of France. It took them hundreds of years, but give them some credit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 03:11 AM
A permanantly pmsing woman did it. Before her, the French were, well, helpless.

Never mess with a pmsing woman, never. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Fritz

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 03:31 AM
i see welsh long bow raise japanese yumi ^_^. also be use horse on

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Kyudo20demo20Mike204202004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/223px-Yumi-p1000624.jpg

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-12-2005, 03:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Nice bow. A medieval English vs Japanese battle would have been interesting...

Fritz is steering this towards Joan of Arc in the hope someone's going to post a pic of Milla Jovovich in 'The Messenger'.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 04:17 AM
Joan of Arc?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Milla_Jovovich_2.jpg

Or Joan Arched? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/94829s.jpg

I often dream that Milla dreams of me dreaming about her. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-12-2005, 04:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif This has given me an idea for a new thread...stay tuned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.splicedonline.com/99reviews/messenger_.jpg

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
Like I said, at Agincourt and Crecy the English army could not be flanked. The French could go only one way, through the sea of mud in one case and up the hill in the other. The French did not have adequate missile troops and did not employ them in a proper way. The horses of the "formiddable" french knights - as disciplined as as band of howling drunken barbarians, had no armor whatsoever. The french can be compared to the bull that attempts to horn the red cloak the matador is waving in front of his eyes. And last, but certainly not least, these are teh French http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Their military "ability" is surpassed only by the WW2 Italian Army that had to use poisonous gas to defeat the spear and sword equipped inferior numbered army of the Ethiopians , managed to occupy Albania after of 20 years of close relationships and the eventual accommodation of the Italian as a second official language in albania. Then they were soundly beaten by the inferior Greek army and had to ask Hitler to help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Have you ever been at Crecy? the uphill is not so obvius there as it is ,terrain there is deceiving BTW. French nobility was slaugtered there so they had armour.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
Like I said, at Agincourt and Crecy the English army could not be flanked. The French could go only one way, through the sea of mud in one case and up the hill in the other. The French did not have adequate missile troops and did not employ them in a proper way. The horses of the "formiddable" french knights - as disciplined as as band of howling drunken barbarians, had no armor whatsoever. The french can be compared to the bull that attempts to horn the red cloak the matador is waving in front of his eyes. And last, but certainly not least, these are teh French http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Their military "ability" is surpassed only by the WW2 Italian Army that had to use poisonous gas to defeat the spear and sword equipped inferior numbered army of the Ethiopians , managed to occupy Albania after of 20 years of close relationships and the eventual accommodation of the Italian as a second official language in albania. Then they were soundly beaten by the inferior Greek army and had to ask Hitler to help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Have you ever been at Crecy? the uphill is not so obvius there as it is ,terrain there is deceiving BTW. French nobility was slaugtered there so they had armour.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
because they were nobles they had armour

neural_dream
12-12-2005, 04:53 AM
I'd prefer the chu-ko-nu meself.

http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/chu-ko-nu_220.jpg
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/chu-ko-nu_03.jpg


but the most intriguing is the Mongolian

http://www.atarn.org/training/fd_2004/april2_800.jpg

Friendly_flyer
12-12-2005, 04:55 AM
The French had armour in copious amounts, though their horses had not. A hailstorm of arrows at long range would be unconfortable, but not deadly to the French knights. The poor horses on the other hand...

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The French had armour in copious amounts, though their horses had not. A hailstorm of arrows at long range would be unconfortable, but not deadly to the French knights. The poor horses on the other hand...
Right..You too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
I'd prefer the chu-ko-nu meself.

http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/chu-ko-nu_220.jpg
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/chu-ko-nu_03.jpg
Good style to shoot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


but the most intriguing is the Mongolian

http://www.atarn.org/training/fd_2004/april2_800.jpg

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 05:06 AM
that small bow 0_0

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-12-2005, 05:09 AM
That's a superb photograph. Seriously.

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 05:17 AM
At Crecy frenc army totally over estimated their
ability to defeat English army.French had so hurry that they killed their own archers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
French army was in three lines .First lines
attack was total chaos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif and second line had little better chance to succeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif but failed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gifthird
line mostly escaped http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 06:23 AM
yaya for nice armour

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Image01002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/samurai-yumi.jpg

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
that small bow 0_0
Imagine orginals were 160lb,s and sometimes stringed while riding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 06:30 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
yaya for nice armour

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Image01002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/samurai-yumi.jpg [/QUOTE
Awesome I have always liked Samurai-yumis

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 06:40 AM
Imagine orginals were 160lb,s and sometimes stringed while riding

160lbs= 80kg 0_0

it no be that heavy that more than me(52kg) have wear armour for festievel reinactment much light than what think would be. 80kg seem much heavy for what remember

odachi ^_^ 126cm blade this have(japanese claymore ^_^)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/tomomitsu_odachi.jpg

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 06:59 AM
Yes orginals were 160lb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif but that in a picture is maybe 55lb??

Lord_Rhah
12-12-2005, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
It's too conjectural to call. A better question might have been 'What if Hannibal had defeated (rather than sacked) Rome?' And Lord_Rhah touched upon the variables there in his original post. Anyone seen him here since, BTW?

Still here, Had to put some time in with the missus over weekend. she gets moody if i even go within 5ft of the PC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
When i posted this on Friday, i watched it slip lower and lower down the list, and now its an 8 page topic! thanks for all the replies, (especially Mludner, thanks for the info.)

To be honest, my knowledge on this subject is very limited (as i said, playing RTW and then reading up on wikipedia for the basics) but i figured i could post the topic, sit back and absord the information (and hope it doesnt turn into a flame, which thankfully seems unlikely)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif all

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Imagine orginals were 160lb,s and sometimes stringed while riding

160lbs= 80kg 0_0

it no be that heavy that more than me(52kg) have wear armour for festievel reinactment much light than what think would be. 80kg seem much heavy for what remember

odachi ^_^ 126cm blade this have(japanese claymore ^_^)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/tomomitsu_odachi.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a Tachi or is it dai-katana http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
you have one of those??
I have katana myself

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Lord_Rhah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
It's too conjectural to call. A better question might have been 'What if Hannibal had defeated (rather than sacked) Rome?' And Lord_Rhah touched upon the variables there in his original post. Anyone seen him here since, BTW? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Still here, Had to put some time in with the missus over weekend. she gets moody if i even go within 5ft of the PC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
When i posted this on Friday, i watched it slip lower and lower down the list, and now its an 8 page topic! thanks for all the replies, (especially Mludner, thanks for the info.)

To be honest, my knowledge on this subject is very limited (as i said, playing RTW and then reading up on wikipedia for the basics) but i figured i could post the topic, sit back and absord the information (and hope it doesnt turn into a flame, which thankfully seems unlikely)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif all </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 07:14 AM
i just do google search can find no thing near 80kg most be 35-40kg. thing japanese armour be way made that soak up much water that increase weight huge so no fight when rain ^_^

sword tomomitsu odachi from Nambokucho era

marc_hawkins
12-12-2005, 07:19 AM
Now we are talking! you've got to give the samurai 10/10 for style! (i'm ashamed really not contributing to the Rome/Carthage debate since i've a degree in ancient history, but its not like i've been needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

I've always been slightly confused about the terms used for japanese swords. A 'tachi' is just a word for 'sword'? and odachi the same thing as the 'no-dachi'?

