what was the ancient battle really like????? - Page 3




 
--
 
July 10th, 2006  
Insomniac
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
yes, but every move you make on a battlefield these days, if you shoot a man a second after a truce has been declared or the war has ended, and you are likely to be put in prison for the rest of your life. these days war is more complicated. it is not war anymore, but closer to politics.
July 10th, 2006  
Insomniac
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
damn right!these men probably grew up training top carryu sword and shield, and anything else burdened on them. men would often carry things heavier than 21 kilos (considered a heavy load) and not complain at all.
July 16th, 2006  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Do you have some evidence to back up this claim? I'm highly sceptical to say the least.
--
July 17th, 2006  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
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.
A quick search could find surprisingly little information on historic trends in human strength or Physiology. Height reached a peak around the Middle ages and reached a minimimum in the 19th century before reversing according to one source! I have always assumed it to be constantly rising. I recall it being suggested that the strength of English Archers may have been greater than modern man based on the drawing load of longbows found on the Mary Rose (or the design of them).

Height which is often used as a proxy for strength depends on genetics, diet, fitness and general health. Diet should have improved strength but I suppose the move from agriculture to industry, especially modern power assisted industry may have reduced it.

Genetic trends have complex causes. Fashion is important, look at the peacock for example! In modern society, a fashion for females to favour larger, stronger males will have a tendency to produce more of them, irrespective of any physical advantage this gives them. In times of food shortage perhaps the opposite might occur.
July 19th, 2006  
rotc boy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcore_idiot
damn right!these men probably grew up training top carryu sword and shield, and anything else burdened on them. men would often carry things heavier than 21 kilos (considered a heavy load) and not complain at all.
troops these days carry much more than 46 lbs these days though...
August 27th, 2006  
Insomniac
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotc boy
troops these days carry much more than 46 lbs these days though...
how many lb's in a kilo?
August 28th, 2006  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcore_idiot
how many lb's in a kilo?
To put it this way, I regularly carry up to 60kg patrolling. It can easily be more, or thanfully less.
October 24th, 2006  
Prince
 
 
many battles lasted a whole day, some even lasted into the night. these have been recorded numerous times in too many cultures to count so it has to be fact. remember people back then were raised to carry the weight of the weopen from an early age. they would know how to use it without tiring. life back then was alot harder so they were more suited physicaly for fighting than the average guy these days.
December 20th, 2006  
Insomniac
 
 
i think an aincent battle would rage for hours, as people have devolved over the years into a much smaller, less violent race of people. this author may have depicted what would happen in modern day "ancient" warfare (if you understand that, you're a genius) but back then they would have just raged at it.
January 1st, 2007  
Gator
 
 
One has to take into account that not very long ago mass formations of Troops in the open stood opposite each other and exchanged volleys of gunfire, something that would be very hard to talk people into now days.

So, I can see Armies of people fighting day long battles back thousands of years, it's not like they had a lot to look forward to if they lost, seeing how they would be sold, or killed anyway, and their families taken as slaves.