HoveringCheesecake Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 *WARNING: Boring History Lesson!*. Well, I knew most of that already - but thanks. The tidbit about the elephants was interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Well, I knew most of that already - but thanks. The tidbit about the elephants was interesting. i didn't think that was boring at all. I love the story about "if" i'd just read that the other day, pure gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 It was far from boring. I love history - I was just saying that I knew much of that already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 No, I don't think they could. That was the phalanx's weakness - its inflexibility. That's why the Romans wiped the floor with them later on. That is incorrect - it's typical for very successful military empires to have very rigid and simplistic methods. That's why it's always called "The War Machine" not the war limbo. The Roman legion's big method was to get everyone in a wall of shields with little space and stab thru with their gladius's(or whatever their short swords were it's late and fading me). You rarely threw the fight to how "good" your guys were. Even the British kept nice tight consistent firing lines that worked in unison, and most of that ideology could still be found today. That's not to say the commanders of such units could not throw in innovation. I believe one of those History Channel specials had Alexander doing a move during his final fight with the Persians where he lured their cavalry to rush his phalanx, and they just split up down the middle and threw their spears at the Persians, causing heavy loses. Of course that was well planned. Then there's time times where holding to that rigid structure fails. The Vikings had their berserkers, and I remember hearing that US vessels would be able to mess with British fleets because of their refusal to let go of their standard(general?) orders for fleet movements. Still empires get big for a reason - they have proficient, no-nonsense methods of killing people (yeah and they can feed them, not get major disease, have not retarded generals, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uminoken Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Hollywood's idea of historical accuracy: an actor wearing an authentic wooden leg, playing someone who had never lost their limb to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) The "inflexibility" remark regarding the Macedonian Phalanx is directed (I think) to how badly the Phalanx performed in specific and drastically changing situations. My previous reply adds ammo to this but I'll throw in more: Another reason "inflexibility" rears its head for the Macedonian Phalanx is that it is compared to the Roman Legions since Rome did eventually fight the Hellenic armies (which were largely based on the Macedonian style). The Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC is one famous example: - Where the terrain became rough, the formation of the Phalanx broke up and the Sarissa became immensely hard to use. In comparison, the Romans also did fight in tight formation, but the training and equipment of the Legionary allowed loose fighting if so required. Close quarters fighting was what the Legionary was trained and equipped primarily for: Large Shield (Scutum) & Short Sword (eventually Gladius). The Phalangite, once forced into close quarters fighting, was NOT a swordsman... he was a pikeman with the Sarissa as his primary weapon and a short sword as a backup. His training was with the Sarissa, not a sword. With disrupted Phalanx formations, the Romans poured in through the openings and were now quite deadly to the Phalangites. - At the Macedonian right, an opening occured. Without command from the Roman general (Flaminius), a Tribune took detachments of the Legion to burst through, turn, and attack the Macedonian right wing from the rear... all done with his own initiative and authority as an officer. The Phalangites could not react quickly enough to the new threat and were crushed. The "inflexibility" of the Macedonian Phalanx was not due to fighting in one straight line. Alexander for instance sometimes deployed his troops in an echelon / angled. The "inflexibility" is geared towards making too many things required to have the Phalanx succeed, especially in the face of the Roman Legions. It is attributed mainly due to the nature of the Sarissa, compared to the more flexible Roman army and the Roman style of command to allow more freedom to junior officers. ---------- For those curious about the big battles between the Roman Legion and Phalanx styles of warfare, here's the major engagements, all of which were lopsided Roman victories. Second Macedonian War - Cynoscephalae 197 BC Roman-Syrian War (against Seleucid Empire) - Thermopylae 191 BC - Magnesia 190 BC Third Macedonian War - Pydna 168 BC Fourth Macedonian War - Pydna 148 BC Note: Of significant note is that the Romans in comparison to the listed wars / battles and their dates, had recently finished the Second Punic War (218 BC - 202 BC), fighting the hard war against the famous Hannibal of Carthage. The Romans suffered tremendous casualties against Carthage, namely due to Hannibal. The Romans forces that survived the war had been on continous campaigns through many theaters in the Mediterranean. They were seasoned campaigners and had seen alot of combat against the likes of