Onasander

Just downloaded it a few seconds ago, thanks.

Your aware Roman Christians didn't really use BC/AD divisions themselves, right?

You like taking pictures of stray cats.

Plus, its the only damn show the BBC has that has international export value. I think that TV show funds itself. Its on amazon prime (old episodes) and the new series sold in walmart for 12 bucks a half season, 20 bucks a full season. Unlike 6 years ago when the crackheads trued selling it 50 to 70 dollars a season. Needless to say it was a massive illegal download hit sold at extreme prices like that. You never see Red Dwarf on sale here. Something called Downton Abbey is being pushed alot, but lit just looks like a bunch of victorjan people in a mansion smelling one anothers farts, so I refuse to watch it, ever. I will naw my arm off if chained and forced to watch it. Also something called Sherlock too. Its odd noting the cognitive differences between the US and England via the shows prejudices as well. A good example would be the minataur episode, where the creature fed off of faith, and the doctor mentioned higher civilizations give up on faith and banish them..... but its exactly the Europeans who have the hardest time with faith drjven scientism.... it doesnt occur to them its the case when you point it out, they literally cant see their bias and contradicting irrationality until they advocate a new idea building on it. A good example js global warming. Its pure faith driven, taken on the words of authority figures, and the will literally repeat and back up syllogistic arguments, without being able to explain the facts via Diaeretic investigation..... which they should be able to if they understand the facts. Its really bad in australia though, they took it so far they think eating wild kangaroos and camels from the outback is more humane, ethical, and helps with air pollution! They call it Cameltarianism and Kangatarianism. The ancient Egyptians and many in India to this day took their food cults to extremes too, eventually coming outright to worship c Onions. Romans used to rip into them all the time for that. Europe is heading down the looney tunes road, but swears up and down its more evolved and advance, beyond good and evil and a sense of faith. I want to do a Benny Hill salute to them all. Oh.... Mr. Bean did good here. Black Adder is a cult hit. Monty Python movies okay. All the other crap no one watches..... your country can barely speak english, everyone is pudgy, pale, and have bad teeth, and your clothing choices are questionable, at best. I used to think Dr. Who dressed eccentric, now I know..... everyone in England gets their clothes from the free box at the salvation army. Also the plots are questionable at best..... its a boring island..... worst that can happen is you bruise your knee or get a staff infection. Crime rate is way higher though..... I suppose you could work in a good stabbing each episode so the American audience can see what England is really like. Honestly, your crime statistics beat us in every category except homicide, and thats only because the Queen said enough and took all your guns away. I would hate to see what would happen if everyone was armed again, it be like the movie 28 days later..... just death and pandemonium. Everyone in Downton Abbey shooting each other quite seculary, with a stiff upper lip. Thats England. I hear Judge Dredd is also a pure English creation..... set in "New England" so as to allow its readers to read it guilt free. Is that where the English are going?

I wanted to know where in the Roman world the sky, in terms of latitude and thus sunlight exposure and stars, would be exactly like here. I found Madrid somewhat close, in Spain, but Torres Veneri, in the extreme south of Italy, and Goktas, Turkey, to be on spot. I cant find much on the history of either place in Roman times. Apparently the Saracens were fond of attacking my Latitude, and modern Italy has declared war on it, as 9 out of ten images of it involves tanks. Rome and Troy to my North, Carthage and Athens to my South. Thats the sky above me. I might not live in Rome, but Pythagoras sky, that is my own. I see the constellations, minus a supernova or two and light pollution, exactly as he did. Absolutely no difference. I wonder if he thought Herculeas had a candidia armpit rash too, its all red and swollen in his constellations' armpit. Deep thoughts. Obviously, if you live in Rome dont answer (cheating) but who comes the closest in latitude to Rome? 40.4167 N is mine. Rome is at 41.9000 N

I like the BBC orchestra Dr. Who songs. I like, bought four of them. It helps fund the Queens Royal Train or something. Ive seen alot of the old Dr. Who.... cardboard sets, painted with Styrofoam features for texture. Stargate Atlantis sets were the same, just the modelers, and designers had several more decades experience naking sets, so it came off looking better, but its still cardboard nailed to 4x4s, painted to look solid, and people run around holding rubber guns, and fake gadgetsmade of nothing parts. The details are more aesthetically pleasing, as well as coherently realistic within a larger logic. Dr. Who could land anywhere in time and space, so literally anything could go. He "steampunked" alot of stuff.

