Pisces Axxxxx

There is a trend I notice when people discuss Military History. We all know how certain units throughout history like the Spartan Hoplite were so feared in their time that entire nations would AVOID war against a the nations with these units on the basis that they existed within. That even if a nation literally had the capability to wage war and a good chance of defeating nation with such legendary elites, they would literally skimper out and avoid any chance of provoking a fight. There are even large instances were whole armies retreated simply because their opponents had JUST ONE MERE UNIT of such feared legendary units. LEGENDARY EXAMPLE are the Spartan Hoplite. They were so infamous for their legendary battle prowess that Greek city states feared confrontation and would only fight the Spartans if they were being attacked by them, In fact the novel "Gates of Themopylae" exemplifies this when one survivor of the sacking of a now destroyed Greek city state said: "Oh if only we had Spartans here. If we ONLY had even ONE SPARTAN our city would not have fallen!" The Swiss Pikeman is another example. After defeating various European armies including the elite Knights of said armies, the Swiss Pikeman became so respected that no nation dare invade Switzerland near the end of the Middle Ages and start of the Renaissance. Thats how much the Swiss Pikemen became feared in at their prime. The English Longbow man is another great example. The defeats the French faced were so terrific that few French nobles dare take on the English out of fear of their Longbow (even though combined, the entire armies of France at the time not only heavily outnumbered the English but under a skilled leader could have beaten them early in the Hundred Years War). Don't even get me on the Knights who were feared in the early Middle Ages by anyone but professional man-at-arms and other Knights. I can go on and on. I do notice how when discussing Military History, people scoff at such legendary unit's reputation. They often state "they're humans too! They can be killed just like us!!!". This is especially true by soldiers/former soldiers and teens who play and excel at Computer Wargames and Strategy games like Shogun:Total War and Battles in Normandy. In their view "just learn their weaknesses and take steps to counter them or lure them into a trap and they'll be easily killed!!!!" This is especially true for soldiers or former soldiers who have been instilled the belief that "anyone can be killed!!!". What do you think of this? I see this as a repeat of people criticizing the past actually being precisely the type to commit them if they were in the same situations (and fro my personal experience they actually do). To put an analogy, most of these people wouldn't dare take on the toughest reputed Street Fighter in town. Most of them would even be too scared that if they get cornered, they would not have the backbone to punch them back (even if they have no choice to defend themselves). JUST A LOCAL BULLY!!!!! What more if you were fighting professional units armed to the teeth and with reputation as the most vicious,most ruthless,and most efficient killers in the world???!!!!! What do you think?

This one thing that I've been wondering for years. I remember 4 years ago, the History Channel showed an Episode on their TV Series "Human Weapon" which showcases various martial arts around the world. This episode I speak of went over MCMAP, the Hand-to-Hand system of the Marine Corps. During the episode, there was one instance where they speak of Marines being pinned under fire in some third world country. After prolonged exposure to enemy fire and being stuck in the same position, the Marines finally got fed up and equipped bayonets in on their guns and charged out to their attackers.Despite such an insane tactic, the enemy that was pinning them (who were armed with automatic machine guns) abandoned their suppression and fled from the area out of fear..Granted these were poorly-trained third world armies but still.,,,,,,, I read of in Napoleonic Warfare that entire units and even whole armies would literally abandon their formation and flee the battlefield out of fear when men charged with Bayonets. I read this was a comment tactic of Napoleon and to people's surprise it worked so well against other armies. Only the MOST DISCIPLINED and DEVOTED like the Prussian Army and the Russian Army was able to with stand this charge without collapsing and it would be late in the War when European nations finally realized Napoleon CAN be beaten that this tactic lost its effectiveness. Even in World War 2 I read of PROFESSIONAL and WELL-TRAINED American soldiers literally abandoning their position out of fear when the Japanese would commit their Banzai Charges. The first battle in The Red Badge of Courage portrays this perfectly when the protagonist ran away as the Confederate Army charged despite the fact he hadn't even fired several shots yet and the Confederates were still distance away. How and why would a Bayonet Charge be so terrifying even in this modern age?I mean when kids today hear of this, they would go all like "you have a gun-shoot the ************ with it as he runs at you!!!!" and indeed playing a video game would lead you to believe its so easy to fire at hordes of men charging at you to hit you with a bayonet or other melee weapon.

