RE: The Movie Troy

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The Movie Troy

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The Movie Troy

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 12:53:09 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

Yep, it was Miltiades, and no, nothing suggests that it weas only the lead men who were arrayed in Hoplkite gear. I think you are confusing it with Livys and Dion. Hals. description of the Servian army reforms of Rome.

I wasn't directly referring to their equipment, more their status. I'm out on a limb here, but isn't there an intimate connection between the Hoplite and the city-state citizenship? The 7 following the Hoplite were Helots, his slaves. As I understood it, that wouldn't exclude them from wearing armor?

< Message edited by Belisarius -- 5/25/2004 11:55:23 PM >

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 61

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 1:23:19 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

Yep, it was Miltiades, and no, nothing suggests that it weas only the lead men who were arrayed in Hoplkite gear. I think you are confusing it with Livys and Dion. Hals. description of the Servian army reforms of Rome.

I wasn't directly referring to their equipment, more their status. I'm out on a limb here, but isn't there an intimate connection between the Hoplite and the city-state citizenship? The 7 following the Hoplite were Helots, his slaves. As I understood it, that wouldn't exclude them from wearing armor?

The Helots are a uniquely Spartan phenomenon, and yes, their status (untill the 4th century at least) forbade them to partake directly in the Hoplite clash (they sometimes fought as skirmishers on the wings)

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Belisarius)

Post #: 62

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 2:58:47 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

For such a small nation, it's amazing what ancient Greece has given to us.

Even the tactics used by the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon seem to have been used by Hannibal at Cannae.

Nothing suggests that the rout of the greek center at Marathon was intentional.

Probably more a natural effect of thinning out the centre so the Greek' position wouldn't be overflanked by the Persian formation. Advancing in line formation with the speed necessary to avoid the Persian arrows usually means the flanks advance quicker than the center. With the center rank maybe as little as 4 men deep, the strung out formation got gaps which the Persians used .

Possibly.

Whether intentional or not, it certainly had the desired effect. And it makes the commanding general's quick grasp of how to counter the Persian thrust into the Greek center, even more interesting.

Battle of Marathon

The Athenian army took up its position in the Valley of Vrana, outnumbered three to one. The battle lines were about one mile apart and the Athenians did not have enough troops to cover the entire valley. Therefore, their leading General, Miltiades, set a weak center and strengthened the wings.

Miltiades attacked at dawn. The Athenians charged at a run. The Persians waited, not really believing that anyone could run that far and still fight well. When the Persians attacked they routed the Greek weak center and charged up the valley. The Greeks retreated, pulling the Persians forward and extending their lines. Then the Greek wings fell upon the Persian flanks while the center suddenly stood firm. The Persians broke ranks and began to retreat. As the Greeks pressed, the retreat became a rout. The Greeks harried them all the way to the beach and followed them into the water, swimming out after the boats and capturing seven Persian ships.

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae. The fact that the "retreating" hoplites suddenly stood firm and attacked the Persians from the front at the same time as their flanks were being attacked, seems to suggest purposeful design.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/26/2004 1:10:43 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Belisarius)

Post #: 63

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 4:46:00 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/Hdt.html#marathon

Herodot:
[6.111] But when it did come around to him, then the Athenians were stationed for fighting in the following way: the right horn was led by the polemarch, Kallimachos...and...those holding the left horn [were] the Plataeans. (Since that battle, when the Athenians bring sacrifices to the assemblies that happen every five years an Athenian herald prays saying that good things should happen to both Athenians and Plataeans.)...Their battle-line was equal in length to the Persian battle-line, and while the middle part was only a few ranks deep (and in that place the battle-line was weakest) the horn nevertheless, on each side, was healthy in its multitude.

[6.112] And when they were stationed and the sacrificial omens were good, then as soon as they were released the Athenians at a run went against the barbaroi (and there were between them not less than eight stades). But when the Persians saw them coming on at a run they prepared to receive them, and deemed it a mania among the Athenians�and one wholly destructive�seeing them so few and charging at a run, not having horsemen with them nor archers. Such things then the barbaroi surmised; but the Athenians, when all in a bunch they mixed in with the barbaroi, fought in a way worthy of report. For they were the first of the Hellenes�of all those of whom we know�to make use of a running charge against enemy warriors, and the first who bore even seeing the clothing of the Persians and the men therein clothed�until then it was for Hellenes a fearful thing even to hear the name of the Persians.

