what was the ancient battle really like????? - Page 2




 
--
 
July 13th, 2005  
Ghost Rider LSOV
 
"Never call a Macedonian a Greek and never call a Greek a Macedonian."

For your knowledge, I would like to inform you that when people speak about ancient Macedonians, people refer to Hellenen (Greeks) who had lived in the geographical area of Macedonia in Northern Hellas(Greece) 200 years BC. At that time, today’s inhabitants of North Macedonia, Skopje (Bulgaria) etc. were not present at this area, as today’s inhabitants of the so called North Macedonia, Skopje (Bulgaria), are Slavs who have appeared in history as nation only on the 7th century. So, the ones who call themselves today as Macedonians(FYROM) are not Greeks and only use the name by living in the 100% Hellenic (Greek) Macedonian area.

A (Hellenic) Greek Macedonian
July 13th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Rome Total war is a great game and is a wonderful tool to show how ancient battles are likely to have been fought. It's so good that there was an entire TV series on the History Channel that re-created ancient battles using the Rome: Total War game engine, and it was actually really good!
July 13th, 2005  
Bory
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost Rider LSOV
"Never call a Macedonian a Greek and never call a Greek a Macedonian."

For your knowledge, I would like to inform you that when people speak about ancient Macedonians, people refer to Hellenen (Greeks) who had lived in the geographical area of Macedonia in Northern Hellas(Greece) 200 years BC. At that time, today’s inhabitants of North Macedonia, Skopje (Bulgaria) etc. were not present at this area, as today’s inhabitants of the so called North Macedonia, Skopje (Bulgaria), are Slavs who have appeared in history as nation only on the 7th century. So, the ones who call themselves today as Macedonians(FYROM) are not Greeks and only use the name by living in the 100% Hellenic (Greek) Macedonian area.

A (Hellenic) Greek Macedonian
Well, you learn something new everyday. Sorry for my ignorance in that area.


As for Rome Total War, I am the only guy in my group at school who has not played it. I am very....annoyed about it.

cokeisthebest, I see what you mean, that the Macedonians couldn't fight like that all day. I was not very clear from what I said earlier.
I don't beleive that the Macedonian Phalanx could have held out for an entire day, But I do know the battle was longer than most battles in history.
One thing I did not mention about the Phalanx, was that they did carry swords, and once the enemy did reach their lines and the front, it was spears down, swords out and pretty much good luck.

Pydna, was the Macedonians Last stand, and they pulled out every trick in the book to win. Catapults, long ranger archers and javelins, a do or die stand by the Auxiliaries.

The Greeks had turned against them, and they were faced were being invaded by the Romans, Their Empier that stood for some 250 was crumbling around them so they fought hard. I beleive modern researchers put the length of the battle at 50 min to and Hour.
By then both sides were tired, and fatigued, but, The Macedonians were defeated for some time, they just didn't give up. The Phalanx fighting was around 10 minutes, but the Cavalry broke ranks, and ran back to Auxiliaries line and had pursuers have arrows fired at them.

The Hypapsists were about equal in standards of uniforms and weapons to the Roman Leigonaries, but their numbers weren't there. The Hypapsists fighting was the longest. They fought in formation to the last man, a tactic taught to them 250 years earlier by Philip II after Chaeronea. The Phalanx was out flanked, and thoes in the first six ranks were trapped, and fought puerly to live, while the remaning 36 ranks, fled and were butchered by the Roman Cavalry (Equites I think they're called)
So, The Romans had won in about 10 minutes but the Macedonians just kept fighting to the end.
--
August 7th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
To answer your question it would depend if you were on the winning side or the losing one. If you had been on the winning side then it was not to bad, if you had been on the losing side then you would not be fighting any future battles.
August 16th, 2005  
SAINT
 
You got to be really brave and bloodthirsty to fight in an ancient war. Fingers, hands, arms, heads get chopped off...

either yours or theirs..

Now the present day wars are more gentlemanly fought.. shooting at one another, hiding and trying not to see your face...

8)
August 23rd, 2005  
vargsriket
 
I think its the technology to 'blame', because soldiers still must be very aggressive and bloodthirsty in a battle. I mean, you're fighting for your and the life of the guys around you in a firefight, politics and shit don't matter at all, so those violent ancient instincts surface.
August 26th, 2005  
Rich
 
One of the biggest killers on the ancient battle field was...bacteria.

The Romans believed that pus was part of the healing process - in fact this wasn't challenged until the 1600's. Some surgeons even went as far as introducing a foreign body to induce pus in a wound that didn't have any!

Sterilisation of medical instruments was not introduced until the 1880's as did the wearing of gowns, masks and gloves. Amputations right up to WW1 had a high mortality rate because of post-op infection.

There weren't the modern anesthetics and the instruments were not razor sharp as they are today. In fact, "sawing motions" were referred to by ancient physicians for what today we call an incision. It wasn't uncommon for young patients to die of heart attack in surgery from the shear pain.

The ancients did understand that cauterisation could destroy infection but could not fight any resulting infection from the burns.

I think LeEnfield had it right - you were OK if you were on the winning side. But I think he might have added "provided you didn't have any injuries"
August 26th, 2005  
Blixs
 
 
No.

I believe that ancient battles really took hours rather than minutes.I think the scientists who came up with these theories didn't really look into the evolutionary process.

You see humans back then were a lot stronger than they are now.Humans as we evolve into more intelligent beings,our bodies become weaker.

So it would be pretty difficult for modern day man to fight a battle carrying armor,shield,and weapon.And be expected to last several hours,let alone several minutes,but to ancient man this was nothing.
August 29th, 2005  
Peterminator
 
in ancient battles the catapults and arrows softened up the enemy then
the infantry wased used for mopping up the enemy.when the enemy retreated the cavalry charged and killed as many of them as they could.
these tactics varied a little.
Back then wars were fought pretty much the same way.this was called attrition warfare. commanders couldn't be creative because technology
didn't let them
September 5th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
in ancient time, arrows and spears fly with very low velocity, and can be easily avoided if you look straight up and hold you shield ready.


and even back in 2000 years ago. It is not possible for humans to slash and stab for hours (even today's top athelics cannot do that). A typical battle probably lasts no more than 10 min and one side will break, that is the result learned from digging on the old battle field.