Doesn't matter, just CE means your a atheist who hates God so much you need to make a statement. But it is understood none the less in both systems, as timelines are identical in terms of dates. Yes, note AD and BC, or BCE or CE.... not everyone is a expert on history, and the sequencing of events can get confusing.... I get confused myself qith dates around Caesar and Augustus and Tiberius for example.... the BC-AD dividing point makes it easier to hold the history of the era to scale in a way I can grasp, thiugh I gotta sit there and do the math if its 15BC to 14AD.... 29 years.

Dr. Who built sets? I thought everything was just filmed at different viewing angles in Cardiff. Honestly, I never been to Cardiff, but I think I could easily find my way around because of that show. The inside of the TARDIS easily took like, 300 refrigerator boxes and 20 cans of paint to make, and a half disembled bicycle. Its not exactly high tech. For a while there, they didnt even bother with a cardboard TARDIS, the doctor lived out of a car and used randomly connected plumbing supplies to fight the enemy illegal immigrants from outerspace.

See, in England, you have to use a two finger salute, not one, as evidence the Mr. Bean movie.... a single finger lacks meaning in British culture, and may actually be taken as a compliment. The welsh or french archers in the middle ages first used it, to piss off some knights, apparently showing them what had just recently been in the knight's wife or something of the likes. Or its because it took two fingers to pull a longbow. I dont know, competing theories, could be anything. In America, we give our salutes only with the middle, because during the Revolutionary war, our trigger fingers were too sore from constantly shooting the British, after a while, its just too hard to extend it after a long and bloody day, so we just gave the middle instead. Everything I said is true, that's history, and that's a fact.

And the winner is.... Viggen? Honestly, its been a month.

Whoa, who said anything about competent production? Your giving it too much credit, in a area few fans would. Most of the sets sucked, and half the show was filmed in gravel pits and rock quarries. Im surprised they didnt have rusted out volkswagons tipped over in feral fields in the background of alien planets.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Train Okay..... in 2011 they traveled less than 1000 miles, yet managed to spend £900,000 pounds. This train, Im guessing, isnt brand new, and has a history of big spending, over decades..... therefor, I assume they managed to platinum coat each and every car by now. I cant figure out how this is the case.... how can someone manage to use up that much money under so short a distance. Aged Koa wood is the most expensive wood in the world, but even using that to power the train furnace wouldn't be that expensive for that distance. Maybe they are using expensive exotic endangered species like Pandas and vald eagles and Ivory Tusks to power the furnace? Or, they are shoveling high denomination English notes directly into the furnace. Trains are supposed to be cheap to move about.... we have trains going by in my town all the time, they cant possibly cost that much. Can a train be powered via expensive, French wines? I honestly cant grasp how you can dump that much money on a train already decked out from decades of heavy spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/sport/football/world-cup-usa-germany-portugal-ghana/index.html?c=homepage-t&page=1 What on earth is wrong with the world? Honestly, the whole planet is mentally broken in the head for supporting Soccer.... it is making less and less sense by the minute. After I figured out the world cup was a multi team tournament, instead of a match..... the US team, which technically has no business existing, given we don't have a professional team, just weekend hobbyists kicking around balls in fields because they cant catch a ball properly..... manages to loose TWICE and still gets dragged through the mud higher and higher into the tournament. Clearly, Soccer suffers from Loser Politics, as it does't understand tournaments are To The Death.... if you lose, you do not advance. Medieval knights charging at one another with lances figured this out, its a good system, it works. You do not tie in a tournament, you play, until one side triumphs. The loser goes away, or sacrificed to the Mayan gods. But you dont tie, give up and move on..... and in bizarro world, after tying, you don't lose..... and then advance ahead anyway. Makes no damn sense..... its not based on skill or rationality, but the chaos of world socialism, and a fundamental lack of understanding how to apply Darwins principle of Survival of the Fittest. In socialism, everyone gets included, no matter how badly your doing, and the group is only as strong as the weakest member of the group..... clearly rip roaring in serotonin and testosterone. In evolution, such organizations should in time, however successful, still be streamlined by selective forces that will knock off the least adaptive members of said group. You still have losers, one on one, or all because of one. In this case, Soccer is the Anti-Musketeer..... everyone is suffering because the weak survive, and are promoted higher and higher in the rankings when more skilled and deserving teams are turned away. Any team, is more deserving of success over the US team..... its not our game, I fail to see how we could ever win against a nation who plays this as their only sport. I think the US should be the bigger man, and pull out of the world cup, and let some more deserving third world country play in our place, like Botswana or the Faroe Islands or Ethiopia..... a country with no hope, aspirations, or future.... and they can proceed to lose their way to the final tournament, loose in it, and thereby capture the world cup. And it better be a cup. A big, fancy cup.... made of gold or something. No small disposable plastic cups. This is a third world game.... honestly, that could be what the world cup actually is, is a small plastic cup. Or a little sippy cup for a kid, that has a creepy clown on it, that scares the child its given to. Does North Korea have a team?