[6.113] While they were battling at Marathon a long time passed, and in the middle of the battle-line victory went to the barbaroi (here the Persians themselves and Sakae were stationed; for this reason, indeed, victory went to the barbaroi) and breaking through they pursued the Athenians inland; on the other hand, at the horn on each end victory went to the Athenians and Plataeans. And since they were victors, they allowed the routed part of the barbaroi to flee, but at the middle, against those who had broken through their own lines, they pulled together the horns and, on both sides, fought. The Athenians were the victors. And as the Persians fled, they followed, cutting them down, until when they had come to the sea they demanded fire and seized the ships

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 64

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 4:40:21 PM

mavraam

Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 65

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 7:07:24 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/Hdt.html#marathon

Herodot:
[6.111] But when it did come around to him, then the Athenians were stationed for fighting in the following way: the right horn was led by the polemarch, Kallimachos...and...those holding the left horn [were] the Plataeans. (Since that battle, when the Athenians bring sacrifices to the assemblies that happen every five years an Athenian herald prays saying that good things should happen to both Athenians and Plataeans.)...Their battle-line was equal in length to the Persian battle-line, and while the middle part was only a few ranks deep (and in that place the battle-line was weakest) the horn nevertheless, on each side, was healthy in its multitude.

[6.112] And when they were stationed and the sacrificial omens were good, then as soon as they were released the Athenians at a run went against the barbaroi (and there were between them not less than eight stades). But when the Persians saw them coming on at a run they prepared to receive them, and deemed it a mania among the Athenians�and one wholly destructive�seeing them so few and charging at a run, not having horsemen with them nor archers. Such things then the barbaroi surmised; but the Athenians, when all in a bunch they mixed in with the barbaroi, fought in a way worthy of report. For they were the first of the Hellenes�of all those of whom we know�to make use of a running charge against enemy warriors, and the first who bore even seeing the clothing of the Persians and the men therein clothed�until then it was for Hellenes a fearful thing even to hear the name of the Persians.

[6.113] While they were battling at Marathon a long time passed, and in the middle of the battle-line victory went to the barbaroi (here the Persians themselves and Sakae were stationed; for this reason, indeed, victory went to the barbaroi) and breaking through they pursued the Athenians inland; on the other hand, at the horn on each end victory went to the Athenians and Plataeans. And since they were victors, they allowed the routed part of the barbaroi to flee, but at the middle, against those who had broken through their own lines, they pulled together the horns and, on both sides, fought. The Athenians were the victors. And as the Persians fled, they followed, cutting them down, until when they had come to the sea they demanded fire and seized the ships

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

I mentioned that the tactics used by the Greeks at Marathon resembled those of Hannibal at Cannae.

Since Hannibal obviously read about the ancient battles, and since he probably knew about the Greeks routing a much larger force of Persians at Marathon, it follows that as a brilliant commander, he could easily have adopted the tactics used by the Greeks (noticed what worked and what didn't), and modified them for his own purpose.

At both Cannae and Marathon:

1) weak centres

2) strong wings

3) retreat in the centre (and then a rally for a new attack)

4) attacks on the flanks

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/26/2004 5:35:30 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 66

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 7:11:57 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

A brilliant commander such as Hannibal could have adopted and modified the tactics used by the Greeks.

Einstein, before he came up with his own brilliant theories, had earned a PH.D, and so had studied all the ideas of those who went before him.

It seems reasonable that Hannibal would have wanted to know how the Greeks beat a much larger force of Persians at Marathon. He could then have seen where he could improve upon their tactics. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to mavraam)

Post #: 67

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 7:25:15 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

During the Greek/Persian Wars, Herodotus mentions that Xerxes crossed the Hellespont with 3 million men.

Scholars today acknowledge that that was a gross exaggeration. They estimate it was closer to 250,000 - 300,000 men.

So, he was also prone to faulty reporting

Also, those graphics do depict how the battle was fought according to Herodotus. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/26/2004 5:57:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 68

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 7:50:56 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

It should also be remembered that feigning retreat to draw in the enemy, and then attacking again, was a favoured tactic of the Greeks.

Note the Spartans did this very thing at Thermopylae against the Persian host. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 69

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 8:06:16 PM

mavraam

Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

A brilliant commander such as Hannibal could have adopted and modified the tactics used by the Greeks.

Einstein, before he came up with his own brilliant theories, had earned a PH.D, and so had studied all the ideas of those who went before him.

It seems reasonable that Hannibal would have wanted to know how the Greeks beat a much larger force of Persians at Marathon. He could then have seen where he could improve upon their tactics. . .