I do have a book somwhere that shows a statue of a japanese warrior from about the 5th centrury wearing pre- lamellar style solid plate body armour, and he looks very much like a legionary! Armour called 'Tanko' i think.

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
i just do google search can find no thing near 80kg most be 35-40kg. thing japanese armour be way made that soak up much water that increase weight huge so no fight when rain ^_^

sword tomomitsu odachi from Nambokucho era correction
I didnt mean that armor but that little bow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 07:25 AM
armour like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/japanesearmorkofun6xd.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/03-19-3.jpg

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Now we are talking! you've got to give the samurai 10/10 for style! (i'm ashamed really not contributing to the Rome/Carthage debate since i've a degree in ancient history, but its not like i've been needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

I've always been slightly confused about the terms used for japanese swords. A 'tachi' is just a word for 'sword'? and odachi the same thing as the 'no-dachi'?

I do have a book somwhere that shows a statue of a japanese warrior from about the 5th centrury wearing pre- lamellar style solid plate body armour, and he looks very much like a legionary! Armour called 'Tanko' i think.
Actually word "ken" means sword And Tachi and
Katana are different names for same kind of sword.If I recall Tachi was used by cavalry
and was weared blade downwards and Katana
was used by infantry blade upwards , Katana is also bit shorter than Tachi. Katana means killing sword and Tachi means also sword..
Ken is old word for sword http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 07:32 AM
Dai Katana means two swords..Havent heard about odachi though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

marc_hawkins
12-12-2005, 07:34 AM
Thanks! thats cleared a few problems up!

marc_hawkins
12-12-2005, 07:38 AM
well the no-dachi (and maybe odachi which is probably the correct term for it) is a very long version of the standard 'ken' kind of a Great sword or 'Field sword.' If you've seen 7 samurai there's one in that, though its shorter than contemporary ones apparently.

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 07:40 AM
odachi no set size sword over 3 shaku are able be call odachi. no-dachi be odd term often use describe large sword be for use against horse troop. problem nodachi be were rare as much hard make and yari were better/easier make + use against cavelry

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
well the no-dachi (and maybe odachi which is probably the correct term for it) is a very long version of the standard 'ken' kind of a Great sword or 'Field sword.' If you've seen 7 samurai there's one in that, though its shorter than contemporary ones apparently.
Well there is a book clled Secrets of the Samurai thats very good book about the subject.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 07:57 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/taka-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/t-9.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/hyogo-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/hyogo-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/u-1.jpg

before say it manji no swastika

marc_hawkins
12-12-2005, 08:02 AM
my mistake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Makes sense that, the pictures i've seen of no-dachi make them seem almost impossible and unwieldy to use except by very strong men. A spear is a much easier and more efficient option. A naginata is not the same thing as a yari though, more of a alternative to a sword?

Edit: beautiful armour there too!

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/taka-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/t-9.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/hyogo-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/hyogo-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/u-1.jpg

before say it manji no swastika
It means good luck!

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 08:13 AM
i japanese no what mean ^_^

naginata
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/480px-Naginata.jpg
yari
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/281px-Yari-p1000604.jpg

as see both blade much different, naginata blade curve

Ankanor
12-12-2005, 08:55 AM
The Arian Swastika, also seen here is a luck charm. You can see why Hitler and his Third Reich were doomed from the very beginning - their swastika is a mirror of the original, it revolves counterclockwise = no luck charm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

marc_hawkins
12-12-2005, 10:14 AM
as see both blade much different, naginata blade curve

Oh yeah thats right, much favoured by monks as i remember...untill Oda Nobunaga that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The symbol that the third reich adapted has made it sadly rather notorious, when ineed many cultures have used it long before them with various meanings with nothing to do with nazism. Wikipedia has a good entry on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

MLudner
12-12-2005, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
The Arian Swastika, also seen here is a luck charm. You can see why Hitler and his Third Reich were doomed from the very beginning - their swastika is a mirror of the original, it revolves counterclockwise = no luck charm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good thing Hitler did not think of that! It is well known that inverting a symbol reverses its effects. Thus, by inverting the original pramantha - which always faced left even so far back as ancient Roma and Hellas (and farther, really) - he reversed the effect of the symbol. It went from a symbol of good luck and victory to a symbol bringing misfortune and defeat.
I'm really, really not sure whose side he was on now...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MLudner
12-12-2005, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
The reason I think Roman imperium lost at least
militarily was that they took barbarians to legion.
These werent so enthuastic to defend former enemy. And about bows I have not shot any armor
to pieces although my prime hobby is archery so I cant say wheter they were so strong or not but Iwoudnt be standing within 200
meters as a target when somebody is shooting 100lb bow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
btw remember most of the Caesars were killed by their bodyguards which at later times were
germans.Mludner did you read my text about longbow?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Militarily even the less efficient armies of the Late Empire still won more battles than they lost. Roma was not really defeated militarily; if they could have afforded an army the size they needed to defend their frontier it would have held. The problem was that the field armies would rush to one region to confront an invasion, give battle and defeat it. In the meantime, three more invasions will have occured in other areas. The field armies will rush hither and thither trying to turn them back, defeating each in turn, only to face new ones that had come in behind them elsewhere. One big defeat could be crippling .... and they did occur from time to time.
Roma rotted from within. The problems were financial.

I did not encounter your text about the Welsh bow. However, did you read "Bow Tech"? That was, of course, a simplification of the process but it might give you an idea of how much I know about the Welsh bow. Make no mistake; I like and respect the Welsh bow and English longbowmen; next to Hobelars they are my favorite Medieval combat troops.

However, if the LEGIONARII can reach the archers the archers will get massacred. Any army overly reliant on archery when confronting a force of good shock infantry will get beaten. with exception to CARRHAE massed archery never stopped a Roman army and I have provided you with historical examples. At CARRHAE the LEGIONARII could not catch the archers because they were HORSE archers and that was the only reason it worked there.

Do you know what happened to the Welsh bowmen at Bannockburn? The Scots were not equal to the LEGIONARII in combat skill, organization, discipline or equipment; none-the-less, a charge of a few hundred Scottish LIGHT cavalry - note: LIGHT cavalry, not knights - drove the longbowmen from the field.

The Welsh bow is not a super weapon that slays all before it. Archers must avoid contact with shock infantry or other close combat troops or they get massacred. Only if you have a situation where they cannot reach your archers for one reason - mud and marshes, for example - or another will it work. It also help when your opponent is a moron.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-12-2005, 05:50 PM
so tell us about Hadrian's Wall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
The reason I think Roman imperium lost at least
militarily was that they took barbarians to legion.
These werent so enthuastic to defend former enemy. And about bows I have not shot any armor
to pieces although my prime hobby is archery so I cant say wheter they were so strong or not but Iwoudnt be standing within 200
meters as a target when somebody is shooting 100lb bow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
btw remember most of the Caesars were killed by their bodyguards which at later times were
germans.Mludner did you read my text about longbow?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Militarily even the less efficient armies of the Late Empire still won more battles than they lost. Roma was not really defeated militarily; if they could have afforded an army the size they needed to defend their frontier it would have held. The problem was that the field armies would rush to one region to confront an invasion, give battle and defeat it. In the meantime, three more invasions will have occured in other areas. The field armies will rush hither and thither trying to turn them back, defeating each in turn, only to face new ones that had come in behind them elsewhere. One big defeat could be crippling .... and they did occur from time to time.
Roma rotted from within. The problems were financial.

