barca

Interesting aside comment. Is any type of warfare really "clean"? The entire business of killing people is dirty no matter how you do it. If comming face to face with your enemy and exchanging sword thrust is "clean" and everything else is "dirty": shooting an arrow, throwing a pilum or javelin-- all dirty flying a bomber and dropping bombs on cities below-- real dirty ...and then you have land mines -- outrageously dirty per WT Sherman

I agree that there were certain areas where the allies were more advanced, such as the atomic bomb. The Germans were certainly not bit players. They were ahead of the rest in rocketry (V2), and they were the first to produce an effective jet fighter (ME 262) How did slave labor waste productivity?

I understood his point differently. I think he was trying to say that he didn't think that the institution of slavery inhibited creativity (based upon his previous statements)

I recently read an interesting article in USA by Jenkins http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum...lumn19_ST_N.htm He has also written a number of books along the same lines. Has anyone here read any of these? http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarch...s/dp/0061768944 http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Christi...d_bxgy_b_text_b

And in the 20th century the Third Reich was one of the most (if not the most) technologically advanced regimes, and it essentially used slave labor to maximize productivity.

There were numerous scientific advances during the Hellenistic period prior to the Roman takeover. For example Hero of Alexandria: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...hero+alexandria Do you think that Roman Imperialism inhibited Greek Scientific thought, and could have there been further scientific advances if the Hellenistic had been able to resist the Romans?

The one doesn't get distracted by displays of bravado will win

They had a 2000 year advantage, but culturally and scientifically, the Hellenistic Greeks were ahead of their time. Why were they not able to apply their knowledge to the real world and develop technology that could have raised their standard of living.

I recently watched a show about Hellenistic Egypt. They pointed out that Hero of Alexandria invented a steam powered device which could have been a precursor to the steam engine. They brought up the question: why didn't the Hellenistic Greeks ever develop steam power for practical use? The answer they gave was that all the work was done by slaves so they didn't have the need for steam power. I'm not totally convinced by that answer. Fast forward to the Modern Industrial Revolution of the late 18th but mostly 19th century in the Western World. It is interesting that it coincides somewhat with the abolition of slavery in the Western World. The free states in the US were in the industrialized north and the slave states were in the rural south. So what came first. Was it technology that made slavery superfluous, or was it the abolition of slavery that prompted innovation in technology to find efficient ways to get the work done? With or without slaves, a steam engine would have taken transportation to a new level. They would have still used slaves to lay down the tracks, but there's no way you could have slave powered train that could move at the speed of a steam engine.

Not exactly the same scenario, but the Romans did win at Thermopylae: Thermopylae 191 BCE The Syrian War became inevitable when the Roman general, after defeating king Philip V of Macedonia, decided to leave the Greek cities "free and autonomous", a gesture that created a power vacuum that was, as all the world knew and the Romans must have been hoping for, too tempting for the Seleucid king Antiochus III to resist. And indeed: in 192, he allowed himself to be invited to Greece by the Aetolians. Seleucid armies overran Euboea and parts of Thessaly, but soon discovered that the Romans were ready strike in the theater of war they had selected to meet Antiochus. In 191, the Seleucid king tried to defend Thermopylae against the legions, led by Manius Acilius Glabrio; when a division of the Romans, commanded by Marcus Porcius Cato, used the mountain path, and Antiochus decided to retreat. Greece was evacuated, and Rome had -after Carthage and Macedonia- humiliated another Hellenistic superpower. The story is told by Appian of Alexandria (Syrian War, 18-20), and Livy (History of Rome since its Foundation, 36.15-19).

Alexander's phalangites were capable of getting into various formations: circle, square, concave line, convex line, wedge, pincer, etc. Are any of these formations consistent with your specifications for a phalanx?

According to Appian, the phalanx at Magnesia attempted to maintain a defensive front in all directions: [

Of all of Caesar's battles, Pharsalus gets the most attention. Outnumbered in both cavalry and infantry, he cleverly used reserve cohorts to counter his opponent's superiority in cavalry. Actually not very original, Sulla used similar maneuvers at Chaeronea II. What Scipio did was much more impressive, turned the tables on Rome's previously unbeatable foe.

How would the Romans deal with such a tactic? They frequently did well even when greatly outnumbered in cavalry. I would expect an outcome similar to Cynoscephalae, where unintentionally one side of the phalanx advanced ahead of the other, which had not yet formed up. Or is it conceivable that the trailing echelons of the Thebans would subsequently advance and support the side of the 50-deep phalanx?

The Romans were mostly significantly outnumbered. As I believe Tigranes scoffed at Luculus' army, "To large to be an embassy, to small to be an army." Luculus' army went on to kick his proverbial butt. Are you saying that 300 Romans could have held off the Persians? Luculus was outnumbered but had several thousand men.

Interesting question. Two ways of looking at it: 1. Were they militarily effective enough to defeat the Achaemenid Persians? Of course they were. They were able to defeat the more advanced Sassanid Persians of their own time period. 2. Were late Roman Soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives for a greater cause? Probably not. If they were significantly outnumbered as the Spartans were, they probably would have retreated.

Yes, that was very unhellenic of him. Justinian was a great leader, but he had his imperfections. One can only wonder what the Byzantines could have accomplished if they hadn't gotten bogged down on religious ideology. It is interesting that there were still significant remnants of pagan thought despite the edicts of Theodosius more than 100 years earlier to make Christianity the state religion.