Hannibal. The Hellenic armies afterwards were facing an army at its peak before the reforms much later in the Roman Republic / Early Empire. Edited March 22, 2007 by Warmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutsAndCasca Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Has anyone else here read "Gates of Fire" by Stephen Pressman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isamu Atreides 86 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Has anyone else here read "Gates of Fire" by Stephen Pressman? Pressfield. Yeah, its a great book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I'm netflixing a documentary called The Spartans . I'll let you know how it is. You know, I was thinking. I really like how this movie is bringing up a facination with the actual history behind the event. Not just here, most people I know who've seen this are inthralled by the story and very hungry for the "actual events." I think this is the best possible responce to a "historical event" movie and the team behind it should be proud. Also I'm fairly proud of the general public for seeming to understand the somewhat complex relationship this movie has with real life: it's a real event, told in a fantastic way, yet retaining the general idea of what happend... most moive makers would be very happy to just confuse the audience in order to sell their stuff. I'm glad this film has stirred up a desire to "get the real story" Very cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) That is incorrect - it's typical for very successful military empires to have very rigid and simplistic methods. Errr, no it isn't. It has nothing to do with the phalanx being simplistic - it has to do with how flexible the legions were in comparison. See Warmaker's post. The Romans proved it themselves when they took over Macedonia/Greece. Edited March 21, 2007 by meh_cd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Errr, no it isn't. It has nothing to do with the phalanx being simplistic - it has to do with how flexible the legions were in comparison. See Warmaker's post. The Romans proved it themselves when they took over Macedonia/Greece. I think the "real" inflexibility was trying new tactics. The phalanx was a powerful way to wage some war on some guys directly in front of you. but it's not good for everything, and it seems like the greeks tried to use it for every little battle they could. Yeah the phalanx itself was sort of not flexible, but thats not why the greeks started loosing. They'd done so well for so long with their phalanx's that they probably figured they didn't need to come up with new stratagies. iirc the romans themselves used phalanx tactics when the battle called for it, but they were themselves flexible and didn't rely on it as their sole tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yes, that is my point.......... I think we're just talking over one another now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Would you guys call the later 'Pike and Shot' formations sort of a return to the Phalanx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutsAndCasca Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Pressfield. Yeah, its a great book. I recommend this book to everyone! (Sorry for the Pressfield mishap back there.) If you're really interested in Spartan culture and the way things probably were back then, this book is pure gold. It's told so well, it's as if the person writing it was actually there - that person being a squire for one of the 300 who lived and had to recount events to Xerxes. It's because I read this book years ago that I was so excited about 300 the movie. 'Can't stress enough how much I recommend this read. Now I'll shut up about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Would you guys call the later 'Pike and Shot' formations sort of a return to the Phalanx? Yes and no. "Phalanx" has been used a few times to describe a dense, tightly formed group of troops. Even Julius Caesar in his writings mentioned a group of German barbarians fighting in a "Phalanx." People take this as a tight grouping of Germanic troops. Medieval Warfare is one of my weakpoints but I have seen some diagrams of them. Pike and Shot isn't a single formed block of troops that characterizes the classical Greek or Macedonian Phalanx. From what I see, Pike and Shot, for a single formation, is actually a series of differently equipped troops working in close concert together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isamu Atreides 86 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I recommend this book to everyone! (Sorry for the Pressfield mishap back there.) If you're really interested in Spartan culture and the way things probably were back then, this book is pure gold. It's told so well, it's as if the person writing it was actually there - that person being a squire for one of the 300 who lived and had to recount events to Xerxes. It's because I read this book years ago that I was so excited about 300 the movie. 