I did not encounter your text about the Welsh bow. However, did you read "Bow Tech"? That was, of course, a simplification of the process but it might give you an idea of how much I know about the Welsh bow. Make no mistake; I like and respect the Welsh bow and English longbowmen; next to Hobelars they are my favorite Medieval combat troops.

However, if the LEGIONARII can reach the archers the archers will get massacred. Any army overly reliant on archery when confronting a force of good shock infantry will get beaten. with exception to CARRHAE massed archery never stopped a Roman army and I have provided you with historical examples. At CARRHAE the LEGIONARII could not catch the archers because they were HORSE archers and that was the only reason it worked there.

Do you know what happened to the Welsh bowmen at Bannockburn? The Scots were not equal to the LEGIONARII in combat skill, organization, discipline or equipment; none-the-less, a charge of a few hundred Scottish LIGHT cavalry - note: LIGHT cavalry, not knights - drove the longbowmen from the field.

The Welsh bow is not a super weapon that slays all before it. Archers must avoid contact with shock infantry or other close combat troops or they get massacred. Only if you have a situation where they cannot reach your archers for one reason - mud and marshes, for example - or another will it work. It also help when your opponent is a moron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have enjoyed reading your text its well reasoned and clear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif`! keep going

fighter_966
12-12-2005, 11:43 PM
I havent read about Bannockburn battle .The best tactic
to win archers was of course to wait that they run out of arrows, btw this was close in Crecy
where english had to collect arrows from the field..And about cohesion or command structure
at Crecy there where units in English side who didnt speak same language http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif .(they were welsh
archers with british officers)..that tells something about their will to fight .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
and you are right also about that archeries should stay away from light cavary which was actually used for this purpose in that time

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
I havent read about Bannockburn battle .The best tactic
to win archers was of course to wait that they run out of arrows, btw this was close in Crecy
where english had to collect arrows from the field..And about cohesion or command structure
at Crecy there where units in English side who didnt speak same language http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif .(they were welsh
archers with british officers)..that tells something about their will to fight .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
and you are right also about that archeries should stay away from light cavary which was actually used for this purpose in that time
But archers also take part to close quarter battle.. and this is new for me some of archery units were moving around as a cavalry..

Ankanor
12-13-2005, 01:30 AM
Well, the archers had two choices - flee and leave the hugely outnumbered man-at-arms fight it on their own, or mix it with the others. Plus, having repelled numerous attacks, the archers must have been quite full of themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And don't forget what the king said in his pre-battle speech: if the nobles were to be captured, they would be ransomed. If the common men were taken prisoners, they would be killed on the spot. So they had to win or die http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What Caesar said before Pharsalus: We have to win or die. Pompey's men have more options(this isn't an actual quote, mind you)

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 01:37 AM
Well at crecy the whole british army was in that situation Win or die as in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifAzincourt

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 06:12 AM
I rember one occasion- this is also story I have
read that in Teutoneburg legionariees lost a battle to Germans Actually 3Legions if I remember correctly So Mr Mludner..Better Tactics
or better Equipments give Germans a victory??

ploughman
12-13-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:

What Caesar said before Pharsalus: We have to win or die. Pompey's men have more options(this isn't an actual quote, mind you)

You've been watching that BBC/HBO Rome thing, neh? I'm quite enjoying it myself, how about you?

Ankanor
12-13-2005, 06:44 AM
It was an Ambush. And the superior numbers of the Germans, which is a quality of its own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Plus the Torrental 48 hours of rain that made the leather covering of the shields useless. Plus the thick forest that deprived the Romans their main advantage - discipline and formations. The quite foolish commander that pressed forth and forth. The traitorous German chief who lured the 3 legions in the forest in the first place. the constant barrage of missiles that rained on the romans long before the Germans had enough courage to go out of the cover of the trees and fight the Romans hand to hand. It is said that those javelins and arrows were the main cause of casualties, which makes sense, the romans couldn't effectively defend themselves all the time, they had to walk on, while the ambushers could very well pick the right time. The rain had turned the path the Romans were following into a muddy river. Basicly, that's it.

About Rome: I can't wait to watch the second season. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I loved the first scene with the fighting century. I didn't like at all the producers' decision to portray Pharsalus as a 30 seconds of slow-motion blur.the look on Caesar's face when he saw Brutus... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:

What Caesar said before Pharsalus: We have to win or die. Pompey's men have more options(this isn't an actual quote, mind you)

You've been watching that BBC/HBO Rome thing, neh? I'm quite enjoying it myself, how about you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont have Tv , but 2 computers. Nothing interesting comes from there anyway.. I prefer reading..
Sounds maybe bit odd.. well then I have kayak
hanging from my apartments roof and also believe or not, Armour from 1500 century is standing in one corner.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif and Iam enjoying this a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 08:03 AM
Ha ha ha, I read your post and imagined you kayaking in the armor suit. All is fine and dandy until you roll over, then you're a ballasted keel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I guess thats the reason the Inuit never wore armor while kayaking. Another unsolved mystery solved. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fritz

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 08:16 AM
Eskimos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif medievals Special troops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Eskimos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif medievals Special troops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It's no laughing matter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The photo below is of the last known north pole penguins taken just 20 seconds before their extinction. They didn't wear medieval armor and today the north pole penguins are gone forever. The same can be said for the southern pole polar bears. They never wore the armor, while the southern pole penguins did. Have you ever seen a southern pole polar bear? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Now you see the necessity of medieval armor at the poles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Skidoos don't save lives, medieval armor does.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/cymbals.jpg

Fritz

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Eskimos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif medievals Special troops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It's no laughing matter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The photo below is of the last known north pole penguins taken just 20 seconds before their extinction. They didn't wear medieval armor and today the north pole penguins are gone forever. The same can be said for the southern pole polar bears. They never wore the armor, while the southern pole penguins did. Have you ever seen a southern pole polar bear? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Now you see the necessity of medieval armor at the poles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Skidoos don't save lives, medieval armor does.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/cymbals.jpg

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorr I have not seen polar bear but I could lend
My war axe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif to pinguins so they could defend themselves http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MLudner
12-13-2005, 01:15 PM
Now all we need is a shot of what happened 2 seconds after that penguin smashed those cymbals together.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And, it must have been Ploughman's deathguins that whacked the south pole polar bears. Poor wretches; I bet they never saw that coming.

MLudner
12-13-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
I rember one occasion- this is also story I have
read that in Teutoneburg legionariees lost a battle to Germans Actually 3Legions if I remember correctly So Mr Mludner..Better Tactics
or better Equipments give Germans a victory??