Merry Christmas to everybody!!!

I remembered reading "The Art of War In the Middle Ages" by Oman and he stated that while the Swiss Pikemen dominated the battlefield and destroyed anyone who fought them for half of the Middle Ages, near the end of Medieval Times and starting into the Renaissance era, the Swiss would no longer dominate. While a large reason for this dealt with the fact foreign armies, would copy the Swiss Pikemen and create their own counterparts, like the Lankerskreight (nor sure if this is the right spelling) of the Germans, the real blow dealt with when the Spanish faced the Swiss on the battlefield using their shield-and-sword infantry. In this battle Oman describes the Swiss as hopeless when the Spanish swordsmen clashed in with Swiss Pikemen and utterly massacred them. Other armies would copy the Spanish Swordsmen armed with Bucklers with their own equivalents and the Swiss would end up facing a large series of military disasters for much of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Oman states there is a parallel with the slaughter of Swiss by Spanish Swordsmen with Bucklers to when the Romans fought the Macedonia a thousand years earlier. The Romans armed with their rectangular shields and gladius would take on the Macedonian Phalanx head on and slaughter them with absolute ease. In fact in the biggest battle of the Macedonian Wars, the Macedonians would lose and lose thousands of soldiers int he process while the Romans would lose less than a 100 soldiers! Oman implies that the Spanish Swordsmen armed with Buckler was inspired when old Latin and Greek texts were rediscovered and European powers started using the newfound knowledge to their advantage in war (thus coming the implications that the Spanish probably copied the Romans when they came up with Swordsmen armed with Bucklers). What is the Swordsmen with shield dominating Spearmen,Pikemen or similar troops using very long Polearms? I'm even more interested with why the Romans dominated the Macedonian Phalanx considering the Macedonians had shields too!

I was told by a friend that by today's standards TE Lawrence would be RACIST. That while he "went native" with the Arabs and certainly saw them more favorably than his contemporaries, in the end he would have thought Europeans were the superior race and superior cultures to everything else including the Arabs. I even searched up claims of his racist views towards the Arabs and Arabic historians criticizing him as racist. DAMN I need to pick up Seven Pillars and finally finish it.

In the movie Lawrence of Arabia,there's a scene after Lawrence got captured and tortured in which he's disillusioned with fighting for the Arab cause.In fact right after he Ali states taht a a man can be anything he wants to be, Lawrence then took out a clothe and pointed at his skin(which was very fair as typical for a Western European). Lawrence states something that went like this: "THis is what determines what a mans like". Not exactly in those words but basically he's saying that since his appearance is that of a "White Man" he can never fit in and suit in with the Arabs. Now I always interpreted from that scene that Lawrence wanted to be an Arab and thought that by earning the respect of the Arab people and fighting for their freedom, he can be accepted as one of them in their society.In other words based on that scene and the movie's tone,I though Lawrence wanted TO BE AN ARAB. Now I read some stuff on T.E. Lawrence namely parts of Seven of Pillars of Wisdom and Revolt In the Desert.However I have yet to see him state anything IMPLYING HE WISHED HE WAS ARABIC. If anything,his writing contradict the movies claims.Yes Lawrence was an eccentric fellow who was extremely fascinated by the Arab people and their culture.However from what I read,Lawrence was not overly obsessed with the Arabs and did not hate himself for being European-he actually was a fan of ancient Greece and translated the Illiad an Odyssey!Additionally he was well versed in German,French,and other European languages. I also recall a scene in Revolt In the Desert he was fighting the last Turkish regiment defending Damascus.Part of the regiment was German unit.Here alone,its obvious Lawrence was not as obsessed with Arabic culture and felt Western inferiority as the movie implies;HE ACTUALLY WAS AWED BY THE GERMAN TROOP'S HEROIC LAST STAND and praised their Discipline and Valor in such admiration that HE COULD NOT HAVE FELT THAT EUROPE WAS BARBARIC AND UNCULTURED AS HE HAD SHOWN IN THE MOVIE! Could anyone clarify? I already asked this on other history forum but came up short of responses so I thought I'd try here.

