|
| Thread: eurovision contest |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Fenix
Known Hero
In ranks of Nebwoocka Alliance
|
posted September 09, 2003 03:08 PM |
|
|
I think not, YOUR reasoning for that war may have been independance, I don't think that featured to high in the reasoning of say Mr Milosevic and the various generals behind him and some of the other countries somehow though. Just a shame your drive for independance meant genocide, slaughter, destruction and instability had to come with it. Then again given the explosive nature of the area I guess we shouldn't be that suprised....
I agree that there were many war crimes on both sides, but we must see that they do not need to be reflection of whole nation aggression. Many crimes were done because some commander lost his nerves in chaos or because he lost his entire family in the war and his only reason to live is to seek revenge. We try to bring them to justice today.
____________
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong, first use of cannon was in the 15th century, prior to 1430 if I recall the 100 years war ended around then, and a large factor in it's later battles was cannon. Do your research 
The Chinese invented gunpowder in the 8th century. If I know human nature, the first use of gunpowder to propel a projectile into somebodies skull probably happened around 2.4 seconds later.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 04:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong, first use of cannon was in the 15th century, prior to 1430 if I recall the 100 years war ended around then, and a large factor in it's later battles was cannon.
the exact year for siege cannon is 1426 ,Mehmet 2 the conqueror captured istanbul
btw whats happened to the empire where the sun never down
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted September 09, 2003 06:17 PM |
|
|
wow... I'm impressed...
somebody makes a thread based on a lame contest andit turns to a nice history dicussion... well done 
...oh, about Alexander's army... as ph said, the Greeks were doing all the fighting (once more, Macedonians were -and are- Greeks) ...namely the Phalanx and the cavalry, usually led by Alex himself..
...on the city-states thing and military lifestyle, well... yes the colonies did help the economy... but except the Spartans and to a point the, also Dorian, Macedonians, all the others were pretty much like modern countries
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
BoogieMan
Famous Hero
The John of Spades
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Which could easily be severed by cutting the naval power of the country... The greeks had the sense to keep control of the sea.
Non-military is your problem, by and large the greeks weren't exactly training every last man under the sun to fight either.
The greeks had the skill and a couple of hundred years of experience in sailing, alongside "the sense" to keep control of the sea. Not to mention that sailing and war were their main preocupations since the dawn of their city-states, as Greece had few other economic options except founding + maintaining + trading with (mostly by sea) colonies. On the other hand, my people were far from having a military tradition or from manifesting expansionist desires. Our only concern was to defend our lands, which we did quite well
Quote:
History lesson for you, 10,000 english troops killed 10,000 frenchmen out of 40-50,000 of them at Agincourt.
Again you bring the argument of a single battle to counter that of Stephen's 44, which all had aprox. the same numerical stats. 1:4 - 1:5 in favour of the turks. (as I mentioned before, the average count during Stephen's reign was 10-12000 of our soldiers against 40-50000 turkish soldiers, the greatest battle having envolved 40.000 on our side, 9000 soldiers arriving from the principality of Transylvania and Poland, against 120.000 turks)
However, I must admit that at Agincourt the British did a remarcable feat, as they were on the offensive and on enemy soil.
Quote:
A bridge would appear to be in order then? Others managed such campaigns, your country simply couldn't be bothered and/or didn't have the right character to do what was needed.
It takes more than character to conduct a military campaign, my friend, for example huge economic resources (we're talking about going all the way to Istanbul, which in turn would have to be subjected to a long siege because of the 3 concentric walls that defended the city, bla-bla-bla). Surely, you must remember how the Chatolic Church practically extorted the money for the crusades And btw, crossing the Danube was not a problem (good irony though on your side).
Quote:
Nope, we Brits did that thank you Oh and the ottoman empire by and large didn't really exist at the time of the early crusades either.
That's only to show you that the crusades failed to put an end to the turkish threat even when they weren't at full strength, while we fought them when they were at their peak.
Quote:
No, you teach them a thorough and lasting lesson or make them fear you so much they never try again...
You speak like war was as simple as writing on this forum
Quote:
Wrong, first use of cannon was in the 15th century, prior to 1430 if I recall the 100 years war ended around then, and a large factor in it's later battles was cannon. Do your research
This was a missunderstanding, I thought you meant hand-held gunpowder weaponry, my mistake. We did have cannons, although far less than the enemy. (we captured some of their cannons after each important battle, but with the number we had lost, our artillery made little progress numerically speaking)
Quote:
Don't excuse yourself because you didn't have the wits to train people properly.
I like how you use second person - singular, like I would have been personally involved in their training
Quote:
And yet a total inability to gain lasting peace
That's because no matter how many soldiers they had lost, the turks had the resources (again, a matter of population) to attack again. They wasted quite a number of soldiers on us during the 15th and 16th century
Quote:
Nor did ours (population). Ever. We still kicked butt
So did we. 
Quote:
A) Waiting for your definition of numbers involved that categorises "battle"
B) The greeks had the good sense NOT to fight at home
C) When they did they had the bad sense to fight eachother, sometimes at the same time as the persians
A) Romanian dictionary (translation): Battle = A fight (clash) between two armed forces. I mentioned above the average stats of our battles against the turks.