Ankanor explained it well. It was a massive ambush. PVBLIVS QVINCTILIVS VARVS led his 3 LEGIONES - XVII, XVIII, and XIX - plus AVXILIARII into a densely wooded mountain pass with rough and broken ground that was cut by numerous gullies and washes. He was deceived successfully by a German cheftain known to him as ARMINIVS into believing hostile forces lay well beyond the SALTVS TEVTOBORGIENSIS and marched into this rough area in a standard column of march.
BIG mistake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
The standard column is meant for use in SECURE areas and provides only minimal security for the trains. In a situation where unexpected contact may occur there was a column of march that placed the trains between infantry formations.
ARMINIVS - whose name was Hermann in Deutsche - had drilled his warriors for the fight for quite some time before this and had set his trap within this pass in advance.
With the Romans deep in the pass the GERMANI launched their first ambush. The trains were completely lost, but losses among the combat units - even though they had been in standard march kit, which means their shields were slung and in their protective covers, their helmets were hanging on their chests and they were each carrying a kit pole - were not too serious and the ambush was beaten off. This stripped the army of its supplies .... all of them. The LEGIONES then weathered continuous harrassment by missile fire and ambushes throughout the day.
Why VARVS did not turn back after the first ambush is beyond anyone with an IQ that can be expressed in at least fractions; but it must have made sense to him.
However, at the end of the day's march the LEGIONES reached the far end of the pass and established a camp in the wooded plain beyond. They were thirsty and hungry, wet and miserable, but they were still intact as a combat force.
The GERMANI were rather surprised and disappointed that the Romans had fought their way through.
For one or two days VARVS remained in camp. He could not stay, as he had no supplies. His men, even though now behind a rampart of earth and PILA MVRALIA had slept under their shields in the rain. They were really hungry and thirsty now. He could not march around the mountains because it would take too long. He had no choice but to turn back.
And turn back he did. The LEGIONARII and AVXILIARII repulsed ambushes and weathered the incessant rain of hissing arrows and javelins from the trees beyond, dribbling dead and the severely wounded as they went. They kept moving but were slowed by hunger, thrist and exhaustion along with the need to repulse German attacks and ambushcades. Finally they sighted the plains from high ground before a last valley in the pass and their hopes raised at the thought that at last they were almost through this mess.

There were an ungodly number of GERMANI down there waiting for them. For those GERMANI this was their last shot at victory.

The LEGIONES descended into that valley of death and were hit from all sides by more GERMANI than they could count. 5,000 of the LEGIONARII managed to cut their way through the GERMANI and escape, but the remaining nearly 20,000 did not make it. PVBLIVS QVINCTILIVS VARVS fell on his sword.

Though this was a heavy blow, it is not why the Romans failed to conquer GERMANIA. Several years later, with the revolt in PANNONIA cleared-up, the Romans returned under GERMANICVS. GERMANICVS buried the remains of the soldiers lost in SALTVS TEVTOBORGIENSIS, then moved into a campaign against the GERMANI. He crushed ARMINIVS in two battles; first at IDISTAVISTO and then at the AGRIVARII Boundary. He then received the submission of the tribes between the Rhine and Elbe and sent a message back to TIBERIVS - now PRINCEPS since AVGVSTVS had been poisoned by his wife and TIBERIVS' mother, LIVIA - announcing his victory.
He was caught completely off-guard when the reply from TIBERIVS arrived ordering him to withdraw behind the Rhine.
Rome, it seemed, could not afford the conquest of GERMANIA.

marc_hawkins
12-13-2005, 03:54 PM
with exception to CARRHAE massed archery never stopped a Roman army and I have provided you with historical examples. At CARRHAE the LEGIONARII could not catch the archers because they were HORSE archers and that was the only reason it worked there.


The Romans under Crassus at Carrhae assumed that eventually the horse archers would run out of arrows allowing them to do their thing. Sadly for them the Parthians were using camels to bring up fresh supplies of missles.

Crassus should have stuck to what he did best, making money.

That archers were terribly vulnerable in the ancient world is shown by many, many examples. The Athenians at the battle of marathon for instance ran very quickly through the rain of arrows to destroy the Persian army. Even in a battle that the Greeks lost, like Thermopylae, where legend states that somebody said that:

"When the Persians will fire their arrows - it will block out the sun."

A Spartan replies:

"That is good because we will have a battle in the shade." (Hoplite armor being very hot to wear in Greece)

The Spartans were only overwhelmed by numbers and a force that found a way to attack from the rear, and it took 4 days to do it.


And that was in the very rigid Phalanx formation, which was very successful untill the advent of light troops and more adaptable formations. Imagine what the very adapatable legion could do...

Ankanor
12-13-2005, 05:12 PM
A cohort of Legionaries... Interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We have to compare the fighting styles of the phalanx and the cohort. The legionary accepted very close combat. The phalanx would accept very close combat only when facing another phalanx(out of necessity - too fast breaking of the spears), but against the lighly armored Persians they would try to keep them at distance. The much better armor of the legionary would help them very much in the close combat, except for the helmet which did not provide protection to the face. The lack of leg armor would be a weakness. The rotation of the first row of men would keep the constant fighting ability for a longer period. But the nature of the battle of Thermopylae would not allow for the exploit of the best sides of the roman fighting - adaptivity and tactical flexibility. Still, The lorica Segmentata would keep them for much longer time. The Gladius was a very sturdy weapon, not prone to breaking or dulling because of the carborized edge. It's a very difficult question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm glad you asked. I hope I have answered it to your satisfaction. I still think the Spartans would have performed better, but the legionaries would be close second.

MLudner
12-13-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with exception to CARRHAE massed archery never stopped a Roman army and I have provided you with historical examples. At CARRHAE the LEGIONARII could not catch the archers because they were HORSE archers and that was the only reason it worked there.


The Romans under Crassus at Carrhae assumed that eventually the horse archers would run out of arrows allowing them to do their thing. Sadly for them the Parthians were using camels to bring up fresh supplies of missles.

Crassus should have stuck to what he did best, making money.

That archers were terribly vulnerable in the ancient world is shown by many, many examples. The Athenians at the battle of marathon for instance ran very quickly through the rain of arrows to destroy the Persian army. Even in a battle that the Greeks lost, like Thermopylae, where legend states that somebody said that:

"When the Persians will fire their arrows - it will block out the sun."

A Spartan replies:

"That is good because we will have a battle in the shade." (Hoplite armor being very hot to wear in Greece)

The Spartans were only overwhelmed by numbers and a force that found a way to attack from the rear, and it took 4 days to do it.


And that was in the very rigid Phalanx formation, which was very successful untill the advent of light troops and more adaptable formations. Imagine what the very adapatable legion could do... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, the LEGIONARII had held out some hope that eventually the Parthians would run out of arrows until they saw that happening. And you are quite right CRASSVS should have stuck to business. His desire to add more martial glory to his name - for, after all, had not his victory over SPARTACVS been over mere slaves, after all? Surely not so glorious as defeating actual armies and conquering great and powerful nations as POMPEIVS had done and great CAESAR was then doing? - was his - and about 20,000 other men's - undoing.

I'm not sure that was legendary, I believe it. It was a quip by LEONIDAS recorded in either PLVTARCHOS' "The Sayings of Spartans" or "The Sayings of Kings and Commanders".

A SPARTIATES says to LEONIDAS, "The arrows of the barbarians are blotting out the sun!"

"Good!" quipped LEONIDAS, "Then we shall have shade in which to fight them!"

Or so I remember it. No real difference, though. I can look it up when I get home.