I found some articles. http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/04/duelling-academics?page=1# http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/why_are_economists_more_promin.html http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/28/what-use-economic-history/ http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2009/06/economists-v-historians-cats-v-kings/ http://crookedtimber.org/2009/06/11/evaluative-cultures-history-vs-economics/ What do you all think?As someone who recently got into Economic History as a prime hobby I think Economic Historians are the ones who are best in making an analysis. I agree with Ferguson that Krugman lacks basic knowledge of Economics. I do agree with the articles that Historians as a whole (except for Economic Historians) lack the basic knowledge of Economics 101 to come to a conclusion about Economic events in the past.

Thats exactly why I necroed this thread a year after the last post was made. This post should show my questions. http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/9275-psychology-of-legionnaries/page__view__findpost__p__122459

I remember Caldrail mentioned it somewhere about the Roman Legions not facing an environment with constant explosives and other loud weaponry like machine guns.It goes hand in hand with what my World History Teacher said in class. He said that in World War 1 for the first time "Shell Shock" aka PTSD came into development as a mental condition. Among the factors causing this was soldiers staying trenches literally for whole months, if not years, in a battlefield environment with artillery blasts, machine gun fire, and explosives being sounded almost all the time. Practically constant exposure to such weaponry and hence came the word "Shell Shock". He also stated that World War 1 had the wide scale slaughter that no previous war ever had. Literally you would not pass a single day without seeing at least 20 men killed and hundreds, if not thousands, of men being slaughtered everyday in sight was practically a common occurrence. Despite their reputation for iron discipline and readiness to accept death, the Roman Legions (and I should also bring up the Spartans who were infamous for their fearless nature in War) never faced weaponry on the loud scale as explosives and machine gun nor did they witness mass scale slaughter occurring frequently as in modern warfare. I know not even Caesar's legions under his common would have lasted 1 day in World War 1 without collapsing down from shell shock and seeing mass slaughter.

We all know the criticism Vegetius gives on the late Roman Legions lacking the iron rigid discipline that earlier Legionnaires had and also how Vegetius criticizes contemporary Roman Infantry as being too lightly armored and lacking the heavy arms older Roman Infantry had.In Vegetius's view the late Roman Legions were a shadow of their former selves. However Oman, who wrote the classic Military History work "The Art of War In the Middle Ages", begs to disagree. He states that the reason for the changes from heavy infantry to lightly armed infantry was not out of decay but out of practicality. Rome was constantly fighting cavalry and the Roman Legions lacked the maneuverability and flexibility to counter them. In addition Oman states that throwing javelins were far more effective against the cavalry of the Goths and other barbarians. Basically Oman's views is that the transition from heavy infantry wielding gladius and rectangular shields to lighter infantry wielding oval shields and Javelins was one of practicality to counter new threats along with the gradual rise of elite heavy cavalry that would later become what we know as "Knights" near the end of the Roman empire. In addition, Oman states that Vegetius paints an incredibly Romantic, if not fantasist, view of the Roman Legions and is ignoring how different warfare has changed from older times. That Vegetius was not a Military man and lacked any real experience in warfare of the period and he was over exaggerating the Discipline and Fighting efficiency of the Roman Legions in the past. What do you think?Oman seems to be the more realist of the two and he gave a brief but convincing explanation of why the transition of the Roman Legions into lighter infantry and later Elite Heavy Cavalry (that would evolve into what was known as Knights in the Middle Ages) was not one of decay of the Roman Legions but one of absolute practicality and it was actually the right choice. Just a word of note, Oman is among the Classic scholars of the Medieval Ages and much of his knowledge of Roman Civilization seemed to be mostly around the late period when Rome was finally going to collapse and the Dark Ages were coming.

