148
149

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 42 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 48 ポイント49 ポイント  (2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] 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1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.

[–]TiakoTevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That describes the Assyrians as well. There were certainly instances in the whole scope of Assyrian history of mass population movement and the like, but that is a period that covers two or three hundred years, so it seems comparing it to Alexander the Great, an individual with a bit over ten years of conquering, is a bit unbalanced. And it is not like Alexander didn't do his share of sacking and pillaging--Thees and Persepolis, to give to examples.

The difference is that Alexander's wars stretched from the upper Balkans to India, which is rather more than any Assyrian king can claim.

[–]AugenisThe King Basileus of the Grand Ducal Principality of Lithuania 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

WRONG! Alexander the Great was Lithuanian, as he was half-Gud (or "Gothic" according to your falsified Polish history) and half-Illyrian (Baltic), so he was 100% Lithuanian, as detailed by the greatest historian of all time, Česlovas Gedgaudas

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

This is proper history, right there.

[–]AlucardSX 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So if he was only half-Gud, did any of his enemies ever tell him to "git Gud"? Yes yes, I'll see myself out.

[–]Minimantisthe war end when a nukuleer explosion was dropped on Heroshima. 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

Probably my favourite line.

[–]mousylion 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I love a good nitpicking! It's why I come here!

[–]CoJack-ish 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

had to do a double take there. Absolutey savage.

[–]Krstoserofil 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (10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] 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Macedonian and Greek are not exclusive identities.

[–]cleopatra_philopater 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (4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.

[–]TiakoTevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

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

I often wonder if we only had Thracian literary sources for the time if we would conclude that the Macedonian kings were heavily Thracified. I mean, after all, their political structure was based on kings and their companions, they went on big hunting expeditions filled with pomp and circumstance, built big tomb mounds, prided themselves on their individual battle prowess, etc. I mean they were practically Thracian! Sure, they had some eccentricities like bringing Athenian fops to fop around their court, but this is well within the cultural range of Thracian kings! It is really just [insert whatever the Thracian equivalent is to when people say the Macedonians had "Homeric" qualities].

What I am getting at is that our Hellenocentric historical records might distort how we view the political and social activity of the Macedonian kings. The kings spent a lot of effort acting Greek to the Greeks, and the Greek dutifully recorded such, but that is a pretty distorted record. The material record shown these "Hellenized" elements, but the same could be said about the Etruscans (I mean almost all of the iconic "Greek pots" were found in Etruria), and nobody is claiming they were basically Greek.

Why can't we just let the Macedonians be Macedonians, you know? They were pretty cool!

[–]cleopatra_philopater 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well even with your hypothetical record, the linguistic and religious similarities between Macedon and Greece would be glaring. I am not arguing that Macedonians were 100% Hellenes but there is plenty of evidence for cross cultural influence with Greece, and in the Hellenistic period the line between Greek and Macedonian blurs to the point of irrelevance.

In any case there is no argument for them being Slavic, the only other major influences are Indo-European but because of modern ethnic and political identities there are arguments for Alexander the Great's Slavic heritage. But since you mention that our Greek sources which compare Macedonian culture to Greek culture naturally cherry pick their examples, it is worth pointing that we have the exact same problem with the Greek sources which paint them as barbarians. And you raise an interesting point with

Sure, they had some eccentricities like bringing Athenian fops to fop around their court, but this is well within the cultural range of Thracian kings!

At what point do non ethnically Greek individuals and groups (such as royal courts) become "Greek"? Are the Hellenistic Successor States even Greek if their ruling dynasties and the preponderence of their aristocracy are Macedonian? Yes there were plenty of Greeks in the upper classes and military elites but there were also local peoples in these demographics. To be sure the ruling dynasties adopted Greek culture but they also adopted elements of Persian, Syrian, Egyptian and even Bactrian culture. Greek authors and scholars such as Euclid and Theokritos patronised their capitals such as Alexandria and Antioch but did Aristotle not tutor Alexander himself?

The culture of Alexandria has many Macedonian, Egyptian, and later Roman, peculiarities so how can we justifiably say that it is "Hellenistic in essence, or that occupants of Antioch who are of Syrian descent are "Hellenes"? Should we use a separate metric based on era, and if so should it be for the purposes of including the "Hellenised" citizens of the Hellenistic kingdoms or based on how individuals identified themselves?