I didn't mean to imply that Hannibal didn't learn from the Battle of Marathon. Quite the opposite. He may have learned from it and even improved on it by making a pont of not allowing the Romans to escape. There are some that claim that the number of Roman soldiers killed that day is the most ever by a single general in a single battle in a single day in Western military history. Unfortunately for him, he could never take Rome and so ultimately lost.

I always think about that when I hear Patton's famous saying about fixed fortifications:

"Fixed fortifications are a testament to man's stupidity. If we can move armies accross mountains and oceans, nothing built by man can stop us."

I always wondered if he meant in the modern (post tank) era where that is clearly true. He must have because he was a great student of military history.

And he had to know, Hannibal crossed the Mediteranian. He crossed the Alps. He destroyed the heart of the Roman Army in open combat. But he couldn't penetrate Rome. A fixed fortification built by man.

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 70

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 8:39:34 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

A brilliant commander such as Hannibal could have adopted and modified the tactics used by the Greeks.

Einstein, before he came up with his own brilliant theories, had earned a PH.D, and so had studied all the ideas of those who went before him.

It seems reasonable that Hannibal would have wanted to know how the Greeks beat a much larger force of Persians at Marathon. He could then have seen where he could improve upon their tactics. . .

I didn't mean to imply that Hannibal didn't learn from the Battle of Marathon. Quite the opposite. He may have learned from it and even improved on it by making a pont of not allowing the Romans to escape. There are some that claim that the number of Roman soldiers killed that day is the most ever by a single general in a single battle in a single day in Western military history. Unfortunately for him, he could never take Rome and so ultimately lost.

I always think about that when I hear Patton's famous saying about fixed fortifications:

"Fixed fortifications are a testament to man's stupidity. If we can move armies accross mountains and oceans, nothing built by man can stop us."

I always wondered if he meant in the modern (post tank) era where that is clearly true. He must have because he was a great student of military history.

And he had to know, Hannibal crossed the Mediteranian. He crossed the Alps. He destroyed the heart of the Roman Army in open combat. But he couldn't penetrate Rome. A fixed fortification built by man.

It was probably my fault for not making myself clearer

It is interesting that the Battle of Cannae is still studied in military academies today. I wonder how our modern age could use the same tactics used back in Hannibal's time?

Some scholars suggest that Hannibal could have taken Rome, but chose not to. This was just after the Battle of Cannae. Some suggest that he was so sickened by the carnage of that day, that he chose a respite rather than push for Rome.

One of his generals was so angry over Hannibal's decision not to push for Rome, that he said: "Hannibal, you know how to win battles, but you don't know how to win wars."

Also, Patton knew that the key to Italy was Sicily. And the key to Sicily was Syracuse. Why? Because the ancient Greeks knew it as well.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/26/2004 7:13:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mavraam)

Post #: 71

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 9:41:08 PM

mavraam

Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Also, Patton knew that the key to Italy was Sicily. And the key to Sicily was Syracuse. Why? Because the ancient Greeks knew it as well.

It seems it was not just the Greeks who chose to keep fighting battles in the same places!

BTW, where did you get those awesome moving diagrams of the battles???

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 72

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 9:51:30 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
It was probably my fault for not making myself clearer

It is interesting that the Battle of Cannae is still studied in military academies today. I wonder how our modern age could use the same tactics used back in Hannibal's time?

Some scholars suggest that Hannibal could have taken Rome, but chose not to. This was just after the Battle of Cannae. Some suggest that he was so sickened by the carnage of that day, that he chose a respite rather than push for Rome.

One of his generals was so angry over Hannibal's decision not to push for Rome, that he said: "Hannibal, you know how to win battles, but you don't know how to win wars."

We can probably credit that explanation to the legends.

It's more likely that Hannibal didn't realize the strength in the Roman society - the cities. He thought he could defeat Rome by isolating the cities one by one, like Greece. Problem was that the only way to defeat Rome is to sack Rome itself. Eventually he got there, but 5 years too late.

Oh btw, Sicily is the key to Spain, too.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 73

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/26/2004 11:14:09 PM

mavraam

Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Oh btw, Sicily is the key to Spain, too.

As we've seen recently, it takes far less than the occupation of Sicily to control Spain.