One thing that people often wondered and I did too at one point. When I watched the movie Bravehart, during the Battle of Falkirk Edward Longshanks I ordered his English Longbow men to fire at Scottish Units. The thing was that these Scottish Units were in clash with Edward's troops so he tried to warn Edward saying "Won't we hit our troops?". Edward responded "Yes-but we'll hit their's as well". Thus in addition to the nobles betraying William Wallace, the film portrays the English Longbow men as a key factor in the English Victory in this battle. Now when people rewatch Bravehart they often comment during Stirling Bridge "Instead of sending the rest of his melee units to attack Wallace after all the English Knights were being slaughtered, why doesn't the English General fire at the Scottish units in Melee? I mean all the Knights are going to die, you might as well take advantage of this opportunity!" Indeed people often wonder why Generals were hesitant to order Arrows to be fired on Enemy units clashing with their own Doomed Melee Units. I mean if they were gonna die anyway why not use that to your advantage to take out enemies of your own so your doomed unit's lives don't go to waste? Was what Edward I did at Falkirk in Bravehard common in Medieval Warfare?If not why wasn't it practical to commit such an act?

I was reading in Oman's The Art of War In the Middle Ages that the reason the late Roman Empire and early Franks started abandoning Discipline Heavy Infantry and instead resort to elite heavy cavalry (later to develop what we call "Knights) is that as Rome fell more and more into decline, there were so many enemies attacking Rome from multiple directions. These enemies were of various fighting styles from the quick hit-and-run Horse Archers of the Magyars to the Berserkers of the Lombard, the Roman Infantry lacked the Rapidity to respond to various movements of the enemies of Rome as well as the flexibility and aggressive offensive mobility to adapt to all these various enemies. So eventually the Romans started abandoning the old Legions of Rome and replacing them with Shock Cavalry that could rapidly go throughout what was left of the empire to counter attacks from various sides. They were much more flexible to maneuver around Europe than the Roman Legions were and when they met an enemy head on, they had this "Shock" charge that would rapidly wipe out enemy forces. So basically Elite Heavy Cavalry that gradually developed into what we now call Knights replaced the Roman Legion according to Oman because they had this rapidity,flexibility,shock attacks (that could crush enemies in an instant), and other such advantages that the old Roman Legion lacked. What do you think? Is Oman right?

I read The Art of War in the Middle Ages by Oman a week ago and in the Chapter Oman was describing the Warfare of the Dark ages, stated that a sentence that went like "The Horse Warriors defeated the Vikings, Magyar, and other enemies and thus was came the Honor of being legendary chivalrous "Knights in Shining Armor" for saving Christianity from being lost". In addition the same page that had that sentence also stated that it was the Horse Warriors expelled various foreigners that were bent on conquering Europe during the Middle Ages including the Turks and many others. So practically Oman implies the reason the Knights became the stuff of Legends is because it was Warriors on Horseback who saved Christianity from being lost as Pagans waged wars on the Catholic Church and it was they who preserved Europe and saved the continent from Foreign invasions. Can anyone here put their own input?

To be specific he stated Economists estimate that a Viking Sword would have cost about $100,000 in modern US Dollars when converted. He also stated that Economists estimate a cotton sweater(or leather vest or something like that don't remember exactly) from the Medieval Ages would have cost around $1000 when converted to modern US $$. By Fighting class yeah he was referring to those Associated as a Warrior Caste such as Knights. He stated that when we look at Economists' estimates of the times and material it would take to make a weapon (and even items that commoners can aford with ease today in the West such as a cotton sweater) along with the long hours of labor needed in the Medieval Age, we begin to see why the fighting Class and Nobility developed and why commoners lived in horrid conditions. He mentioned this when we were in the Industrial Revolution and he was trying to make a point of how in much more efficient and quicker items were produced in that era as well as the incredible light-years boost in availability of items that only the upper classes could have afforded in the past. The Viking Sword was one such example as well as the leather jacket. He goes on to state that this isn't even counting the other equipment forged for Knights such as Armor and Shields, the horse trained for war, and the long years of drilling a knight from childhood into adulthood to become a proficient fighters, and other things, the costs Economists estimate would approach $1 Million in modern US Dollars for the arming and proper training of one Knight. Hence classes specializing in Warfare developed.

