49
50

A ByzantineBasileus Review: Deadliest Warrior - Attila the Hun vs Alexander the Great (self.badhistory)

ByzantineBasileusHAIL CYRUS! が 投稿

Greetings Badhistoriers! My review of Aztec Jaguar versus Zande Warrior is on hold for the time being as I find more source. So instead I shall exmaine Deadliest Warrior Season 2, Epsiode 3: Attila the Hun versus Alexander the Great:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x511mvj

I have an imaginary bottle of Glen Grant single malt whiskey, so let us begin!

0.14: HOLLYWOOD COMBAT SPIN! DRINK!

0.23: The Persian troops are holding their violin shields in the wrong way. They have them horizontal, which means they lose any possible protection to their lower and upper bodies. A second mistake is that Achaemenid infantry used large round or crescent shields by in the 4th century BC, and had not employed those of a violin shape for over a hundred years. DRINK! DRINK!

1.24: The initial introduction of the two warriors takes place. I find that the decision to match them against one another is not sensible. Alexander is fighting as a heavy cavalryman, and Attila is a horse-archer. Such troops used very different tactics and were not comparable at all.

1.32: The narrator describes Attila as "The notorious raider who ransacked Europe. His murderous missions forever linking his name with cruelty". Now, one does not become a powerful warlord by comporting like a fluffy puppy, but the Roman historian Jordanes noted that Attila was "restrained in action, mighty in counsel, gracious to suppliants and lenient to those who were once received into his protection". Attila was an individual of complex motives, so reducing him to a caricature driven by plunder and blood-lust is imposing a false narrative. DRINK!

1.45: More anachronistic Persian shields. DRINK!

2.41: The handles on that Persian shield are made of plastic, and the techniques of manufacturing this material had been lost with the departure of the Annunaki in 1827 BC. DRINK!

2.58: The first Attila the Hun expert is Robert Borsos. He is an individual who actively practices horse archery, so I will give DW a point for that. Nonetheless, he does not appear to possess the necessary academic background. I must take a shot even though I have immense respect for his skills. DRINK!

3.22: The next is Sean Pennington, who is lauded as being adept with the dagger and spear. There is nothing about this guy on IMDB besides references to two b-grade actors. Nor is there anything showing up in a google search related to ancient history. DRINK!

3.22: Another reference to the "cruelty" of Attila. By what standards? Hunnic society? Roman society? Or modern sensibilities projected backwards? DRINK!

4.47: The initial expert on Alexander the Great is Peter Van Rossum. He appears to be a reenactor focusing on the Roman Empire, and this is the extent of his expertise. DRINK!

5.05: The second is 'bladed combat specialist' Kendall Wells. He has an extensive resume on IMDB as an actor, stuntman and writer without any background in history. DRINK!

5.21: The narrator asserts Alexander was from Greece, completely ignoring his Slavic heritage.

5.54: Inaccurate Persian shields. DRINK!

6.15: One of the 'experts' states Alexander the Great was responsible for killing more people than any other conqueror before his time? So more than the Assyrians? Highly doubtful, as Alexander aimed on ruling a coherent and stable empire, and only engaged in massacre against highly recalcitrant tribes in Central Asia. DRINK!

6.50: The ballista, a perfect weapon for a one-on-one duel. "Attila, could you stand there for half an hour while I get the trajectory for this thing?"

8.36: "Dude, I used a siege machine to hit a non-moving target after several shots!". "Awesome-dacious, brospeh!"

9.33: "Just how lethal is the ballista's flying bolt?". Well, based on the dummy who had his head completely impaled by a large piece of wood......

11.46: So the counter to a ballista is an.....axe?

11.48: So the exact type of axe they are using is the Scythian axe, or the sagaris. Oooooooone slight problem. The weapon was only used about 900 years earlier than the time of Attila. It was common amongst Iranians like the Persians, Medes and Scythians from the 6th century BC onwards, but it had long fallen out of use by 400 AD. Axes during the Migration Period looked like this:

https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/dsc01083_114.jpg

Or this:

http://poppy.nsms.ox.ac.uk/woruldhord/files/original/7d08bfec57a2a988321ff52413cff20e.jpg

As opposed to this:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Eq1PhbMM--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1878a1ns2s1vpjpg.jpg

DRINK!

13.34: There is no way in hell Alexander would have worn a helmet like that. He might have worn an Attic helmet:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/59/be/d0/59bed059fbb1c61540f0b54842242516--spartan-helmet-helmets.jpg

or a Phrygian helmet:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/66/7c/30/667c30f3baba85ac48685d6fbb8bc067.jpg

But not the bizarre monstrosity here. DRINK!

14.23: They need to trademark the term "Physics for killing".

14.55: The narrator asserts Attila wore very little body-armour. Now, we have no primary sources that describe what Attila wore, but the ruling classes of steppe societies were the most well equipped and acted as heavy cavalry. The same was probably true for the Huns. As such, Attila probably availed himself of metal scale, lamellar or maille as a sign of his status, and to not die horribly. DRINK!

15.33: They have invited a former UFC fighter to test out the effectiveness of Pankration. The problem here that the modern version has absolutely no connection to the ancient method of combat. There are no surviving schools or tradition to draw on, so the best that can be achieved is to try guess how the ancient Greeks fought. Presenting the current techniques as an accurate representation is absolutely dishonest. DRINK!