Archers alone were always terribly exposed if close combat infantry got their hands on them. Archers tend to be shieldless and lightly equipped and on top of that they are not trained to fight that way. Archery is itself a serious skill that takes much time and effort to master and it is uncommon to find archers - the Mongols [including the Huns, who were the first Mongol invaders of Europe] and other steppe peoples like the SKUTHES, SAVROMATI and ALANNI being notable exceptions to this rule - who are also skilled with swords and willing to use them. Hellenic archers just plain sucked. The Western armies always had an advantage over their eastern opponents because Eastern armies more often than not lacked good shock infantry and relied on cavalry and archers. The Achaemenid Persians had the "Immortals" (Though, it is not certain that the Persians called them that as no Persian references have been found using that term. It is quite probable that HERODOTOS' informant confused two Persian words; mayhaps mistaking the word "Anusiya" - which means "Immortals" - for "Anausia", which means "Companions"), but they never did well against the Hellenikoi. Wicker shields and lighter armor mixed with inferior melee weapons is probably why. That was why the Achaemenids started hiring Hellenic HOPLITAI to fight for them in later times; they learned that they needed shock infantry and had no idea - due to their social and economic systems - how to create such units.

A LEGIO at THERMOPULAI might have managed to hold despite being out flanked. They could have faced ORDO TERTIVS - the thrid line - about and quite possibly fought it off. A PHALANGZ, due to its tight formation cannot use reserve lines - as Annibas discovered at Zama, but the LEGIONES, being loose order infantry swordsmen could and did.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-13-2005, 05:30 PM
Interesting chaps, the Mongols. Biggest continuous land empire ever.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_035000_mongols.htm

Friendly_flyer
12-14-2005, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
The much better armor of the legionary would help them very much in the close combat, except for the helmet which did not provide protection to the face.

Actually, Roman helmets give quite good protection to the face. Especially later period helmets had ample face protection, like this:

http://www.armae.com/Photos/helmet/111PSHL151B.jpg


The lack of leg armor would be a weakness. ‚‚ā¨¬¶ Still, The lorica Segmentata would keep them for much longer time.

At the time of the battle of Pydna, the classical Roman armour as we know it had not yet developed. The earliest know example of a LORICA‚‚ā¨ĘSEGMENTATA was quite recently found in the bogs of Teutotrenburg forest, some 170 years after the Battle of Pydna. Back then, Roman armour would had been the Montefertino helmet, a short mail LORICA (chainmail or scale) or a funny square breast plate, and greaves. Their main defence was their very large SCVT”*.

nakamura_kenji
12-14-2005, 03:02 AM
luck be Kublai Khan boats sink when try invade japan ^_^

remember see television program here that one of possible reason be boat sink that large lot boat be river boat from china no design for sea so sunk much easy bad wheater in

ploughman
12-14-2005, 03:34 AM
Also corruption in the shipyards. The boats built were not the boats specified, corners were cut, bulkheads were missing, very shoddy craft indeed, and with the Mongols comprehensive lack of knowlegde about matters marine they were none the wiser, and as a result the ships may've literally fallen to bits during the storm.

nakamura_kenji
12-14-2005, 03:40 AM
yep ^_^ no smart idea use people who no like you much to build ship for you

Ankanor
12-14-2005, 08:32 AM
I should have mentioned I meant the "classical" legionary form the time of Trajan: Imperial Galic Helmet, Lorica Segmentata, Gladius of the Pompeii type, Pugio, a couple of Pilae, a Scutum, caligae, etc.

Friendly_flyer
12-14-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
I should have mentioned I meant the "classical" legionary form the time of Trajan.

They never met a phalanx, though. The last "phalanx vs. legion" battle was Pydna, in 168 B.C.

Regarding Trajanic legionaries, new research suggest they adopted bout armour for their right arm (ARMILL”*) during the Dacian campaign of 102-104 A.D. possibly in gladiator segmented style and greaves. The Dacians (DACIA roughly correspond to modern day Romania) where though fighters, using long, counter curved slashing swords (or really scythe blades with a straight handle), forcing the Romans to upgrade their armour.

ploughman
12-14-2005, 08:50 AM
Changes were made to the design of the helmets too, as a result of Dacian fighting styles. A 'bar' reinforced the helment and prevented the penetrating tip of the Dacian sword from puncturing the helment by impeding the blade itself. This illustrates the Legions' ability to adapt itself and its techniques to local conditions.

Friendly_flyer
12-14-2005, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
The photo below is of the last known north pole penguins taken just 20 seconds before their extinction.

.[]Actually, there used to be North Pole penguins. Rather, the penguin proper, the genus Penguinus, better known as the great auk, lived around the North Pole. When the first sailors saw the big, waddling birds at the Antipodes, they thought they where related, and called them ‚‚ā¨Ňďpenguins‚‚ā¨¬Ě. They aren‚‚ā¨ôt related, penguins are remote relatives of loons and grebes.

The real penguin, the great auk, was given its death knell by the Napoleonic war. The Royal Navy had a blockade between Norway and Denmark, trying to starve the strategically important ship building facilities in Norway. Some Norwegians went up to Geriaskj√¬¶r in Island to hunt great auks (rather an easy game). When the Royal Navy got wind of that, they send a war ship and bombed Geiraskj√¬¶r (the last big nesting ground of the great auk) to Kingdome Come. Thus the great auk became a very rare animal, and collector‚‚ā¨ôs prizes soared. I guess you all know the rest of the history.

Soooo, armour wouldn‚‚ā¨ôt have helped them much, a few German 20mm Flac-30 cannons though‚‚ā¨¬¶

panther3485
12-14-2005, 09:30 AM
Great stuff, guys!

I'm learning a fair bit here. The further back in history we go, the less I know (generally speaking), so this is making a refreshing change for me.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

P.S. The chick pics have nothing to do with my enjoyment of this thread!

MLudner
12-14-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Changes were made to the design of the helmets too, as a result of Dacian fighting styles. A 'bar' reinforced the helment and prevented the penetrating tip of the Dacian sword from puncturing the helment by impeding the blade itself. This illustrates the Legions' ability to adapt itself and its techniques to local conditions.

Actually, that ridge predates the Dacian wars by over a hundred years. It began to appear on early Imperial Gallic type helmets the late 1st Century BC.

Or, if you are refering to the the cross ridges on some helmets, particularly bronze AVXILIARIVS helmets, they predate the war by decades.

The main addition was the additional armor for the arms Friendly Flyer mentioned that the LEGIONARII began using in response to the Falx.

ploughman
12-14-2005, 09:47 AM
T'was the cross ridge I was referring to. I deferr to your greater knowledge.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
The much better armor of the legionary would help them very much in the close combat, except for the helmet which did not provide protection to the face.

Actually, Roman helmets give quite good protection to the face. Especially later period helmets had ample face protection, like this:

http://www.armae.com/Photos/helmet/111PSHL151B.jpg


The lack of leg armor would be a weakness. ‚‚ā¨¬¶ Still, The lorica Segmentata would keep them for much longer time.

At the time of the battle of Pydna, the classical Roman armour as we know it had not yet developed. The earliest know example of a LORICA‚‚ā¨ĘSEGMENTATA was quite recently found in the bogs of Teutotrenburg forest, some 170 years after the Battle of Pydna. Back then, Roman armour would had been the Montefertino helmet, a short mail LORICA (chainmail or scale) or a funny square breast plate, and greaves. Their main defence was their very large SCVT”*. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SCVTA; neuter plural. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
LORICA HAMATA is chainmail. LORICA SQVAMATA is scalemail.

That is a very late Imperial Gallic helmet, late 2nd Century AD or early 3rd in its origins.