I remember in a World History Class, the professor stated that a Viking Sword would cost $100,000 in modern equivalency and he stated thats the reason why we begin to se a fighting class emerge out of the Middle Ages. So I thought it be good to discuss Roman weaponry costs in modern $$$. Ok I'm curious specifically how much would a Roman Shield and Gladius cost equivalent to our modern currency?

This is an observation I notice within the field of History and the History community. We all know the Saying "History Repeats itself" and other similar historical maxims and often I see people (especially in Military History) often attack past mistakes done by Historical figures such as the good old "they were arrogantly stupid to have underestimated their enemy!" and so forth. Here's the big observation I noticed. People who often espout criticism on the past (especially Armchair Generals and Armchair Politicians) often are precisely the type who would commit these mistakes or actually even do commit them IRL! To use an example is the good old on how Military Leaders and Politicians are criticized for "failing to learn from History so history repeats itself" in a certain conflict or political fiasco. I can list so many people I know who espout this but I'll use myself as an example as I would be the epitome of this. I often criticized Military leaders from failing to learn from their predecessors when I was first getting into Military History esp. in regards to counterinsurgency in "guerrilla" wars like thos of the Vietnam War and the Afghan-Soviet War and the Maginot Line constructors failing to realize weaponry and tactics always change. Of course I learned the story was much more complex, but I'll just leave it at there. I was a know-it-all who criticized people like Westmoreland for failing to learn from the French War in Indochina or Chamberlain and other politicians back in WW2 for failing to learn from history of the German aggressive nature. However when I look back in my life, I realized how much I Repeated History as though it was an intrinsic part of me and despite making the same mistakes over and over and suffering harsh consequences, I failed to learn and continue repeating them (particularly in regard to procrastination and college work). So in other words I'm just as guilty for making the same mistakes of Repeating History and failing to learn from it as many generals and politicians are criticized when getting into future conflicts that are similar to disasterous past ones. The underestimation of enemies is one frequently espouted in History but almost everyone who espouts it do it at their own game. Southerners today often boast proudly that the Union Army arrogantly underestimated the fighting ability of the Confederate Army and thus were beating the Union Army up really bad during the CIvil War.But what Southerners who espout this often tend to selectively forget that the Southern Army did the same-that they underestimated the Union Army's will to fight and military potential and made the fatal mistakes of attacking the North rather than staying on the defensive. So here is a live example of "failing to underestimate" your enemies coming into repitition by people who spout this maxim. I can go on and on. How people criticize that Chamberlain committed the apeasement policy with Hitler and criticize Chamberlain for lacking the backbone to stand up to Hitler. They criticize even though Chamberlain was doing what the population felt was the best option, that "Chamberlain should have known better and just go straight out against Hitler!!!!" To use an analogy, well in fact if these people just got out of the Hospital after a brutal fight that sent them injured so badly and forced to be hospitalized for 1 month, they wouldn't have the guts again to fight the same bully who caused such injuries (even if fighting back is the best thing to do at the moment to show that they won't let themselves get pushed around) as the injuries were so grave in the last fight and instead these people would try to do what they can to avoid conflict where they can get hurt. Same thing with the Chamberlain story, except in this case Britain LOST an ENTIRE GENERATION of young men from World War 1 and was still struggling to rebuild the country's scars from World War 1 back at the start of WW2. I mean if you don't got the backbone to fight a bully who just beat your up last time because he caused such grave injuries requiring a month to stay in a Hospital, what the hell do you expect for a prime minister of a country as exhausted of war as Great Britain was to go out there and rush intoa fight without thought???!!! I can put so many examples but these should show my points.What do you think? 0 seconds ago - 4 days left to answer.