B) Exactly my point: we fought to protect our land, while they fought (mainly) to keep control of their colonies.
C) True
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree that there were many war crimes on both sides, but we must see that they do not need to be reflection of whole nation aggression
I was merely stating that the country was for a long time a hotbed of both ethnic and national conflict, and given this it's no suprise when sides start fighting eachother or start ethnic cleansing and/or setting up camps. It happened to my recollection in WWII there after all...
Quote:
We try to bring them to justice today.
That's good, shame it happened in the first place totally uneeded.
Quote:
The Chinese invented gunpowder in the 8th century
I know that, I was referring to it's first major use in Europe.
Quote:
btw whats happened to the empire where the sun never down
We gave (most of it) back, and a lot of that we gave relatively willingly.
Quote:
oh, about Alexander's army... as ph said, the Greeks were doing all the fighting (once more, Macedonians were -and are- Greeks) ...namely the Phalanx and the cavalry, usually led by Alex himself..
I heard it quoted as this for the force he crossed the dardanelles with:
30,000 foot, of which 12,000 were macedonian Phalanx, 12,000 were Greek Hoplites, and 6,000 were light infantry from Crete and Thrace
5,000 Horse, of which 2000 were Macedonian companions, 1800 were Thessalians and the rest were a variety of greeks
That means a minimum of 1/3 of his army was Macedonian, and the remainder were mostly mainland, allied (though kinda unhappily, their was I think 2 rebellions before the campaign in greece) greek troops, not mercenaries.
Other than that, if you glance at his tactics at say Grancius, it's clear he placed great trust and reliance on his home bred troops and no other. He began the battle with a massed charge over the river seperating the forces with himself at the head of his companions, shattering the persian flank totally and giving time for other macedonians to cross. Though just one example, this echoes Alexander in style and the reliance he placed on his faithfull Macedonian core troops.
Quote:
The greeks had the skill and a couple of hundred years of experience in sailing, alongside "the sense" to keep control of the sea. Not to mention that sailing and war were their main preocupations since the dawn of their city-states, as Greece had few other economic options except founding + maintaining + trading with (mostly by sea) colonies
Doing what they do best and making the most of what they can be as it's better known?
Quote:
On the other hand, my people were far from having a military tradition
Tsk tsk, you should have learnt off the romans whislt you could surely? We did
Quote:
or from manifesting expansionist desires
Lack of ambition, sad really
Quote:
Our only concern was to defend our lands, which we did quite well
Best form of defence is attack, best way to stop an invasion is to invade them
Quote:
Again you bring the argument of a single battle to counter that of Stephen's 44
No I don't, Potiers and Crecy are two others of similar results, both we actually achieved something from rather than having to do it all over again, that just makes the victory pointless
Quote:
However, I must admit that at Agincourt the British did a remarcable feat, as they were on the offensive and on enemy soil
Bah we only did what we did twice before That's the power of trained longbowmen for you though
Quote:
It takes more than character to conduct a military campaign, my friend, for example huge economic resources (we're talking about going all the way to Istanbul, which in turn would have to be subjected to a long siege because of the 3 concentric walls that defended the city, bla-bla-bla).
Here's a thought, look at the force Alexander took into Persia, 35,000 men strong (though I believe he was later reinforced by more greeks). He managed much, much more than that, he crossed to India with that force and fought them on their own territory, preventing invasion by taking the war to the enemy, paying for it by plundering their resources.
Quote:
That's only to show you that the crusades failed to put an end to the turkish threat even when they weren't at full strength
Geography lesson 1: Turkey is not the same as the middle east, the crusades I'm talking about fell against modern day Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and others. Only the latter, half-hearted crusades tried to take out the ottomans, who didn't even exist when Saladin and Richard I slugged it out.
Quote:
You speak like war was as simple as writing on this forum
It is to those who take it seriously
Quote:
This was a missunderstanding, I thought you meant hand-held gunpowder weaponry, my mistake
Handguns were in a primitive form used by the europeans around then also.
Quote:
I like how you use second person - singular, like I would have been personally involved in their training
Whatever, your then king(s) clearly lacked the forethought to find ways to teach your peasantry decently
Quote:
That's because no matter how many soldiers they had lost, the turks had the resources (again, a matter of population) to attack again
That would be why you needed to invade them. Come to that matter, didn't romanians understand the theory of allies during this period?
Quote:
So did we.
Call me when you conquer 1/4 of the globe
Quote:
Romanian dictionary (translation): Battle = A fight (clash) between two armed forces. I mentioned above the average stats of our battles against the turks.
Lith will probably correct me but I can think of at least a dozen city state battles of the 10,000 troops level, Alexander probably thought many a battle with this many along his campaigns. I'd imagine they managed 40 odd in 1000 years
Quote:
Exactly my point: we fought to protect our land, while they fought (mainly) to keep control of their colonies.
Uhmmm no the persians invaded greece at least twice to my recollection (marathon and thermoplaye/salamis concluding those two), greek allies and cities they fought with constantly. The third major war was no fight over colonies, it was an outright attempt by Phillip (who insinuated he would) and Alexander (who did) to conquer persia once and for all.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
BoogieMan
Famous Hero
The John of Spades
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lack of ambition, sad really
Old Adolf would surely agree with you on that one ...