Its the Constellations signs on the ring, that can easily be worked in, a newer advance stargate that can transmit you via a matter stream, or the world soul..... you turn into a astrological ancient and.... do stuff. Then go through the gate again, as ordinary matter. You gotta give stargate applause for militarizing classical archeology and mythology. And it wasnt Americans, but Canadian. American TV isnt as obsessed with the US military, but most canadian series feature it or alien military systems. Its something they are fascinated with.

Damn Nazis....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aion_mosaic_Glyptothek_Munich_W504_full.jpg I came across this pic, and instantly thought Stargate. In case there is ever a reboot, this can be worked into a episode, the Roman Gate. I recall a few Roman descended worlds on Stargate S-G1.

http://www.oracleofthedead.com/the-greek-temple/ Only thought is.... do I gotta spend a hour creeping over thickets, sweating in the middle of the night so I can descend down a loose hillside to reach it, or do the locals just not care if tourists unofficially go into it?

There was a process for suing over slaves and cattle being slain..... are we really going to claim roman citizens had less protection that a goat? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Aquilia Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis (80 BC) – dealing with injuries and deaths obtained by magic Lex Petronia (?) – prevented a master from sending his slave to the beasts in the amphitheater without authorization Lex Porcia (I) (199 BC) – proposed by tribune P. Porcius Laeca to give right of appeal in capital cases Lex Porcia (II) (195 BC) – M. Porcius Cato prohibited scourging of citizens without appeal Lex Porcia (III) (184 BC) – consul L. Porcius Licinus safeguarded citizens from summary execution on military service, all dealing with right of appeal (provocatio) ex Titia (43 BC) – gave Octavian, Mark Antony and Lepidus full powers to defeat the assassins of Julius Caesar; legalized the second triumvirate Lex Valeria (maybe in 509 BC and 449 BC or 300 BC) – it granted every Roman citizen legal right to appeal against a capital sentence, defined and confirmed the right of appeal (provocatio) this is from the 12 tables: Law IV. Where anyone commits a theft by night, and having been caught in the act is killed, he is legally killed.[1] [1] While the ordinary presumption certainly arises that no one can encounter a desperate malefactor in his house at night without incurring risk of serious injury; still, the Roman jurists, in enacting this provision, evidently had in view the prevention of homicide except when absolutely necessary, even under circumstances which might justify almost any violent act in the defence of life and property. Other lawgivers, generally speaking, did not recognize such nice distinctions. The rule, somewhat modified, has been adopted by the majority of subsequent judicial systems as being thoroughly consonant with the principles of justice. It was incorporated, with but slight alteration, into the Visigothic Code, and Las Siete Partidas. "Fur nocturnus captus in furto, dum res furtivas secum portare conatur, si fuerit occisus, mors eius nullo modo vindicetur." (Forum Judicum, VII, II, 16.) "Otro tal decimos quo seria, si algun one /allasse algun ladron de noche en su casa, e lo quisiesse prender para darlo a la justicia del lugar, si el ladron se amparasse con armas. Ca entonce, si lo matare, non cæ por esso en pena." (Las Siete Partidas, VII, VIII, 3.) As stated above, to render the modicide justifiable, the Visigoths required that the thief should be in possession of the stolen property; and the Castilian law provided that he should be armed and resist arrest while in the house of the owner. Under the law of Athens, a thief taken flagrante delicto, at night, could be killed with impunity. (Potter, Antiquities of Greece, I, 24, 126.) With the Jews, homicide was not punishable when the culprit was killed under circumstances essential to constitute the crime known to us as burglary. "If a thief be found breaking up, and he be smitten that he die. no blood shall be shed for him; but if the sun be risen upon him, there shall blood be shed for him; for he should have made full restitution." (Exodus XXII, 2.) With the Anglo-Saxons, a thief caught in the act, at any time, either by day or by night, could be slain with impunity. "He who slays a thief must declare on oath that he slew him offending." (Ancient Laws and Institutes of England; Laws of King Ine, 16.) This principle does not appear to have been accepted in the earliest age of the Common Law. Glanvil does not mention it. Bracton, however, refers to it as being sound, and applicable by day or by night, without regard to place, if the homicide, at the time, could not avoid serious personal injury. "Qui latronem occiderit, non tenetur, nocturnum vel diurnum, si aliter periculum evadere non possit." (Bracton, De Legibus et Covsuetudinibus Angliæ, III, 155, 36.) Fleta says: "Quicunqiie enim furem nocturnum interfecerit, non teneatur, & qui invasorem domus suæ, se ipsum & hospitium suum saltem illa hora defendendo interfecerit, juste interficit." (Fleta, Commentarius Juris Anglicanæ, I, XXIII, 14.) This applied not only to a burglar, but to anyone found in the "curtilage," or enclosure containing the residence, at any hour between nine P. M. and six A. M.; and under these conditions, homicide was