Something I noticed about the History community. All so often an overwhelming majority of the male population into History-especially the younger age group (17-25) study so much about Military History (especially Warfare and Tactics) but neglect other branches of History such as People's History and Economics History. In fact if you ask many young men knowledgeable about Military History about subject outside of Military History such as the Political situation in France during WW2 and the non-military factors that lead to the continued following the Maginot Line doctrine, and they can only bring answers that are from (flawed) general History like those in school books or the Military perspective-IE the French were so overconfident from winning WW1 that they foolishly trained for the last war, Chamberlain was stupid and naive to accept Hitler's peace treaty, etc.... Stuff exclusively only seen by Soldiers and Military Historians POV of events. I'll be honest I was once only into Military history and looking back in hindishgt I was so ******* amazed how ignorant I was as I start getting into other Histories like People's History. To use the Chamberlain example, many young men (who almost exclusively read Military) as I mentioned attack Chamberlain for "Naively accepting Hitler's terms" and Chamberlain often gets so much blame for failing to prevent WW2 as do most politicians.I used to believe this too until I started getting into People's History of WW2 and I learned that Chamberlain did the only thing that most people of Britain would have accepted. The British populace was exhausted and tired from the losses of WW1 and did not want to start another World War they were willing to leave a blind eye towards Hitler's real intention. Other politicians in Europe wanted the same thing and even if Chamberlain wanted to start a war (like Churchill did), he wouldn't have been able to do much to use force as much of Parliament did not want to start a war as much as the people of Britain at the time. They would have taken actions to prevent aggressive actions that would risk war. So even if Chamberlain had the Military mentality to fight Hitler like many Military Historians and Soldiers say they would have done, the political situation was such that it would have prevented any action to stop Hitler directly. Another example is the fall of Rome. So many young boys and men criticize the soldiers of the final years of the Roman Empire as being weak and incompetent. A closer look at the Social situation as well as the Economic situation in the final years of Rome shows that the Roman Empire was staggering from financial problems which in turned led to many corrupt actions that angered the Roman populace to refuse to join the Military or even join the Barbarian hordes to fight Rome! Yes the Roman legions consisted of poorly trained troops this time, but a quick study of Rome's economic and social situation at this time brings into question the notion that later Roman generals were weaklings when compared to their great predecessors like Caesar. I doubt even a great general like Scipio would have been able to do much to prevent Rome's fall at this point in History. But so many young boys who neglect Economic History and other branches of History because they think its boring and only study the seemingly "glorious" and "exciting" Military History and thus they are left with a twisted view of outcomes of Wars and other Historical events that are the frequent subject of Military History. They are thus ignorant why seemingly stupid actions in Military terms such as Chamberlain's acceptance of Hitler's treaty were made and why at the time they were made, they would have made PERFECT sense to anyone but the Military community. What do you think?Anyone here agree?That too many men focus exclusively on Military history and neglect other equally importance branches of History such as Political History and Economic History? I was once like this too but the more I study other branches of History, the more I realized I should have gotten into other Histories sooner!

Two articles I found. http://couchtripper.com/rapedbysoldiers/?p=270 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/09/366078.shtml What do you think? I may be American and the American version of History they teach is that American Soldiers were Good Guys who were welcomed and beloved by the French and German populace. A friend of mine who was in the 173rd Airborne Brigade mentioned something about the 82nd Airborne tearing up a a Paris Hotel to shit so I decided to do research and was surprised how vicious and brutal American soldiers can be in WW2.