(in reply to Belisarius)

Post #: 74

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 12:24:36 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/Hdt.html#marathon

Herodot:
[6.111] But when it did come around to him, then the Athenians were stationed for fighting in the following way: the right horn was led by the polemarch, Kallimachos...and...those holding the left horn [were] the Plataeans. (Since that battle, when the Athenians bring sacrifices to the assemblies that happen every five years an Athenian herald prays saying that good things should happen to both Athenians and Plataeans.)...Their battle-line was equal in length to the Persian battle-line, and while the middle part was only a few ranks deep (and in that place the battle-line was weakest) the horn nevertheless, on each side, was healthy in its multitude.

[6.112] And when they were stationed and the sacrificial omens were good, then as soon as they were released the Athenians at a run went against the barbaroi (and there were between them not less than eight stades). But when the Persians saw them coming on at a run they prepared to receive them, and deemed it a mania among the Athenians�and one wholly destructive�seeing them so few and charging at a run, not having horsemen with them nor archers. Such things then the barbaroi surmised; but the Athenians, when all in a bunch they mixed in with the barbaroi, fought in a way worthy of report. For they were the first of the Hellenes�of all those of whom we know�to make use of a running charge against enemy warriors, and the first who bore even seeing the clothing of the Persians and the men therein clothed�until then it was for Hellenes a fearful thing even to hear the name of the Persians.

[6.113] While they were battling at Marathon a long time passed, and in the middle of the battle-line victory went to the barbaroi (here the Persians themselves and Sakae were stationed; for this reason, indeed, victory went to the barbaroi) and breaking through they pursued the Athenians inland; on the other hand, at the horn on each end victory went to the Athenians and Plataeans. And since they were victors, they allowed the routed part of the barbaroi to flee, but at the middle, against those who had broken through their own lines, they pulled together the horns and, on both sides, fought. The Athenians were the victors. And as the Persians fled, they followed, cutting them down, until when they had come to the sea they demanded fire and seized the ships

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

I mentioned that the tactics used by the Greeks at Marathon resembled those of Hannibal at Cannae.

Since Hannibal obviously read about the ancient battles, and since he probably knew about the Greeks routing a much larger force of Persians at Marathon, it follows that as a brilliant commander, he could easily have adopted the tactics used by the Greeks (noticed what worked and what didn't), and modified them for his own purpose.

At both Cannae and Marathon:

1) weak centres

The weak centre at Marathon was not part of an intentional ruse. I challange you to find me primary material supporting this notion.

quote:

2) strong wings

A general trend in anciant warfare.

quote:

3) retreat in the centre (and then a rally for a new attack)

The greek centre didn�t rally at Marathon. Neither did they launch a fresh attack.

quote:

4) attacks on the flanks

Nothing new here. A general trend again.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 75

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 12:25:40 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

During the Greek/Persian Wars, Herodotus mentions that Xerxes crossed the Hellespont with 3 million men.

Scholars today acknowledge that that was a gross exaggeration. They estimate it was closer to 250,000 - 300,000 men.

So, he was also prone to faulty reporting

Also, those graphics do depict how the battle was fought according to Herodotus. . .

Exaggerations of numbers are common in antique history, and it was not unique to Herodotus

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 76

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 12:27:11 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

It should also be remembered that feigning retreat to draw in the enemy, and then attacking again, was a favoured tactic of the Greeks.

Note the Spartans did this very thing at Thermopylae against the Persian host. . .

I beg to differ

The entire heart of archaic greek battle ethics was the close quarter clash that enabled the battle to be finished quickly. Making ruses and feigning flight only became a big thing in the 4th century (and really big in hellenistic times)

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 5/26/2004 10:35:42 PM >

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 77

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 12:27:54 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

A brilliant commander such as Hannibal could have adopted and modified the tactics used by the Greeks.

Einstein, before he came up with his own brilliant theories, had earned a PH.D, and so had studied all the ideas of those who went before him.

It seems reasonable that Hannibal would have wanted to know how the Greeks beat a much larger force of Persians at Marathon. He could then have seen where he could improve upon their tactics. . .

Possibly, but it remains conjecture,and a thin one at that.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 78

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:00:08 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

The weak centre at Marathon was not part of an intentional ruse. I challange you to find me primary material supporting this notion.

I did not say it was an intentional ruse. I said it appeared to be of a purposeful design. Even if not intentional, the Greek generals were quick to capitalize on the situation and were flexible enough to to know exactly where to strike the enemy.

Herodotus:

"The Athenian generals were divided in their opinions, and some advised not to risk a battle, because they were too few to engage such a host as that of the Medes, while others were for fighting at once, and among these last was Miltiades. He therefore, seeing that opinions were thus divided, and that the less worthy counsel appeared likely to prevail, resolved to go to the Polemarch, and have a conference with him. For the man on whom the lot fell to be Polemarch at Athens was entitled to give his vote with the ten generals, since anciently the Athenians allowed him an equal right of voting with them."