authorized either in self-defense, or when it occurred in an attempt to arrest the intruder, or was committed in order to prevent his escape. The necessity for the homicide must be absolute in order to render it justifiable. "Si necessitas evitabilis fuerit, absque occasione, reus est homicidii, qui si fuerit inevitabilis, ad pœnam homicidii non tenebitur, eo quod felonice non occidit." (Ibid. I, 23.) It is held by Coke that the act of killing must be in self-defence, and be preceded by violent aggression on the part of the thief. "If a thiefe offer to rob or murder B, either abroad or in his house, and thereupon assault him, and B, defend himself without any giving back, and in his defence killeth the thiefe; this is no felony." (Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England, Vol. IV, Ch. 8.) This doctrine is explicitly set forth in Stat. 24, Hen. VIII, Chap. 5. "If any person do attempt to break any mansion-house in the night time, and shall happen to be slain by any person or persons, etc. (tho a lodger or servant) they shall upon their trial be acquitted and discharged." The above mentioned Statute, as is held by a high authority, may be construed to apply to an illegal act of this kind committed during the day with felonious intent "It seems it extends not to a braking the house in the day-time, unless it be such a braking, as imports with it, apparent robbery, or an intention or attempt thereof." (Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown, I, XL, Page 488.) This was also the rule in Scotland, "It is lawful to kill a Thief, who in the night offers to break our Houses, or steal our Goods, even though he defend not himself, because we know not but he designs against our Life; and Murder may be easily committed upon us in the night, but it is not lawful to kill a Thief who steals in the day time, except he resist us when we offer to take him, and present him to Justice." (Mackenzie, The Laws and Customes of Scotland in Matters Criminal, I, XI, III.) The general rule, while well established, was formerly, to a certain extent, so far as its application is concerned, largely dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case. No distinction was made between an invasion of the house and an attack upon the person, provided the alarm experienced by the homicide was considered to be so well founded as to justify his act. In some respects great latitude was allowed the injured party. "The same right of defending our property, may also justify our killing a thief, or predonious invader, in the act of running away with our goods, if he cannot otherwise be taken, or the goods secured." (Burnett, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of Scotland, I, page 57.) The laws of France and Italy excuse the homicide of an intruder who commits burglary or theft with violence. (Code Pénal de France, III, II, Arts. 322, 329.) (Codice Penale, II, III, Art. 376.) In the United States, killing is only justifiable where the crime could not otherwise have been prevented, and where force is employed. When an attempt is made to commit a secret felony, without violence, the right does not exist. It is different, however, where the precincts of a man's home are invaded in the daytime, or at night. "An attack on a house or its inmates may be resisted by taking life. This may be when burglars threaten an entrance, or when there is apparent ground to believe that a felonious assault is to be made on any of the inmates of the house, or when an attempt is made violently to enter the house in defiance of the owner's rights." "But this right is only one of prevention. It cannot be extended so as to excuse the killing of persons not actually breaking into or violently threatening a house." (Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law, Secs. 629, 630, 634, 635.) — Ed. Where anyone commits a theft by night, and having been caught in the act is killed, he is legally killed.[1] [1] While the ordinary presumption certainly arises that no one can encounter a desperate malefactor in his house at night without incurring risk of serious injury; still, the Roman jurists, in enacting this provision, evidently had in view the prevention of homicide except when absolutely necessary, even under circumstances which might justify almost any violent act in the defence of life and property. Other lawgivers, generally speaking, did not recognize such nice distinctions. The rule, somewhat modified, has been adopted by the majority of subsequent judicial systems as being thoroughly consonant with the principles of justice. It was incorporated, with but slight alteration, into the Visigothic Code, and Las Siete Partidas. "Fur nocturnus captus in furto, dum res furtivas secum portare conatur, si fuerit occisus, mors eius nullo modo vindicetur." (Forum Judicum, VII, II, 16.) "Otro tal decimos quo seria, si algun one /allasse algun ladron de noche en su casa, e lo quisiesse prender para darlo a la justicia del lugar, si el ladron se amparasse con armas. Ca entonce, si lo matare, non cæ por esso en pena." (Las Siete Partidas, VII, VIII, 3.) As stated above, to render the modicide justifiable, the Visigoths required that the thief should be in possession of the stolen property; and the Castilian law provided that he should be armed and resist arrest while in the house of the owner. Under the law of Athens, a thief taken flagrante delicto, at night, could be killed with impunity. (Potter, Antiquities of Greece, I, 