If we choose the former we create two meanings for a Hellenic identity, one ethnic and the other cultural. If choose the latter then we must still contend with the fact that the ancient Greeks themselves distinguished between subcultures from various city-states and that while some considered Macedonians barbarians, others considered them Greek.

All in all the idea of Hellenism is not much clearer now than it was in antiquity but I have difficulty excluding Macedonians in part because they would become one of the major disseminators of Hellenistic culture but this may honestly be bias on my part. However I do feel confident that whatever information we lack about the Macedonians, which is admittedly a lot, we have enough to know that they did adopt Greek culture (to an extent), Greek cults and it seems even Greek language assuming that Macedonian was ever a separate Hellenic language.

I am not saying that they were "Greek" to begin with necessarily, just that we should not quarantine them based on the biases of ancient Greek authors or modern considerations of heritage.

[–]TiakoTevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So I was probably being a bit unclear, I'm not disagreeing with you really. I'm certainly not going to deny that there was a great deal of cultural contact and influence between the two, my point is more that there is a tendency to allow these similarities to be taken as the whole package (or rather as a coherent package rather than a bricolage). I think this introduces two major types of bias: one is chronological, because I will never deny that during the Hellenistic the Macedonians were "Greek", although in the terms by which that identity changed and expanded due in no small part to the conscious political activity of the Hellenistic kings.

But the other bias is more subtle in that it takes the Macedonian kings at the word. The Macedonian kings gathered together great artists and thinkers from the Greek world, they fought to be included in the Olympics, Philip fought wars on behalf of the sanctuary of Delphi, etc. One way (which I will stereotype as the "traditional" view) to think of these is that these were signs of the Hellenicity of the Macedonians. But the way I prefer to think of it (which I will stereotype as the "objectively correct" view) is that these were exactly what they were: flamboyant displays of Greekness rather than signs of Greekness. This does not mean they were Greek (likewise it does not mean that they were not Greek, I just don't think these are useful terms and categories), and frankly the Macedonian kings expended so much effort on displaying their Greekness that my contrarian soul has no desire to give them the credit.

And so this makes me think, what if the situation were reversed? What if we only had records of the Macedonians' dealings with, say, the Thracians rather than the Greeks? I think there is reason to think that while the Macedonians were actively working to appear Greek to the Greeks, they also worked to accommodate the other cultural groups in their realm. And I think we can see enough attributes of the Macedonian kings (such as their basic political structure!) that would make a hypothetical Thracian think "these guys are just weird Thracians" in the same way a Greek might think "these guys are just weird Greeks".

So basically I like to think of the Macedonian (and later Hellenistic) kings not as "Hellenized" or "barbarized" or "Homeric" or whatever, but rather as canny political operators who were not hung up on fixed identity categories. I think Alexander's career bares this out.

Also I am not commenting on the Slav thing. For my money both sides are hella dumb and it is just a nationalist slap fight. If I remember the Economist named the Macedonian naming dispute "the most tedious conflict in Europe", beating out Lviv/Lvov/Lemburg.

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

One way (which I will stereotype as the "traditional" view) to think of these is that these were signs of the Hellenicity of the Macedonians. But the way I prefer to think of it (which I will stereotype as the "objectively correct" view) is that these were exactly what they were: flamboyant displays of Greekness rather than signs of Greekness. This does not mean they were Greek (likewise it does not mean that they were not Greek, I just don't think these are useful terms and categories), and frankly the Macedonian kings expended so much effort on displaying their Greekness that my contrarian soul has no desire to give them the credit.