That's a somewhat biased viewpoint which is prevalent among traditional Western Historians, and many modern scholars disagree with this viewpoint. The increase in Imperial authority was an unfortunate but necessary evil to deal with an ongoing crisis (loss of the West, barbarian incursions, Islam, religious controversies within Christianity.) The East never allowed the Church to become too powerful, whereas in the West, Roman catholicism was able to exert a lot of political influence over the various kingdoms. There is a great book that I am reading now which presents a refreshing view of Byzantine Civilization: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-...1252&sr=1-1 There were numerous great leaders that repeatedly pulled Eastern Empire out impending collapse. There were also some extremely inept rulers who lost all the ground that their predecessors had gained. There were numerous pressures on them from all sides, and they had to know what they were doing in order to survive as long as they did. Were there some scary Byzantines who used their religious views as club to control people? Yes e.g. the Iconoclasts, an unfortunate setback which alienated them from the west, but generally they were much more advanced intellectually, economically, and politically than the barbarian West.

It is generally accepted that it was the Byzantines that preserved most of the works of Classical Antiquity. I find the following statements interesting: "The glories of Christianity — particularly its books — fascinated the Irish. They came to love the Roman alphabet that Patrick and his successors taught them, as well the precious illuminated manuscripts that he presented to them. There was indeed nothing in their intellectual heritage to block their receptivity to the Christian faith. There was also nothing in their heritage to draw them to master the intricacies of the Greco-Roman tradition. This turned out to be a stroke of luck, for the ancient Irish never embraced classical cynicism or the gloomy Greco-Roman sense of fatedness. Instead, they remained in many ways remarkably unjaded, full of wonder at the unexpectedness of human life. “Well, the heart’s a wonder,” says Pegeen Mike in John Millington Synge’s comedy “The Playboy of the Western World.” It was a sentiment first articulated by Patrick’s converts, who put down their weapons and took up their pens. They copied out the great Greco-Roman books, many of which they didn’t really understand, thus saving in its purest form most of the classical library." It seems to me that their emphasis was on religious scholarship, with little or no understanding of Greco-Roman philosophy (Not only cynicism, but also stoicism, epicureanism, and skepticism). I personally find Greco-Roman philosophy refreshing compared to gloomy monasticism that was present in the dark ages. I might add that it sounds as if they were embracing faith instead of reason. One would think that since there was nothing in their intellectual heritage to block their receptivity to the Christian faith, they would have been more like the puritans, i.e. eliminating Roman Catholic influence from their church. Instead, the Irish are the most catholic of all the people in the British isles. Can anyone explain this apparent paradox?

Here's an update. i just picked up a copy of ANCIENT WARFARE at the local bookstore Vol III issue 6. It is the first time that I've seen this magazine at a local store. Page 44 has an article entitled Changing formations and specialists by Ross Cowan The author states that there is some uncertainty about the specifics from these late sources, but he showed some evidence of the persistence of triplex acies, i.e. 3 battle lines as in the legions of the republic. He also suggests that even at Adrianople they used a triple battle line, but form a number of reasons, they were not deployed effectively, and they inadvertently became rolled up and compressed into a huge mass.

Everyone has heard of King Porus who was defeated by Alexander, but most of our information comes from western sources. Are there any eastern (Indian) sources that tell a different side of the story? I found some scattered info on the internet, but I wasn't sure of the reliability. Are there any good books devoted to Alexander's Indian expedition?

I just read a recent article in the New York times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html The author tries to be impartail, but he misses numerous opportunities to point out that many of the ideas that are thrown around such as natural rights, the god of nature, and separation of powers come from Greco-Roman philosophy, and not the Bible.

Keep in mind the Valens' army was about 15000 men at max. Out of some 400000-500000 active troops, losing some 10000 isn't really disaster. After all, the East recovered relatively quickly and they kept fighting the Goths in the immediate aftermath of the battle. It seems to me that Theodosius did his best to recruit new troops, but had trouble developing them into reliable soldiers that would hold their ground, and he wasn't able to fully defeat the Goths. He ended up making a deal with them and used them as allies.

You coould, but you'd be wrong to. A long thrusting weapon doesn't require or create a phalanx, which was an extended pike used as a mass formation in a certain style. No-one in the late empire was fighting in that manner in any way whatsoever. The phalanx was finished as a military formation and had been for a long long time. You could also be wrong. An individual with a long thrusting weapon would be at a disadvantage against someone with a sword. Let's consider what is meant by the term phalanx. A broad definition can include ANY FORMATION OF DENSELY PACKED MEN FIGHTING IN ANYTHING THAT REMINDS OF THE SQUARE OR RECTANGLE, as pointed out earlier. The Roman formation against the Alani was a form of phalanx. Arab infantry sometimes got into pike formations to fend off cavalry. There were numerous instances in the middle ages where infantry were in formations that were densely packed with spears protruding. Richard the Lionhearted and his dismounted men at arms, the Swiss, the Scots, and numerous pike formations of the Renaissance.

Yes they certainly weren't in a Macedonian, sarissa formation, but perhaps a formation similar to the older Spartan phalanx where the initial weapon was the shorter thrusting spear, and they would pull out their swords when the spears broke.