24, 126.) With the Jews, homicide was not punishable when the culprit was killed under circumstances essential to constitute the crime known to us as burglary. "If a thief be found breaking up, and he be smitten that he die. no blood shall be shed for him; but if the sun be risen upon him, there shall blood be shed for him; for he should have made full restitution." (Exodus XXII, 2.) With the Anglo-Saxons, a thief caught in the act, at any time, either by day or by night, could be slain with impunity. "He who slays a thief must declare on oath that he slew him offending." (Ancient Laws and Institutes of England; Laws of King Ine, 16.) This principle does not appear to have been accepted in the earliest age of the Common Law. Glanvil does not mention it. Bracton, however, refers to it as being sound, and applicable by day or by night, without regard to place, if the homicide, at the time, could not avoid serious personal injury. "Qui latronem occiderit, non tenetur, nocturnum vel diurnum, si aliter periculum evadere non possit." (Bracton, De Legibus et Covsuetudinibus Angliæ, III, 155, 36.) Fleta says: "Quicunqiie enim furem nocturnum interfecerit, non teneatur, & qui invasorem domus suæ, se ipsum & hospitium suum saltem illa hora defendendo interfecerit, juste interficit." (Fleta, Commentarius Juris Anglicanæ, I, XXIII, 14.) This applied not only to a burglar, but to anyone found in the "curtilage," or enclosure containing the residence, at any hour between nine P. M. and six A. M.; and under these conditions, homicide was authorized either in self-defense, or when it occurred in an attempt to arrest the intruder, or was committed in order to prevent his escape. The necessity for the homicide must be absolute in order to render it justifiable. "Si necessitas evitabilis fuerit, absque occasione, reus est homicidii, qui si fuerit inevitabilis, ad pœnam homicidii non tenebitur, eo quod felonice non occidit." (Ibid. I, 23.) It is held by Coke that the act of killing must be in self-defence, and be preceded by violent aggression on the part of the thief. "If a thiefe offer to rob or murder B, either abroad or in his house, and thereupon assault him, and B, defend himself without any giving back, and in his defence killeth the thiefe; this is no felony." (Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England, Vol. IV, Ch. 8.) This doctrine is explicitly set forth in Stat. 24, Hen. VIII, Chap. 5. "If any person do attempt to break any mansion-house in the night time, and shall happen to be slain by any person or persons, etc. (tho a lodger or servant) they shall upon their trial be acquitted and discharged." The above mentioned Statute, as is held by a high authority, may be construed to apply to an illegal act of this kind committed during the day with felonious intent "It seems it extends not to a braking the house in the day-time, unless it be such a braking, as imports with it, apparent robbery, or an intention or attempt thereof." (Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown, I, XL, Page 488.) This was also the rule in Scotland, "It is lawful to kill a Thief, who in the night offers to break our Houses, or steal our Goods, even though he defend not himself, because we know not but he designs against our Life; and Murder may be easily committed upon us in the night, but it is not lawful to kill a Thief who steals in the day time, except he resist us when we offer to take him, and present him to Justice." (Mackenzie, The Laws and Customes of Scotland in Matters Criminal, I, XI, III.) The general rule, while well established, was formerly, to a certain extent, so far as its application is concerned, largely dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case. No distinction was made between an invasion of the house and an attack upon the person, provided the alarm experienced by the homicide was considered to be so well founded as to justify his act. In some respects great latitude was allowed the injured party. "The same right of defending our property, may also justify our killing a thief, or predonious invader, in the act of running away with our goods, if he cannot otherwise be taken, or the goods secured." (Burnett, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of Scotland, I, page 57.) The laws of France and Italy excuse the homicide of an intruder who commits burglary or theft with violence. (Code Pénal de France, III, II, Arts. 322, 329.) (Codice Penale, II, III, Art. 376.) In the United States, killing is only justifiable where the crime could not otherwise have been prevented, and where force is employed. When an attempt is made to commit a secret felony, without violence, the right does not exist. It is different, however, where the precincts of a man's home are invaded in the daytime, or at night. "An attack on a house or its inmates may be resisted by taking life. This may be when burglars threaten an entrance, or when there is apparent ground to believe that a felonious assault is to be made on any of the inmates of the house, or when an attempt is made violently to enter the house in defiance of the owner's rights." "But this right is only one of prevention. It cannot be extended so as to excuse the killing of persons not actually breaking into or violently threatening a house." (Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law, Secs. 629, 630, 634, 635.) — Ed. I gotta go, only a bit of the way into this.... Obviously, the Romans had laws on this.