That is definitely the most reasonable assumption, all I am arguing is that this same metric could be used to exclude every other non-Greek example of Hellenisation. After all, the prevailing attitude towards Hellenisation in the elites of Syria and Egypt is that it was performance meant to legitimise them or curry favour with the Hellenic elites. The performance of Hellenisation is even evidenced by individuals who seem to have not spoken any Greek themselves, so without trying to seem like I am moving the goal posts too much I have to ask whether Hellenisation was ever truly a process of assimilation, syncreticism or performance. I do agree with your main point that this is not evidence of Hellenisation but I think the main reason why our ideas of Hellenisation fail to hold water when applied to Macedon is because Hellenisation itself is a bit of a myth. Take an Egyptian from an important family who is enrolled in the gymnasium and who is evidently literate in Greek and naturally we consider them "Hellenised", but the reason for their enrollment might be primarily tax based and their use of Greek restricted to business while the women in their family speak no Greek at all, so how Hellenised are they really? At the same time no one would ever say that the Roman elite was Hellenised despite their passionate appetite for Greek literature and art. So I do agree with you, but only so far as a binary identity of Greek/Other is applied, because Hellenisation was often enough a matter of context and in certain contexts Macedonian monarchs performed as Hellenes while Macedonian culture demonstrates Hellenic attributes within equally restricted contexts.

And I think we can see enough attributes of the Macedonian kings (such as their basic political structure!) that would make a hypothetical Thracian think "these guys are just weird Thracians" in the same way a Greek might think "these guys are just weird Greeks".

Although I agree with the point you are making, I could argue that Sparta's basic political structure was no more typical and assuming your Thracian authors were like Greek authors we would have plenty of sources mentioning their strange non-Thracian barbarian language, or customs. There is just as much risk of taking Greek authors alienation of Macedon at face value as the reverse, so although the lack of evidence for Macedon's Greekness prevents me from jumping wholeheartedly into that camp, it is also not enough to allow me to immediately dismiss Macedonians as entirely removed from the Hellenic cultural sphere, which I know you were not arguing for but those are generally the two arguments which are presented.

Also I am not commenting on the Slav thing

I know, the only reason I brought it up was because the original comment (which was not yours but from the post) centred around the Greek/Slav dichotomy.

[–]Krstoserofil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3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] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Macedonians were Greek.

[–]TiakoTevinter apologist, shill for Big Lyrium 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a flat statement that is simply incorrect. The Macedonian kings tried to portray themselves as Greek, and did so by claiming decent from Greek heroes, and in such a way separated themselves from the Macedonian population as a whole. And this claim was far from universally accepted--Herodotus records that Alexander I argued his case to participate in the Olympics based on decent from Hercules, but the fact he had to make this case shows that it was not taken as a given. Towards Philip and Alexander's time the issue of Macedonian identity became more sharply politicized--some of the pan-Hellenists readily accepted Macedonians as Greek, others (such as Demosthenes) clearly did not.

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods of course Alexander was easily placed within the "Greek" category, but this is due in no small part to the very changed political environment and great changes to the nature of Greek identity itself.

One big problem with this whole "debate" is that we only see one perspective on it from the literary sources. The Macedonian kings presented themselves as Greek to the Greeks and accumulated signifiers of Greekness (such as Euripides, although arguably from a classical perspective having a court poet was very un-Greek, which is kind of what I am getting at), and given that all of our sources are Greek we do not see as well how they publicly presented themselves to other people. If we only had Thracian sources, for example, would we be saying that of course the Macedonians were Thracian, or Illyrian, or what have you? I think probably, and the archaeology and political structure of Macedon supports this.

And this certainly helps explain Alexander. The Macedonian kings ruled complex polities within complex political, cultural and social environments, causing them to wear different hats based on different circumstances. So rather than being some sort of proto-liberal internationalist with a visionary concept of universal citizenship, he was simply behaving like a Macedonian king, presenting different identities to different audiences for different purposes. They were perfectly happy behaving as Thracians or Greeks, why not an Egyptian or a Persian?

The other problem with this question, of course, is the roaring rapids of nationalist crap that comes along with it. Instead of trying to fit him into these jineteenth century ethno-national categories, why do we not just accept that he was just a boy, looking at an empire, asking it to love him.

[–]Krstoserofil 2 ポイント3 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.

[–]orthag 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1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.

EDIT: I'm now imagining this as a Month Python skit. John Cleese is playing am emperor, who is inspescting his troops, when he comes across a soldier, played by Eric Idle.

EMP: Soldier! What in Zeus' name are you wearing?!

SOL: What do you mean, sire?

EMP: On your head! What the blazes is that?!

SOL: Oh? This sure? It's my Galea, sire!

EMP: That, soldier, is not a Galea! This! pulls proper, 2nd century Galea off adjacent soldier's head Is a Galea! Where the bloody he'll did you get that atrocity?!