19.55: Incorrect Persian shield. DRINK!

20.01: Now they are matching the Hunnic composite bow with the gastrophetes. The problem with this was the gastrophetes was never a common battlefield weapon in the 4th century BC. A better choice would be to use a sling or an Scythian-style composite bow, which were far more common. DRINK!

And that is the end of that. See you for Part 2!

Sources

By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire, by Ian Worthington

The Composite Bow, by Mike Loades

The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, by Jordanes: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14809

The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China 221 B.C. to AD 1757, by Thomas Barfield

The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28587

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, by Kaveh Farrokh

Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West 450-900, by Guy Halsall

全 16 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TiakoTevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nonetheless, he does not appear to possess the necessary academic background.

While you read books, he studied the bow.

One of the 'experts' states Alexander the Great was responsible for killing more people than any other conqueror before his time? So more than the Assyrians?

The whole "flaying skins to hang them on walls" thing was mainly what the Assyrians did in reconquest rather than conquest per se. They also comically exaggerated the extent of destruction--Sennacherib's chronicles claimed that he tore apart Babylon, brick by brick, and tossed those bricks into the sea. His successor Essarhadon claimed that he built it back. The scale of the two undertakings make both rather unlikely, particularly given that Babylon seems to have chugged along pretty well afterwards.

I actually think Alexander is a decent candidate for most blood drenched conqueror simply because he, as an individual, conquered farther than any other individual had before, and I think in an ancient setting that sort of brute fact matters more than the niceties of policy.

[–]ByzantineBasileusHAIL CYRUS![S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually think Alexander is a decent candidate for most blood drenched conqueror simply because he, as an individual, conquered farther than any other individual had before, and I think in an ancient setting that sort of brute fact matters more than the niceties of policy.

At the same time, Alexander did not go around killing the inhabitants of cities en masse. He was perfectly happy to incorporate existing power structures into the empire, and was merciful to those who resisted, but then submitted.

[–]Minimantisthe war end when a nukuleer explosion was dropped on Heroshima. 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

5.21: The narrator asserts Alexander was from Greece, completely ignoring his Slavic heritage.

Probably my favourite line.

[–]SnapshillBotPassing Turing Tests since 1956 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is what happens when you don't rush Bronze Working.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

  2. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  3. https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/ds... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  4. http://poppy.nsms.ox.ac.uk/woruldho... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  5. https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  6. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.co... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  7. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.co... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  8. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

  9. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/285... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]ByzantineBasileusHAIL CYRUS![S] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Okay, how does it continue to pick the most relevant quotes?

[–]spitwindThe Wehramacht was so clean that it ethnically cleansed 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The more I think about it, the more relevant this snappy quote becomes. You need bronze working to build spear-men to counter the metric shitton of horse archers that Attila sends at you in civ. I don't know if it's eerie how on point Snappy seems to be, or whether it's just observer bias or a non-random selection of quotes. Ah well, easier to just assume it's sentient.

Really good post as ever btw.

[–]orthag 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

@13:34 TIL Alexander the Great was a poor, 2nd century CE Roman Legionnaire who couldn't afford a proper galea and not the Macedonian emperor from the third century BCE that I thought he was.

[–]Krstoserofil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

So they blatantly just call Alexander the Great a Greek, I mean its not that he is, but he is Macedonian first and foremost and you cannot talk about him or his conquests without explaining that first.

Both Greeks and Macedonians took great note of this difference during his time.

Source: Pretty much any book I ever read about the Diadochi by western authors, I am just too lazy to google them.

[–]ByzantineBasileusHAIL CYRUS![S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Macedonian and Greek are not exclusive identities.

[–]cleopatra_philopater 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Macedonian is either a Hellenic language that was really close to Greek or a dialect of Greek. The people were considered different by many Greek authors but ancient sources are not the best for this kind of thing because it can easily be traced to cultural and political motivations. Greek authors sometimes even considered other Greeks to be barbarous so if there was a perceived distinction between Greeks and Macedonians you could be sure it would emphasise itself in Greek literature. The Argeads did claim descent from mythological Argos and were sometimes considered Hellenes but also sometimes not.

Then figuring out the ethnic identity of the Macedonians is tricky, but they were probably a Northern Greek population that intermingled with other non-Greek tribes and held onto archaic Greek practices, even some Greek authors considered that they were Greek or at least partly descended from Greeks.

Even if they were a completely unrelated people originally (which I doubt very much) their culture and especially that of the aristocracy, was heavily Hellenised by the time Alexander the Great came around and then it becomes a question of when Greek identity begins.

[–]Krstoserofil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, I didn't say something to contradict that, I just think there it shouldn't be glossed over that he is a "Greek" and that's that. There is a reason he is called "Of Macedon".

[–]ByzantineBasileusHAIL CYRUS![S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Macedonians were Greek.

[–]Krstoserofil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes but not all Greeks were Macedonians, and Alexander's army made sure to remind all non-Macedonians of that.

[–]west_country_boy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is the point of the weird curved thing on Phrygian helmet?

[–]Hergrima Dungeons and Dragons level of historical authenticity. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

2.41: The handles on that Persian shield are made of plastic, and the techniques of manufacturing this material had been lost with the departure of the Annunaki in 1827 BC. DRINK!

Come on man, the Annunaki went back into the Hollow Earth at the end of the Ubaid period. If you're going to write about bad history, do it right!