Never watched the game of thrones, but spent half this month buried in a stoic ethics work by Arius Didymus, and just listened to Plato's Republic for the umpteenth time today while working.... I think the Roman Stoics would allow a lawfully wedded wife be strangled by her husband during certain Roman eras.... but not a lover. A slave, yes.... but less out of indifference and more from incapacity to prosecute. Greeks had it set up prior to the Roman invasion that people overly beating their slaves or killing them could be prosecuted.... less out of concern for the slave than a citizen loosing control. Roman citizens could be made debt slaves, retaining their citizenship. If a young boy who was pledged as debt by his father to another was beaten to death for straying sexually from him, I think the senate would of been massacred by the plebs. Again, stuff shifts era to era, even within Stoicism.... I doubt a Stoic like Jules Evans today would support it for any reason.

No. Absolutely not, it's retarded. I am going to make a counter offer.... I'll offer to buy 1 platoon worth of shovels, and the Italian military can back a half ton truck up once a day to this park, and fill it full of dirt after screening it, and take it away..... and the next day a new work detail of new privates can show up, dig..... for free. They are getting paid anyway.... it's how they excavated Caral in Peru.... and its a way more important place than Nero' s crappy little palace that he blew so much of other people's money on. We shouldn't give any more money to that madman' s ego. The Italian equivalent of the corps of engineers can pop in once in a while to make sure it's going as plan, and if no archeologists are interested in supervising the troops dig, they can have a garbage bag of artifacts dropped off at their office every so often, with IPhone photos of where it was found. Not a dollar more for Nero. Romans didn't want to preserve this stuff, no big deal to me if it just crumbles as they intended. I like history, but don't want to emphasize its most psychotic decadence as the most worthy of perseverance. Are there no more diseases that need curing, or orphans in need? Isn't Haiti about to have another humanitarian crisis.... Bill Gates, save your money for something good like that. We can get some Italian privates to knock this crap out way cheaper.