Roman helmets, especially the Imperial Gallic types, were meant to grant a high degree of protection, but were designed to allow the wearer his full range of vision and hearing. Their cavalry helmets were the only ones that covered the ears.

Friendly_flyer
12-14-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
That is a very late Imperial Gallic helmet, late 2nd Century AD or early 3rd in its origins.

Roman helmets, especially the Imperial Gallic types, were meant to grant a high degree of protection, but were designed to allow the wearer his full range of vision and hearing.

I think the one in the picture might be a cavalry-type, even though the ear openings seem open. The imperial Gallic type is very good, actually a lot better than the iron pot I used in the army. Hearing is unimpaired, and it has very good face protection. I still fail to see why modern helmets aren't made on the same principle.

Yours truly (to the left) in a Roman helmet:

http://folk.uio.no/lise/foto/2kOle/2kOleHjemsted04.jpg

MLudner
12-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Interesting chaps, the Mongols. Biggest continuous land empire ever.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_035000_mongols.htm

Indeed, the Mongols are very interesting. They were also very brutal and ruthless, and exceptionally so. Once Ghengis united them they became a force to be reckoned with. Though I understand their combat methods, tactics and strategy already, like with Japanese history I need to put in more time studying theirs.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
That is a very late Imperial Gallic helmet, late 2nd Century AD or early 3rd in its origins.

Roman helmets, especially the Imperial Gallic types, were meant to grant a high degree of protection, but were designed to allow the wearer his full range of vision and hearing.

I think the one in the picture might be a cavalry-type, even though the ear openings seem open. The imperial Gallic type is very good, actually a lot better than the iron pot I used in the army. Hearing is unimpaired, and it has very good face protection. I still fail to see why modern helmets aren't made on the same principle.

Yours truly (to the left) in a Roman helmet:

http://folk.uio.no/lise/foto/2kOle/2kOleHjemsted04.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. I also think we would do well to make a kevlar version of LORICA SEGMENTATA for standard issue. That armor is the best infantry armor ever developed; light, flexible and cheap to make.

Excellent pic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I have always wanted to get a set of Roman arms and armor, particularly a good reproduction of the GLADIVS HISPANIENSIS, but I have never found where to get it and what prices. There is a shyster who shows up at the wargaming conventions I go to who has had some repro GLADII, for sale but they were all cr@p. The last he had was supposedly of the Mainz pattern and while it did resemble a Mainz GLADIVS, it looked like a Klingonized version. The thing had an arrow point head! He swore up and down, back and forth, with absolute insistence that it was an absolutely accurate reproduction.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
His arrogance walks hand in hand with his ignorance.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
luck be Kublai Khan boats sink when try invade japan ^_^

remember see television program here that one of possible reason be boat sink that large lot boat be river boat from china no design for sea so sunk much easy bad wheater in

I think the Samurai and Ninjas would have made short work of them, myself.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Especially the Ninjas. I really like those guys.

Ankanor
12-14-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
I should have mentioned I meant the "classical" legionary form the time of Trajan.

They never met a phalanx, though. The last "phalanx vs. legion" battle was Pydna, in 168 B.C.

Regarding Trajanic legionaries, new research suggest they adopted bout armour for their right arm (ARMILL”*) during the Dacian campaign of 102-104 A.D. possibly in gladiator segmented style and greaves. The Dacians (DACIA roughly correspond to modern day Romania) where though fighters, using long, counter curved slashing swords (or really scythe blades with a straight handle), forcing the Romans to upgrade their armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the question was something else, unless I haven't understood it correctly it stated "how would the Legionaries fare against the persian army at Thermopylae, better or worse than the Spartans and their allies". Nevermind the anachronism http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's just hypothetical.
BTW, I have seen Imperial Galic with a second horisontal bar above the forehead. I'm not sure though if it was from the Trajan times.

P.S. MLudner, I might be explaining well, but you sir, are wonderful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

fighter_966
12-14-2005, 11:45 AM
This much I know about mongols(name Mongol
means brave)The Mongols contributed little to the civilizations that came after them.They adopted the cultures of their subjects and when their empire broke, world forgot them but they had altered the course of its history..scarred.
Russia was torn away from europe, and when Mongols abadoned it after 200year it was feudal and backward.Poland and Hungary were so devastated that they had no role in renassance.
Bulgarie fell to Turks who in their turn one day
stood at the banks of danube.Persian civilization was returned to desert they never have recovered.In just over 50 ye√°rs they conquered half the known world and it was only
their adherence to tribal traditions and the rivalry of their princes that denied them the rest of it.Western Europe and Islam were not saved outside walls of Cracow and on the battle of Ain Jalut they were saved before when Mongols halted in their moment of triumph.If
÷degai and Mangku had not died when they did
th largest empire that world had everknown
wuold have been bounded in west by atlantic ocean.
If you have seen Movie Conan Arnold quotes Tsinghis in one scene.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

fighter_966
12-14-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
This much I know about mongols(name Mongol
means brave)The Mongols contributed little to the civilizations that came after them.They adopted the cultures of their subjects and when their empire broke, world forgot them but they had altered the course of its history..scarred.
Russia was torn away from europe, and when Mongols abadoned it after 200year it was feudal and backward.Poland and Hungary were so devastated that they had no role in renassance.
Bulgarie fell to Turks who in their turn one day
stood at the banks of danube.Persian civilization was returned to desert they never have recovered.In just over 50 ye√°rs they conquered half the known world and it was only
their adherence to tribal traditions and the rivalry of their princes that denied them the rest of it.Western Europe and Islam were not saved outside walls of Cracow and on the battle of Ain Jalut they were saved before when Mongols halted in their moment of triumph.If
÷degai and Mangku had not died when they did
th largest empire that world had everknown
wuold have been bounded in west by atlantic ocean.
If you have seen Movie Conan Arnold quotes Tsinghis in one scene.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Ps I know Blac smith who makes Gladiuses and swords Price is somwhere 1000 euros..

neural_dream
12-14-2005, 12:26 PM
Who'd win, Mighty Mouse or Superman?

Sorry, couldn't resist, I miss the Spamburgler.


The Spartans would win btw. Discipline.

BSS_Goat
12-14-2005, 12:45 PM
I'm a ninja.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
Who'd win, Mighty Mouse or Superman?

Sorry, couldn't resist, I miss the Spamburgler.


The Spartans would win btw. Discipline.

Mighty Mouse! Hands down! The little guy wouldn't even break a sweat. (Do superheroes sweat? Hmmmmmm....)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

More seriously, the SPARTIATAI would lose. However, they would have put up a very serious fight and made a big mess in the process. The LEGIONES had big advantages in their superior felxibility and high initiative small unit leadership. The LEGIONARII were very highly disciplined, as well, but not quite so highly as the SPARTIATAI. But, then, the Romans did not want that level of discipline because they encouraged a high level of individual initiative amongst their soldiery and there were a few occasions where this worked against them (GERGOVIA in 701 AVC / 52 BC and during the Siege of Jerusalem in 822 AVC / 69 AD, for examples), but by and large this worked powerfully in their favor. But, then again, the SPARTIATAI are the only other army in the Ancient World that could, like the LEGIONES, march.

BTW: AVC is AB VRBE CONDITA; "From the founding of the City" and is the Roman dating method.
Currently it is MMDCCLVIII AVC.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
I should have mentioned I meant the "classical" legionary form the time of Trajan.