[What do you think the Athenian generals were debating? A good general would not only debate about whether to do battle, but also about what tactics to use.]

"Then at length, when his own turn was come, the Athenian battle was set in array, and this was the order of it. Callimachus the Polemarch led the right wing, for it was at that time a rule with the Athenians to give the right wing to the Polemarch. After this followed the tribes, according as they were numbered, in an unbroken line; while last of all came the Plataeans, forming the left wing. And ever since that day it has been a custom with the Athenians, in the sacrifices and assemblies held each fifth year at Athens, for the Athenian herald to implore the blessing of the gods on the Plataeans conjointly with the Athenians. Now, as they marshalled the host upon the field of Marathon, in order that the Athenian front might he of equal length with the Median, the ranks of the centre were diminished, and it became the weakest part of the line, while the wings were both made strong with a depth of many ranks."

[Clearly, having the centre left weak was part of the OoB - it was purposely done. Herodotus did not include everything about the Battle of Marathon in his account. For example, he left out the fact that Themistocles was in command of the "weak centre"]

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Classes/Sources/Herodotus-Marathon.html

quote:

The greek centre didn�t rally at Marathon. Neither did they launch a fresh attack.

This is not true.

I quote Creasy:

"Aristides and Themistocles (who were in charge of the weak centre) re-newed the fight with their reorganized troops, and the full force of the Greeks were brought into close action with the Persian and Sacian divisions of the enemy (Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, p.24)."

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/26/2004 11:06:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 79

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:04:01 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

During the Greek/Persian Wars, Herodotus mentions that Xerxes crossed the Hellespont with 3 million men.

Scholars today acknowledge that that was a gross exaggeration. They estimate it was closer to 250,000 - 300,000 men.

So, he was also prone to faulty reporting

Also, those graphics do depict how the battle was fought according to Herodotus. . .

Exaggerations of numbers are common in antique history, and it was not unique to Herodotus

And since Herodutus wrote the Histories many years after the events, scholars have found many other things wrong as well. He was Greek and was prone to bias towards Greece.

He is not infallible, and should not be looked at as the "Holy Grail" of information.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/26/2004 11:22:16 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 80

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:07:05 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

It should also be remembered that feigning retreat to draw in the enemy, and then attacking again, was a favoured tactic of the Greeks.

Note the Spartans did this very thing at Thermopylae against the Persian host. . .

I beg to differ

The entire heart of archaic greek battle ethics was the close quarter clash that enabled the battle to be finished quickly. Making ruses and feigning flight only became a big thing in the 4th century (and really big in hellenistic times)

I simply can't see what it is you are arguing against.

Yes, you are correct in what you stated.

However, since the Spartans did feign retreat and then rallied to attack the Persians, this clearly shows this is something for which they trained to perform.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 81

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:15:03 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

A brilliant commander such as Hannibal could have adopted and modified the tactics used by the Greeks.

Einstein, before he came up with his own brilliant theories, had earned a PH.D, and so had studied all the ideas of those who went before him.

It seems reasonable that Hannibal would have wanted to know how the Greeks beat a much larger force of Persians at Marathon. He could then have seen where he could improve upon their tactics. . .

Possibly, but it remains conjecture,and a thin one at that.

Well, that may be true.

But surely to suggest that Hannibal or Alexander, or for any general not to have studied and examined the battles and commanders of the past, is to be walking blind.

Einstein was a genius, yes. But first he needed to assimilate all the info about science of the past. He simply did not wake up one day, and presto! discovered the Theory of Relativity. . .

Hannibal was a smart guy, no doubt. But since the Carthaginans sailed the Mediterranean world, Carthage would have had access to many of the written works of the ancient Greeks, etc, etc. . .

His father would have taught him, etc, etc. . .

People, no matter how brilliant they become, are products of what they learn. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 82

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:21:39 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

I did not say it was an intentional ruse. I said it appeared to be of a purposeful design. Even if not intentional, the Greek generals were quick to capitalize on the situation and were flexible enough to to know exactly where to strike the enemy.

Certainly.

quote:

[What do you think the Athenian generals were debating? A good general would not only debate about whether to do battle, but also about what tactics to use.]