If the women were that emphatic about fighting In WW 1, they could of opened up a new expeditionary force of their own and lead the charge, leading by example. I dont much value rhetorical displays of cowardice and courage, its almost never right in terms of accuracy. Group feeling based on assumptions of what good and bad character rarely is. Its one of the failing points of Greek and Roman education, they turned every down to earth non fiction, historically accurate character into a abstraction that quickly resembles a overt exaggeration of said person until they resemble archetypes with little to back them up historically. Diogenes is the worst victim of this. In war, in the rear, psychological tension is such that no one on anyside is allowed to be ignored and be a normal person. Animinity is lost to animosity, pride, and fear. It's just as bad for the pacifists as the war factions.

You gotta look.at how tightly compact anti-calvary spear formations are and counter this with how fast, compact, and near impossible to stop a calvary charge is. Imagine being in the calvary..... third or forth back in the middle of a charge, thinking surely the troops ahead are about to break and flee, and all you will see is their backs as you hunt them down for the next hour..... and you hear "Oh shit"! Spoken in your dialect, and guys ahead on horses rearing up aaon hind legs, comming down on your buddies skulls and sholders, while you and the guys around you are still moving forward full momentum.... then you ride over a guy in your uniform, and see this spear thrust up, hitting you in the pelvis..... your saber dropping.... someone ramming you down from behind..... and the blue sky twisting from up, to sodeways and then down, an you see horses hooves above you, a guy on the ground above you where the sky used to be,.... dressed like you but dead, cold grass and mud below covering you, bloody mud..... and more and more screams and crying and yelling and people calling each other an idiot. You try to stand, but can't..... and see arrows taking guys down in the face. Your unit being pulled off their horses, too entangled to escape. Horses being lead away, as kill squads work their way towards you, killing as they creep. For king and country, and all that good stuff. Yeah,.obviously, against other infantry, you will want to learn your spacing, for parry and counter parring, moving in for a knife or sword kill, keeping a sachel of rocks onhand for when closing in, when to hold, when to retreat, how to switch out with another if your exhausted or injured. Calvary in the ancient world wasnt very good against a determined and purpose driven infantry.... the kind of infantry who know in advance cav is comming and to expect it. If your put on berry picking detail, trying to find enough food for your line..... your useless against calvary.... spear on you or not, even if there is a guard on overwatch supposedly protecting you. When a army isnt formed up for battle, its always doing stuff like that in small.detachments. Calvary is best used then, and for recon and flanking in battle. The reason this was forgotten was the medieval knighthoode was equestrian, and infantry forces were of a temporary nature for the most part.... because they didnt know how to fund and maintain such units longterm. A knight could fund himself and his own training. You begin seeing longbow units from long cultured training as a national passtime, and communal pike units pop up to fill this essential gap. Even before this, knight lead battles expected silly ratios of infantry to calvary 10 to 1 in cases Ive read..... who mostly did nothing in these battles other than hope to survive and reap the rewards after their knights drove off the opposing infantry. Im not a big fan on mediaeval infantry obviously.

I would also like to point out, phalanx are a really, really bad idea against missle light calvary on open plains, as well as missile troops, even if armed with just darts, in rugged topography with plenty of vegetation. Really sucks to be a Spartan then. Phalanx do really, really bad on islands, with little to no cover, when faced off against a missle based navy. You would think this obvious, but.....

Umm... that's not cheating, thats strategy. History is full of more lopsided victories than you claim. Infact, I strongly suspect the recent ISIS advances in Iraq was via bribing, then using a heavy battalion to knock out select government targets and move on. Only thing that explains how a 15-1 ratio defensive advantage could backfire. The game is fair, your just not paying attention to the obvious insistence of using bad tactics. War isnt won by the numbers.

Having sharp projectiles shot at you with the intent to kill, and evidence all around you of its success creeping in over you best laid defense, is really going to get on your nerves.... especially when it punctures your shield or fs up your leg, or you painfully step on one. Basic ying-yang theory governs the projection of force in how you array your units. Weak and strong, long and short need to be mutually combined to respond in terms of mutual support against a flexible and determined opponent. The tactical syntheses classically was, in general, archers good at infantry killing from afar, infantry good at archers.... but had to reach them first. I recommend a oblique attack of a calvary unit prior to closing in. Because its not genius, but generically successful.