They never met a phalanx, though. The last "phalanx vs. legion" battle was Pydna, in 168 B.C.

Regarding Trajanic legionaries, new research suggest they adopted bout armour for their right arm (ARMILL”*) during the Dacian campaign of 102-104 A.D. possibly in gladiator segmented style and greaves. The Dacians (DACIA roughly correspond to modern day Romania) where though fighters, using long, counter curved slashing swords (or really scythe blades with a straight handle), forcing the Romans to upgrade their armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the question was something else, unless I haven't understood it correctly it stated "how would the Legionaries fare against the persian army at Thermopylae, better or worse than the Spartans and their allies". Nevermind the anachronism http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's just hypothetical.
BTW, I have seen Imperial Galic with a second horisontal bar above the forehead. I'm not sure though if it was from the Trajan times.

P.S. MLudner, I might be explaining well, but you sir, are wonderful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I thank you humbly, but you are no ignoramus yourself. You know much, and I respect that.

Like Pirschjager: I have a life - especially now that I have a girlfriend; I just don't use it ... much.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
This much I know about mongols(name Mongol
means brave)The Mongols contributed little to the civilizations that came after them.They adopted the cultures of their subjects and when their empire broke, world forgot them but they had altered the course of its history..scarred.
Russia was torn away from europe, and when Mongols abadoned it after 200year it was feudal and backward.Poland and Hungary were so devastated that they had no role in renassance.
Bulgarie fell to Turks who in their turn one day
stood at the banks of danube.Persian civilization was returned to desert they never have recovered.In just over 50 ye√°rs they conquered half the known world and it was only
their adherence to tribal traditions and the rivalry of their princes that denied them the rest of it.Western Europe and Islam were not saved outside walls of Cracow and on the battle of Ain Jalut they were saved before when Mongols halted in their moment of triumph.If
÷degai and Mangku had not died when they did
th largest empire that world had everknown
wuold have been bounded in west by atlantic ocean.
If you have seen Movie Conan Arnold quotes Tsinghis in one scene.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Ps I know Blac smith who makes Gladiuses and swords Price is somwhere 1000 euros.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, but then that would make it a little pricey for me right now as that would be more than a thousand dollars. But, sometime in the future it might not be.

Would that be the quote about seeing the terror of your enemies, the screams of their women, ET CETERA?

Good comments on the Mongols and accurate to my admittedly finite knowledge of their history.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
I'm a ninja.


Well, then, I guess I'll have to keep an eye over my shoulder if you're ever in my vicinity.

Or, are you in earnest? If so, who did you study Ninpo under?

marc_hawkins
12-14-2005, 01:36 PM
Well.....i had a bell ringing in my head for a bit, checked me books, and a Roman army under Manius Acilius Glabrio attacked the forces of Antiochus III (a successor king of one of the macedonian kingdoms) at Thermopylae in 191 BC.

Although at first the Romans struggled against Antiochus, two detachments sent against the three forts protecting the same pass that had been the downfall of the Spartans succeeded in their goal and got behind Antiochus' line. The alarm caused by their sudden appearance lead to a rout.

Kocur_
12-14-2005, 03:21 PM
Poland and Hungary were so devastated that they had no role in renassance.

As far as Poland is concerned it wasnt that bad: first raid was 1241 and included defeat of Polish knights in Legnica battle. Second was in winter 1259-60 and was quite devastating indeed, the last major was in 1287-88, but both Mongol groups were defeated by Polish and Polish and Hungarian troops. Reneissance happened a bit laterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mongols and Japan:
I REALLY dont think samurai army would win against Mongols in a open field battle! They would either be flooded with arrows or dragged out of formation one by one on 'arkans', i.e lassos... It takes at least one battle (lost of course) agaisnt Mongols to learn how to defeat themhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MLudner
12-14-2005, 03:33 PM
I had not thought of GLABRIO. There have been a number of battles at THERMOPULAI, which is so typical of Hellas.

"Did you mean CHAIRONEIA in 338 BC or 86 BC? Or the one in (pick your date)?"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
It's such a mountainous country that battles kept happening at the same places over and over again.

It goes to show what happens when a PHALANGZ gets out-flanked. RAPHIA between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids shows that same lesson.

Friendly_flyer
12-14-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Like Pirschjager: I have a life - especially now that I have a girlfriend; I just don't use it ... much.

Best quote this week!

If you are interested in a GLADIVS, have a look here. These guys know their stuff, and are very helpful. They probably know the best place for finding what you are after:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html


Ankanor, I'm sorry, I should have taken the time to read what we are discussing. My bad. Your analysis of the outcome looks right to me, with one possible exception: If the phalanx was defending a narrow pass, a gate or some such situation with a static defence, the phalanx would win (that is, until the Romans built an ONAGER or BALISTA).

marc_hawkins
12-14-2005, 03:53 PM
Yup, the very nature of the Classical Phalanx means that only a few spots were suitable for it, so we always hear of the same old places for battle. Antiochus III chose Thermopylae for the same reasons as the spartans i guess. Alexander however used the very flexible Macedonian Phalanx which was so much more manoeuvrable than the traditional one, (as well as using the famous sarissa mentioned before)Arrian (i think off the top of my head) has an account of it wheeling about to defend against a rear attack! Sadly after Alexander the phalanx degraded back to the old rigidity, making them mostly easy pickings for the Legions by the time of Antiochus.

marc_hawkins
12-14-2005, 04:00 PM
This makes an interesting argument about the macedonian Phalanx:

http://scissorblades.tripod.com/essays/id2.html

MLudner
12-14-2005, 04:04 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifhttp://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c312/PROXIMVS/badglad8.jpg

That's it! That's the one the shyster tried to pawn-off on me as a real Mainz pattern GLADIVS HISPANIENSIS!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW: That photo's from their list of cr@p not to buy because they are inaccurate. Hee-hee.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
This makes an interesting argument about the macedonian Phalanx:

http://scissorblades.tripod.com/essays/id2.html


Encountering some holes. At ISSOS the Makedonian center was broken as a result of the rough terrain by the Hellenic mercenary HOPLITAI. Really, at that battle if the sniveling coward, DARIOS, hadn't fled before ALEXANDROS HO MEGAS himself the Persians might well have won.

A well made discussion, though, in the end. Particularly the idea that it might have been IPHIKRATES - he is one of my favorite HELLENIKOI - that gave PHILOPPOS the idea for his PHALANGZ, rather than the Thebans. But, then again, it could have been both, even in that discussion, because the author was speaking more of the development of the SARISSA, not the formation.

My favorite ever HELLENIKOS is AGESILAOS HO MEGAS. I am as much an admirer of his as XENOPHON was.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 04:50 PM
And, the Makedonian PHALANGZ was a serious threat in a head-on fight to the LEGIONES. At PYDNA a PAELIGNI officer actually threw his own standards into the ranks of the PHALANGZ trying to encourage his men to break into it.
The only thing that gave the LEGIONES any chance on even ground were the volleys of PILA they would launch into the advancing PHALANGITAI, but at both KYNOSKEPHALAI and PYDNA the PILA really did not keep the PHALANGZ from pushing the LEGIONES back. It was rough ground and superior flexibility of the LEGIONES that beat them both times.

marc_hawkins
12-14-2005, 04:59 PM
DARIOS, hadn't fled before ALEXANDROS HO MEGAS himself the Persians might well have won.


well, i dunno about that, seems like a bit of the old anti-'barbarian' propaganda to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If I remember it correctly some Greek author said that Darius fled right at the beginning of the action ('like the barbarians would of course', can't remember if this was at Issus or Gaugamela) The thing is, in it he says that Darius' chariot had trouble manouvering through the piles of dead bodies.. which seems to indicate that the battle had being going on for some time....equally, being that close to dead bodies may indicate that Darius was closer to (and maybe fighting bravely in) the battle. Gotta watch those historical accounts made by smug victors! Everybody has an angle after all....