I would like to point out that studies of the written sources seems to indicate that the depth of the phalanx was up to the individual Lochaiaoi to determine the depth of which his Lochos would fight (W.K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek military practices part 1. Berkeley 1974 Page 140-142). Again, nothing in the sources (Herodotus) supports the notion that the outflanking ,maneuever was deliberate and intentional.

quote:

[Clearly, having the centre left weak was part of the OoB - it was purposely done. Herodotus did not include everything about the Battle of Marathon in his account. For example, he left out the fact that Themistocles was in command of the "weak centre"]

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Classes/Sources/Herodotus-Marathon.html

Certainly, but I tend to believe that the reason was because the subunit commanders (Lochaioi) in the centre chose to do so, and not because of any intentional ruse on the greek side decided at the top level. If this was the case, it would have been stated in later historical sources as another example of greek military superiority and cunning.As it is, the absence of any notions pertaining to this speaks for iself.

I believe the details of Themistocles partcipation can be found in the aptly named biography by Plutarch

quote:

This is not true.

I quote Creasy:

"Aristides and Themistocles (who were in charge of the weak centre) re-newed the fight with their reorganized troops, and the full force of the Greeks were brought into close action with the Persian and Sacian divisions of the enemy (Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, p.24)."

I gave you Herodotus account above. Herodotus is a primary source. Creasy ain�t. What does Creasy bring forward to support this notion?

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 83

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:22:23 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

During the Greek/Persian Wars, Herodotus mentions that Xerxes crossed the Hellespont with 3 million men.

Scholars today acknowledge that that was a gross exaggeration. They estimate it was closer to 250,000 - 300,000 men.

So, he was also prone to faulty reporting

Also, those graphics do depict how the battle was fought according to Herodotus. . .

Exaggerations of numbers are common in antique history, and it was not unique to Herodotus

And since Herodutus wrote the Histories many years after the events, scholars have found many other things wrong as well. He was Greek and was prone to bias towards Greece.

He is not infallible, and should not be looked at as the "Holy Grail" of information.

Certainly not, but in this case he is THE best primary source.

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 5/26/2004 11:30:11 PM >

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 84

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:23:39 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

It should also be remembered that feigning retreat to draw in the enemy, and then attacking again, was a favoured tactic of the Greeks.

Note the Spartans did this very thing at Thermopylae against the Persian host. . .

I beg to differ

The entire heart of archaic greek battle ethics was the close quarter clash that enabled the battle to be finished quickly. Making ruses and feigning flight only became a big thing in the 4th century (and really big in hellenistic times)

I simply can't see what it is you are arguing against.

Yes, you are correct in what you stated.

However, since the Spartans did feign retreat and then rallied to attack the Persians, this clearly shows this is something for which they trained to perform.

Yep, but the Spartans were the cream of greek military prowess with regard to maneuver, so I don�t find it odd that THEY could pull something like this off.

Besides, I argue because I like to. Discussions about obscure subjects are fun

< Message edited by Rune Iversen -- 5/26/2004 11:31:50 PM >

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 85

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:24:22 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

If we examine the following tactical diagrams of the battle, it clearly resembles the tactics that Hannibal would later use at Cannae.

Hannibal was able to close the gate and destroy 8 Roman Legions. It looks from the diagrams that you showed that many Persians were able to flee to their ships in this case.

A brilliant commander such as Hannibal could have adopted and modified the tactics used by the Greeks.

Einstein, before he came up with his own brilliant theories, had earned a PH.D, and so had studied all the ideas of those who went before him.

It seems reasonable that Hannibal would have wanted to know how the Greeks beat a much larger force of Persians at Marathon. He could then have seen where he could improve upon their tactics. . .

Possibly, but it remains conjecture,and a thin one at that.

Well, that may be true.

But surely to suggest that Hannibal or Alexander, or for any general not to have studied and examined the battles and commanders of the past, is to be walking blind.

Einstein was a genius, yes. But first he needed to assimilate all the info about science of the past. He simply did not wake up one day, and presto! discovered the Theory of Relativity. . .

Hannibal was a smart guy, no doubt. But since the Carthaginans sailed the Mediterranean world, Carthage would have had access to many of the written works of the ancient Greeks, etc, etc. . .

His father would have taught him, etc, etc. . .

People, no matter how brilliant they become, are products of what they learn. . .

Of course.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 86

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 1:48:10 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

I did not say it was an intentional ruse. I said it appeared to be of a purposeful design. Even if not intentional, the Greek generals were quick to capitalize on the situation and were flexible enough to to know exactly where to strike the enemy.

Certainly.

quote:

[What do you think the Athenian generals were debating? A good general would not only debate about whether to do battle, but also about what tactics to use.]