'Can't stress enough how much I recommend this read. Now I'll shut up about it. It is a fantastic book, and Nathaniel Fick, who wrote "One Bullet Away", an account of his war in afghanistan and Iraq cites it as how to write about warrior cuture. Just keek in mind, its not a history book, but rather a work of historical fiction. I highly recommend it, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutsAndCasca Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 It is a fantastic book, and Nathaniel Fick, who wrote "One Bullet Away", an account of his war in afghanistan and Iraq cites it as how to write about warrior cuture. Just keek in mind, its not a history book, but rather a work of historical fiction. I highly recommend it, though. While we're at it, make sure you don't miss reading Black Hawk Down. But anyways, I saw 300 again tonight, this is what I've realized. THIS IS ABSOLUTE CRAP! GARBAGE! AMERICAN PROPAGANDA AGAINST IRAN! NONE OF... wait, this actually happened? *silence* YEAH, THIS HAPPENED IN YOUR LIE-RIDDEN, ALTERED HISTORY BOOKS! AND SCREW THE GREEKS TOO! Yes, I'm kidding. I just think it's so preposterously, childishly stupid that anyone in the world would take offense to this movie other than fact-frenzied history buffs. I had to make some sort of sarcastic comment. Sorry you tough lil' Iranians! Long long ago you got "owned" for three days as the youth would say nowadays. I'd like to add, that it's a nice little "coincidence" that God of War II gets released the same time as 300. 'Wish I was one of the producers for either of these two works of art right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I recommend this book to everyone! (Sorry for the Pressfield mishap back there.) If you're really interested in Spartan culture and the way things probably were back then, this book is pure gold. It's told so well, it's as if the person writing it was actually there - that person being a squire for one of the 300 who lived and had to recount events to Xerxes. It's because I read this book years ago that I was so excited about 300 the movie. 'Can't stress enough how much I recommend this read. Now I'll shut up about it. Don't worry. We've been talking about the book for a few pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Back to the actual movie, I'm surprised I've only seen like 3 avatars/sigs so far on the net. Here's a great sig I just saw today: ::edit:: Ok, I'll upload it as soon as MW lets me attach .gifs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Back to the actual movie, I'm surprised I've only seen like 3 avatars/sigs so far on the net. Here's a great sig I just saw today: ::edit:: Ok, I'll upload it as soon as MW lets me attach .gifs.... lol. Yeah the original tralier got it noticed, but it got nowhere near the internet amusement that Snakes on a Plane got. I think some people wanted to recreate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 tonight we dine in heck! http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=22520 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 FROSTING! Stupid, but funny KingNor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Delicious cake?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shade Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Bees??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I'll just give you the link to it: http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3858/saucexq2.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 YTMND is a hotbed of 300 related stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyStegs Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Chicks will definitely not be into it, just so the rest of you guys know! "300" is definitely a guy's movie. I just wanted to say I saw this movie on Friday with my husband and I LOVED!!! it. It was funny in parts and violent in others I loved everything about it. I was reading thru and saw alot of guys say chicks wont dig ....It think your wrong. Theres probably more out there than you think who will enjoy this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 (edited) Chicks will definitely not be into it, just so the rest of you guys know! "300" is definitely a guy's movie. I just wanted to say I saw this movie on Friday with my husband and I LOVED!!! it. It was funny in parts and violent in others I loved everything about it. I was reading thru and saw alot of guys say chicks wont dig ....It think your wrong. Theres probably more out there than you think who will enjoy this movie. i can name 300 very obvious reasons a woman might like this movie, not to mention the fact it's neat looking, relatively smart and interesting and VIOLENT. what's not for woman to like? Edited March 26, 2007 by KingNor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyrox Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Well both of the women, and the one guy I know who saw it said it was hilariously over-the-top and braindead...so I guess milage certianly varies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 *chimes in* The (young) women that I know who saw it loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 My wife thought it was great. She is insane, though. [attachmentid=41487] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Hahahaha, she looks awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 dude that's hot. is anyone going for a second 300 viewing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I've seen it twice. My cousin has seen it three times. Twice is enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kin Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) It's a good movie, missing something at the end but still a very good one. Ok.. maybe it's not true to the real story... but anyhu so is crouchin tiger and stuff.. Edited March 28, 2007 by Kin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.