MLudner
12-14-2005, 05:14 PM
Actually, he fled both battles when ALEXANDROS went straight for him. That famed ancient painting that shows ALEXANDROS riding at DARIOS with an out-stretched hand is from ISSOS.

I don't believe he fled at the start of either battle, though. He stayed around until he was himself in danger, then he tucked his tail and fled.

Funny thing is; ALEXANDROS did not want to actually kill him. That's why he butchered BESSOS after he caught up with him.

marc_hawkins
12-14-2005, 05:23 PM
Encountering some holes.

Can't remember a argument ever in ancient history that atleast didn't have one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It is interesting though, and shows that there are so many opinons on so many aspects of the ancient world. Think of the arguments we get every day here on aspects of the aircraft of the second world war (never mind the whole conflict itself) which was Relatively recently and well documented, then compare it to the poverty struck nature of the evidence we have of those times, and everybody has their own opinion of what actually happened based on such limited evidence.

Even with the sources we have, i think we should be very suspicious of what they have to say! after all, the modern view of Tiberius is much better than the biased accounts of Suetonius and Tacitus. Tacitus served under the hated Domitian and considered Tiberius (who Domitian interestingly admired) to have been an earlier version of that Emperor, so we get the account of the 'black tyrant' so familar today. Innuendo, biased accounts and palace gossip seem to be readily employed by Roman historians, and we must be very careful in accepting it as fact without critical analysis. And with the death of Alexander and the rise of the competeing successor kingdoms, everybody came out with their versions of the truth, biased to make them look good and the other officers of Alexander look bad, so Greek history is just as bad.

Ancient sources are a minefield....

marc_hawkins
12-14-2005, 05:41 PM
Actually, he fled both battles when ALEXANDROS went straight for him. That famed ancient painting that shows ALEXANDROS riding at DARIOS with an out-stretched hand is from ISSOS

Well yeah, but its hardly a photograph, and we all know a photo can lie too right? as it is the mosaic (which is a Roman copy from pompeii of the original Hellenistic picture) does not prove that the pictured event actually happened. I don't think its been very securley identified as depicting Issus (according to Nigel Spivey's Greek Art, but its been ages since i've followed that up so i dunno. I am slightly suspcious pf the accounts as they are all written by the victors to make Alexander look good. It may well be that events happened as described, but all the accounts are one sided. We may never know for sure (atleast to me)

Bessus may well have survived if he had not tried to make himself the next Great King. Alexander has proclaimed himself the title by right of conquest and Bessus was threatening that and could potentially gather local support against the new 'foriegn' ruler. Several of Darius' other murderers were not punished at all. Still, even if the death of Darius had convinenced Alexander somewhat, it can indeed be possible that he was outraged by this act of betrayal and mitigated the punishment to be of the traditional Persian style. (ears and nose cut off then execution -nice! )

MLudner
12-16-2005, 01:23 PM
I have not lost interest; I just could not reply to anything much yesterday, too busy.

There is some validity to doubts of our ancient sources, but they are really all we have and I do not agree with seriously discounting them based on modern prejudices and whims. The ancient authors, it must be remembered, were not writing for us, but for the people of their own day and they had sources available to them that we do not.
Those sources, while they do make ALEXANDROS look brilliant militarily - EXEMPLI GRATIA - make him look like an @$$ personally. They show him murdering in a drunken rage, for example, his loyal and capable friend, KLEITOS, amongst others. They discuss the possibility that he may have been complicit in his father's murder. Ancient historians were very candid from my experience. Even CAESAR in his writings does not hide his mistakes; they are all there for us to see. He does not hide the view of the GALLI of the wars, but reports them as fighting for their freedom and saying it. In fact, his rendition of VERCINGETORIX's speech to his troops after ALESIA is quite moving. In fact, there has been much doubt and disparagement of CAESAR's report that Gallic swords often bent over the rim of Roman SCVTA and their wielders would often have to leap back and restraighten their blades before returning to the fray. Modern historians scoffed at this account. However, it has since been learned that these historians were wrong. Not all Gallic swords were of the same quality. Some were of excellent quality steel almost as good as anything made in this day and age, but not all of them. Many Gallic swords were much more cheaply made of mediocre to good iron that would bend easily.
To paraphrase Phil Barker: "I will take the Ancient Historian's possibly flawed account over the modern historian's educated guess anyday."

As far as despising the courage of the barbarians I find most ancient authors at odds with that. CAESAR, EXEMPLI GRATIA again, often shows their courage and tenacity. In fact, his account shows how well organized the GALLI could be in battle. He speaks of them advancing in tight formations behind walls of shields, swallowing-up trees as they came. He speaks of how their shields were sometimes pinned together by PILA because they were over-lapped. It shows how sometimes they did launch wild charges when it suited them, but how well-ordered they could also be when it suited them.
Persians are often showed to have fought heroically, as well. DARIOS was a coward, but he was an effete snob born to privelege without a warrior tradition. This is not true of all Persian monarchs, though, and Hellenic historians themselves show this. At CVNAXA, for example, KYROS and ARTAXERXES engaged eachother in personal combat very bravely and KYROS was killed. It is the Hellenic historian and general XENOPHON who who recorded this affair in his ANABASIS.

That mosaic I have always understood to be of ISSOS, and I believe that it is because that incident is written of in ancient sources at ISSOS. However, a sound argument could be made for it being from GVAGAMELA, as the same thing happened there...

MLudner
12-16-2005, 01:37 PM
Eep. Forgot BESSOS.

Indeed; he did proclaim himself the Great King which did make him a threat to ALEXANDROS and that is doubtless a part of why ALEXANDROS killed him. Rarely is there purely one, single reason why a thing is done. But revenge for the murder of DARIOS was a strong part of it, and BESSOS was the primary architect of the treacherous murder. As you point out; ALEXANDROS had him killed in the Persian manner for a traitor. It is reported that ALEXANDROS wanted DARIOS alive and unharmed as he held a regard for him.
That in and of itself is not so odd. CAESAR was infuriated by the murder of POMPEIVS, for example. He loved POMPEIVS personally - not sexually, BTW - and regarded him highly. CAESAR wept at the sight of POMPEIVS' head on that silver platter and averted his eyes, shouting: "Take it away! I won't look at it!"
From that moment on young PTOLEMAIOS and his regent were doomed.
Murdering POMPEIVS had seemed like a good idea at the time to them, but they did not understand the intricacies of CAESAR's relationship with his son-in-law.

MLudner
12-17-2005, 09:47 AM
HEY! Wake up! Where are you people? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

I'm having too much fun on this topic to let it fade away like an old soldier! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I love Classical History. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If you stay quiet I'm just gonna start lecturing...