I would like to point out that studies of the written sources seems to indicate that the depth of the phalanx was up to the individual Lochaiaoi to determine the depth of which his Lochos would fight (W.K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek military practices part 1. Berkeley 1974 Page 140-142). Again, nothing in the sources (Herodotus) supports the notion that the outflanking ,maneuever was deliberate and intentional.

Excuse me for meddling; but since the General was appointed day by day on a rotary schedule and in turn the position of General was mainly as a "drill inspector", i.e. to organize the battle formation, wouldn't this ultimately have been the decision of Miltiades'? Or possibly together with Kallimachos, even if it wasn't his "day" to decide.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 87

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 2:03:06 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

I did not say it was an intentional ruse. I said it appeared to be of a purposeful design. Even if not intentional, the Greek generals were quick to capitalize on the situation and were flexible enough to to know exactly where to strike the enemy.

Certainly.

quote:

[What do you think the Athenian generals were debating? A good general would not only debate about whether to do battle, but also about what tactics to use.]

I would like to point out that studies of the written sources seems to indicate that the depth of the phalanx was up to the individual Lochaiaoi to determine the depth of which his Lochos would fight (W.K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek military practices part 1. Berkeley 1974 Page 140-142). Again, nothing in the sources (Herodotus) supports the notion that the outflanking ,maneuever was deliberate and intentional.

quote:

[Clearly, having the centre left weak was part of the OoB - it was purposely done. Herodotus did not include everything about the Battle of Marathon in his account. For example, he left out the fact that Themistocles was in command of the "weak centre"]

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Classes/Sources/Herodotus-Marathon.html

Certainly, but I tend to believe that the reason was because the subunit commanders (Lochaioi) in the centre chose to do so, and not because of any intentional ruse on the greek side decided at the top level. If this was the case, it would have been stated in later historical sources as another example of greek military superiority and cunning.As it is, the absence of any notions pertaining to this speaks for iself.

I believe the details of Themistocles partcipation can be found in the aptly named biography by Plutarch

quote:

This is not true.

I quote Creasy:

"Aristides and Themistocles (who were in charge of the weak centre) re-newed the fight with their reorganized troops, and the full force of the Greeks were brought into close action with the Persian and Sacian divisions of the enemy (Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, p.24)."

I gave you Herodotus account above. Herodotus is a primary source. Creasy ain�t. What does Creasy bring forward to support this notion?

1) Well, I find it hard to believe that thinning the centre lines would not have been made at the highest command levels. You are making conjecture here by leaving it to the subunit commanders. In such an important battle, this would not have been left to the subunit commanders.

2) Sir Edward S. Creasy's Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World is considered the most famous work of military history of the 19th Century. His book is considered the authoritative account of each battle, and has stood the test of 150 years since it was first published. To quote Creasy, is like quoting an encyclopedia. Because of the very exact scholarship of the book, the publisher (for ease of reading) has left out the footnotes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 88

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 2:03:23 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

I did not say it was an intentional ruse. I said it appeared to be of a purposeful design. Even if not intentional, the Greek generals were quick to capitalize on the situation and were flexible enough to to know exactly where to strike the enemy.

Certainly.

quote:

[What do you think the Athenian generals were debating? A good general would not only debate about whether to do battle, but also about what tactics to use.]

I would like to point out that studies of the written sources seems to indicate that the depth of the phalanx was up to the individual Lochaiaoi to determine the depth of which his Lochos would fight (W.K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek military practices part 1. Berkeley 1974 Page 140-142). Again, nothing in the sources (Herodotus) supports the notion that the outflanking ,maneuever was deliberate and intentional.

Excuse me for meddling; but since the General was appointed day by day on a rotary schedule and in turn the position of General was mainly as a "drill inspector", i.e. to organize the battle formation, wouldn't this ultimately have been the decision of Miltiades'? Or possibly together with Kallimachos, even if it wasn't his "day" to decide.

The position of "Strategoi" carried no such power. It was his obligation to decide when and where to engage, not superwise the formation of the different sub units (who were from other cities than Athens)

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Belisarius)

Post #: 89

RE: The Movie Troy - 5/27/2004 2:07:47 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

I will take primary sources over fancy graphics any day

During the Greek/Persian Wars, Herodotus mentions that Xerxes crossed the Hellespont with 3 million men.

Scholars today acknowledge that that was a gross exaggeration. They estimate it was closer to 250,000 - 300,000 men.