Whenever we hear about defending against Aerial Bombardment and just Military Aircraft in general, we always hear about how the best defensive policy was to counterattack using fighter planes in Modern Warfare esp. WW2. However I notice almost no attention is given to Anti-Air guns at all of their importance. I'm very curious of this. I read the introductary book to the Battle of Dien Bien Phu,Hell In a Very Small Place 2 years ago and one of the most interesting things about this battle was how French Aircraft-especially the Bombers and Supply Planes-were frequently shot down during the battle and the whole flying to the area was so hazardous that VERY FEW in the French Military volunteered to go to the area and a large number of the planes sent to DBP (including Suppliers) were Americans and other foreigners. The pilots who flew to DBP often described that there was so much Anti-Air fire that it was far more than all the Anti-Air firing they witnessed in the German Front in WW2(and a large many of them were Veteran pilots who flew multiple missions over Europe during the war) in that battle. Now this really makes me wonder. Dien Bien Phu was proof of how Anti-Air could neutralize Air Power with Anti-Air guns. But I never hear of how important Anti-Air guns was in World WAr 2 and Modern Warfare. The one exception being Pearl Harbor where they often portray Anti-Air Gunners as being the prime defenders of the port. The only thing they ever portray in popular media like Documents on TV and General History books is that to counter Aerial Bombardment you simply send in planes.They portray it to the extent that a base can be successfully defended WITHOUT Anti-Air guns of any sort so long as the planes are up before the base gets bombed. How accurate is this?What were Anti-Air guns real use?Could a base just invest all in fighter planes to defend itself from aerial raids or would they still need Anti-Air guns of some sort?

Hahhahahahahhahaahaa I must have had at least 10 WWW Aliases since I became an Internet Otaku back in 2010! Prior to that, I had even more Aliases on a site called Yahoo Answers before I started using forums across the web in general frequently. Big difference is that before my Yahoo Answers aliases were only limited to that side and all most Aliases I started using after Fall 2010 became famous online in various sites! Let me see.......... Fun Pass time(For creating this thread even though sadly no one else is playing along ).

A question on Medieval Warfare. Whenever we read General History Textbooks and watch Medieval/Fantasy Themed Movies like Lord of the Rings and Bravehart, they always make it out that once the Castles main gate has been destroyed by battering rams or once a section of the Wall has been torn down, the attackers immediately already won and its absolutely hopeless for the Besieged. Heck when history Textbooks portray Sieges like the Fall of Constantinople they always show that the Siege was lost as soon as a breach to the walls was made or the gates were either destroyed or open by traitors. However in some of the more realistic Medieval games like Medieval:Total War, they don't portray the walls being torn down or the gates being smashed open as the end of a Siege and its hopeless for the Defenders to keep fighting-in fact they portray the opposite. The Attackers still have to take on the Defenders in a hard brutal melee. If the Defender holds the melee of long enough, there's a chance of reinforcements coming, of the attackrs losing morale and abandoning the siege, or the defenders slaughtering the attackers that entered the castle and then counterattacking the outside enemy camps! Kingdom of Heaven exactly portrays. After a section of the wall of Jerusalem was torn opened by catapults, the Muslims started swarming into the Castle. But the Crusaders counterattacked at that moment and literally slaughtered hundreds of Muslims as they entered the city. Witnessing the Crusaders hold off against his siege forces was one of the reasons Saladin negotiated with the Christians instead of taking the city by force and let them go after a negotiation both int he movie and IRL. Also the first Warcraft game portray it like this.I know its a fantasy game but it makes good counter example. Even though the Orcs breached the Stormwindkeep and ultimately killed the King's guards in a Surprise Attack during a time of peace, the humans were able to hold off the hordes of Orcs long enough for a reinforcement of Knights to come and chase the Orcs out of Stormwind and caused so much damage in the Counter-Attack that the Orcs were unable to mobilize their forces for another ten years. So I'm curious-was a Castle doomed to fall once its gates were destroyed or opened or once a hole was made in the Castle Walls like Lords of the Rings almost portrayed in their sieges and like General History Books always make it seemed? Or was there still hope to successfully defend the Castle and outlast the sieging enemies (even of counterattacking them after the initial wave of enemy in the breach failed)?That creating an opening was only the first part of the battle and there was still more to come like Kingdom of Heaven, Medieval:Total War, and Warcraft portrays the sieges like? Also can anyone put Real life examples of Sieges where even though the besiegers were able to destroy the gates or make a hole on the Walls and enter the Castle, the defenders were still able to hold them off and even ultimately beat the attackers?