SOL: I, er uh, bought it sir. It's all I could afford.

EMP: Why did you buy your own helmet?! There's an entire imperial armory right over there!

SOL: I thought you'd appreciate my initiative.

EMP: Soldier, I pay you to stab barbarians, not have initiative! Now get yourself a proper helmet anf be gone from my sight!

SOL: Yes sire, sorry sire!

And then the skit proceeds with our soldier, still in his bad helmet doing all sorts of wacky things.

[–]The740Rommel was more honorable than Grove, less than Earnshaw 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Macedonius eunt domus!

[–]Hergrima Dungeons and Dragons level of historical authenticity. 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3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!

[–]dandan_noodles1453 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OTTOMAN CANNON CAN'T BREAK ROMAN WALLS 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What's really interesting how the techniques for manufacturing hard-light plastics had already been lost before after the devastation of the Finno-Korean Hyperwar.

[–]Hergrima Dungeons and Dragons level of historical authenticity. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It all goes to show that history repeats itself. If only we could learn from it to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again!

[–]dandan_noodles1453 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OTTOMAN CANNON CAN'T BREAK ROMAN WALLS 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just think, we could have been exploring the outer singularity by now...

[–]SnapshillBotPassing Turing Tests since 1956 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4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] 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (3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 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2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.

[–]ByzantineBasileusHAIL CYRUS![S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you!

[–]TheGuineaPig21Chamberlain did nothing wrong 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Alexander gets his OP Hoplites at Bronze Wokring too

[–]XealeonErik the Often Times Red 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

Axes are good against trees, trees are made of wood, ballistas are also made of wood, by the transitive property axes must also be good against ballistas.

As such, Attila probably availed himself of metal scale, lamellar or maille as a sign of his status, and to not die horribly.

Not dying horribly is a European invention, Eastern warriors all wear loose silk robes that flow appealingly in slow motion while they fight.

[–]west_country_boy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

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

[–]yoshiKUncultured savage since 476 AD 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Judging from Bascinet helmets and Pickelhauben, probably that you can't hit the helmet from straight above. In general you want some curvature in your armor so that an offending weapon glances of easier. In particular, if you have a flat top on a helmet, then the entire impulse of the weapon get transported into the helm, from there into the skull and from the base of the skull into the spine, none of that are places were you want to deposit large amounts of energy. By contrast, if you hit a Phrygian helmet right from the top, then the helmet will start to rotate and therefore absorbs some of the impulse as rotation. (Fig. 1 The red arrow is roughly aliened with the spine, the blue arrow is aligned with the center of mass and therefore would not rotate the helm, but the movement of the helm is then not along the spine and therefore the neck will bend.)

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

Or they thought it'd be cool to have a metal hat that looks like their cloth hats.

[–]yoshiKUncultured savage since 476 AD 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why_not_both.gif (My guess is, someone was very happy to discover that his cool new helmet worked really well.)

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

Why_not_both.gif

Feedback welcome at /r/image_linker_bot | Disable with "ignore me" via reply or PM

[–]airborneleafHow do we know history is real if we didn't see it happen 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Category : Comedy & Entertainment

Fitting

[–]yoshiKUncultured savage since 476 AD 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Since I am at the moment pretty pissed at the taking overly broad categorizations and assuming they have any kind of analytic meaning bullshit in general, I may as well rant here were I don't have to produce a longish argument.

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

Alexander did certainly not identify as any kind of Slavic, in fact I strongly doubt that he had any kind of idea that one could group some languages spread over half of Europe into a language family, nor that it is possible to claim that such a group of languages has any kind of analytical power beyond the claim that word order is sometimes kind of similar.

[–]AugenisThe King Basileus of the Grand Ducal Principality of Lithuania 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think that was a joke making fun of the modern Macedonian-Greek conflict over who gets to claim ancient Macedonia.

[–]yoshiKUncultured savage since 476 AD 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

In that case, feel free to read the above as exposition of the joke. As noted above, I am currently mostly frustrated by the style of argument, not so much by the concrete example.

[–]kroatiAything else is an ethnic expansion pack 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, he didnt even say DRINK!, nor give an argument why, which basically always means its a joke.