So, he was also prone to faulty reporting

Also, those graphics do depict how the battle was fought according to Herodotus. . .

Exaggerations of numbers are common in antique history, and it was not unique to Herodotus

And since Herodutus wrote the Histories many years after the events, scholars have found many other things wrong as well. He was Greek and was prone to bias towards Greece.

He is not infallible, and should not be looked at as the "Holy Grail" of information.

Certainly not, but in this case he is THE best primary source.

Well, Herodotus did not witness any of these events. It's all second hand information. He condenses a lot of info and leaves out a lot of info.

SOME PROBLEMS WITH HERODOTUS:

All scholars agree that Herodotos' account contains "not a few patent contradictions." Bury regrets that at the time of Marathon there was not "a contemporary historian lice Thukydides to ask searching questions and record the truth." (44)

Macan declares that the story of the Athenian advance against the Persians is "probably genuine," as long as we assume that it was a march at double speed and not a race, but "the rest is distortion, exaggeration, inconsequence, glorification." (45)

Most scholars are only somewhat less critical than Macan. A group that is more radical than Macan claims that actually it was the Persians who went to the attack; their argument is that, since Herodotos does not mention the participation of the Persian cavalry in the battle, it can be inferred that the Persians had decided to attack the Athenians on the hills.

Several other explanations for the failure of the Persian cavalry to participate in the battle have been offered. Grote suggested that the Athenians caught the Persian horsemen by surprise so that they did not have time to get on their mounts. Among the recent writers, H. G. L. Hammond claims that the cavalry was pasturing further north and did not arrive in time for the beginning of the battle. By the time it arrived, it could not be deployed because the armies were fighting at close quarters. (46)

Some scholars claim that the Persian cavalry had not yet arrived from Eretria, even though Herodotos states that the Persians had landed at Marathon a few days after the capture of Eretria and that the battle took place on the eleventh day after the landing. In order to explain why the cavalry was still at Eretria, Munro adds the further suggestion that the Persians had landed at the same time at Karystos, Eretria, and Marathon with the result that their forces were scattered in three separate actions. (47)

I have already mentioned the opinion that Herodotos is completely wrong when he states that the expeditionary forces sent to Greece included horsemen. At the opposite extreme there are the critics, such as Johannes Kromayer (48) and Hans Delbrueck, (49) who claim that Herodotos is in error when he assumes that the Persian cavalry did not participate in the battle. (50)

Among the minority of scholars who do not assume that the Persians were wanton in their military actions and that Herodotos is fanciful in his report, there prevails the opinion that the cavalry was absent from the battle because it had been embarked, since the Persians were planning to withdraw from Marathon and to land at the Phaleron, the outer harbor of Athens. (51)

The withdrawal of the Persian cavalry is mentioned in the dictionary of Suidas where he explains the meaning of the idiom xwris ippeis "without cavalry, the cavalry is off": "As Datis who had landed in Attica was retiring, the Ionians by climbing on trees signalled to the Athenians the cavalry is off." "As Miltiades learned in this way of their withdrawal, he engaged battle and won. Hence, this expression is used proverbially to refer to those who are breaking their military formation." According to this text the Ionians who were serving in the Persian fleet betrayed their Persian commander by informing their fellow Greeks; the withdrawal must have taken place at night because otherwise the Athenians encamped above Marathon would have seen by themselves what was taking place.

We may disregard the opinion of those, such as Schachermeyr, who question the account of Herodotos by claiming that the Persians never planned to land at the Phaleron after the withdrawal from Marathon (fantaisies had said Hauvette of this [52]).

An opposite position is taken by Anton E. Raubitschek who claims not only that the Persians planned to land at the Phaleron, but actually landed and were defeated there in a battle with the Athenians; (53) neither Herodotos nor any other Greek source hints at the occurrence of this repetition of the battle of Marathon.

Among the other more recent writers on the subject, A. W. Gomme was willing to accept Herodotos' account as having some value. Gomme gave an explanation of what happened at Marathon that to my mind is convincing and in agreement with the texts; but, since to assume that Herodotos said something sensible is a serious offense for modern scholarship, before presenting his views Gomme engaged in elaborate expiatory rites. He began his article thus:
Everyone knows that Herodotos' narrative of Marathon will not do. Many improvements have been suggested: some good, some bad. . . . My theme is rather this: if we reject Herodotos, are we justified at all in correcting, or adding to, his narrative, or ought we just to sit back, and say nothing, because correction is arbitrary? (54)

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_wars4.php

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 5/27/2004 12:15:55 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 90