A long time ago I had Shogun:Total War on my laptop. In one of the description for the Takeda Faction of the game, it stated something like "The Takeda horsemen are the best in the land. To Withstand the Takeda Horsemen takes extraordinary courage". This really got me wondering. Usually Medieval Movies like Bravehart and RTS games like Age of Empires always show infantry with spears have a huge advantage over heavily armored cavalry elites like Knights and Samurais. As shown in Bravehart, all you have to do is wait for the Knights to charge than you pull your spears and hit the horses. In games like Rome:Total War and Age of Empires, its even more brutally easily to slaughter heavy cavalry-all you have to do is basically have the spearman attack the knights and they should be able to slaughter them with ease. In fact this easy countering of Knights and elite heavy cavalry by spear infantry as portrayed in movies and games has become so imprinted into popular culture, that many people who don't study Medieval History into detail think that you just have to wait for the Knights to charge your spears and boom they'll get slaughtered as they hit the spears. Basically in their view you just need to hold the spear steadily and you'll be able to slaughter elite knights just like that, However the quote from Shogun:Total War about the Takeda Cavalry taking extraordinary valor to fend off (even assuming you have spear men), made me wonder-is Heavy Cavalry as easy to destroy with spears as Bravehart and PC games portray? I read of cases in Medieval Warfare were spearmen-and we're talking about well-trained ones with long spears- would panic and run away even though they assume those killing positions with the spears (like how the Scotts angled their stakes upward) easily. Or if they do hold it off at first, it seems that as the Knights keep coming, there are times when they would just panic and run away (even if it looks like they did slaughter Knights like in the movies and games). Is it really that terrifying? So many people in today's world-including Military Historians who don't study Medieval Warfare in details and impose modern concepts on the past-think that with basic Discipline and the right position, the elite heavy cavalry should be easy to kill! I mean things I read in the Napoleonic Warfare states that Horses would not charge at men with mere bayonets that are only add 2-3 inches to the rifles they're attached to.And these rifles with their bayonets are much shorters than the spears traditionally used in Medieval and Ancient Warfare! So wouldn't the horses be too scared to charge at the Medieval Spearmen? What exactly made the Knights (and other elite heavy cavalry like the Takeda Samurai) so scary to fight against, even if you're using anti-cavalry weapons that disciplined and trained spearmen would panic and abandon their formations?

I'll be blunt I haven't been following this site before I deleted my old account except for conversations to Caldrail about Anarchists and Hardcore Criminals so I'm a bit rusty and I don't recall my interactions with you aside from you deleting my old account and changing usernames for it (thanks BTW!)I'm also not so familiar with other users on this site aside from Caldrail and Meldavius. I'd say a good and attentive mod .

Funny this thread was mentioned. AFAIK almost all sources are biased to the online esp. Wikipedia's "Lion VS Tiger" Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion Despite all this I found a Lion VS Tiger thread I can't remember where the site is. It stated that it depended on the breed of either creature. An Indian Lion would defnitely get slaughtered by a Tiger from the same region.However an African Lion would destroy a Siberian Tiger and at least be a match for the Indian Tiger (less biased sources I read stated it could go either way). Can't remember the specirfic breeds,sorry.

Can you gives us a link to these discussions? Ahhh Richard Dawkins. I did a Paper on an interview between him and Alister McGrath a year ago in a World Religions Class I took. Haven't read his works yet but I find his anti-religious agenda quite amusing . I still remembered Dawkin's reasoning for hating religions in the vid was that he realized he could have been born under a different culture with a different religion just by pure chance. That realization is when he began to hate religion .