Quote:
Best form of defence is attack, best way to stop an invasion is to invade them
Again, I would like to point that any competent hystorical analysis would reach the conclusion that we would have had extremely little chance of succesfully invading the turks. Seriously.
Quote:
Here's a thought, look at the force Alexander took into Persia, 35,000 men strong (though I believe he was later reinforced by more greeks). He managed much, much more than that, he crossed to India with that force and fought them on their own territory, preventing invasion by taking the war to the enemy, paying for it by plundering their resources.
With all his plunder, Alexander's campaign still emptied his coffers dry. Having conquered so much in so little time, he was never able to properly administrate his new territories. And another thing, after Alexander died, not only did the Macedonians lose all territories in Asia and Africa, but they were little heard from ... ever.
You WERE saying something about efficiency in a previous post, weren't you?
Quote:
Geography lesson 1: Turkey is not the same as the middle east, the crusades I'm talking about fell against modern day Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and others. Only the latter, half-hearted crusades tried to take out the ottomans, who didn't even exist when Saladin and Richard I slugged it out.
ALL the crusades were half-hearted, self-centered and their main purpose was the gain of riches/territory/influence. "Liberating" Jesus' grave from pagan rule was just a pretext.
I'm looking forward to Geography lesson 2
Quote:
It is (easy, war) to those who take it seriously
How wrong and shallow you are!
Quote:
That would be why you needed to invade them. Come to that matter, didn't romanians understand the theory of allies during this period?
We understood the theory of treachery and backstabbing, as Poland (with which Stephen had signed a treaty) also tried (and failed) to invade Moldova.
Quote:
Call me when you conquer 1/4 of the globe
We didn't have to travel half way across the globe to kick butt. Lots of butt came to us to be kicked.
Quote:
Uhmmm no the persians invaded greece at least twice to my recollection (marathon and thermoplaye/salamis concluding those two), greek allies and cities they fought with constantly. The third major war was no fight over colonies, it was an outright attempt by Phillip (who insinuated he would) and Alexander (who did) to conquer persia once and for all.
Is two not a small number by british standards?
And Alexander conquered Persia "once and for a couple of years" more than "once and for all". (Ofcourse, Persia did fall apart after that)
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 10:01 PM |
|
|
weeell...
Quote:
With all his plunder, Alexander's campaign still emptied his coffers dry. Having conquered so much in so little time, he was never able to properly administrate his new territories. And another thing, after Alexander died, not only did the Macedonians lose all territories in Asia and Africa, but they were little heard from ... ever.
Alexander found enough gold in Persian coffers ...as for administration ...he kinda solved the problem by marrying a few Macedonians to the daughters of Persian officials ...when Aled died, his empire was split in four ...if I remember correctly, one part was Greece, the other was Egypt and the other two on Minor Asia ...though one way or the other the offspring of his generals were heard, the one that really stuck out was a well known lady with a cute nose (Asterix ref ) ...none other than Cleo ...you know, queen of Egypt and all ...of course the Macedonians and Greeks in general only resurfaced in Byzantium (even tho it was actualkly the eastern part of the Roman empire, all the officials and commoners were pretty much of Greek origin...) ...and a few centuries later, the Macedonians would take part in one of the biggest territorial wars of the Balkans...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 09, 2003 11:21 PM |
|
|
Did anyone watch the anime Reign? It completely outlines Alexander's life, with, of course, some dramatization.
America would only give negative points to France, Liberia, and the old Iraq.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 12:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Old Adolf would surely agree with you on that one ...
Adolf denied people their democratic rights and killed them en masse in gas chambers, we just denied them their democratic rights. See? We were nice..... Ok not as nasty as others...
Quote:
Again, I would like to point that any competent hystorical analysis would reach the conclusion that we would have had extremely little chance of succesfully invading the turks. Seriously.
The same "competent analysis" would also would it not tell you conquering Asia and reaching India with a starting force of 35,000 men was a small chance. Or that 1,000 troops could never hold arnhem bridge for 4 nights, 5 days whilst surrounded when "competent analysis" claimed that 3 days was the maximum 10,000 would be likely to hold it for. Since you never tried, you will never know if it could have suceeded.
Quote:
You WERE saying something about efficiency in a previous post, weren't you?
As Lith pointed out, your entire point above this is both innacurate and irrelevant.
Quote:
ALL the crusades were half-hearted, self-centered and their main purpose was the gain of riches/territory/influence. "Liberating" Jesus' grave from pagan rule was just a pretext.
This is politics, not geogprahpy. The geographical part you skipped entirely, because, I presume you know I am right. Last I checked, the early crusades never even touched Turkey in terms of attacking them. That means they hit other countries.... Not Turkey, not the ottomans, therefore would have a little bit of a problem beating them....
Quote:
I'm looking forward to Geography lesson 2
Think again, you failed the exam to pass lesson 1!
Quote:
How wrong and shallow you are
Not really, we english tend to win our wars, therefore we must find it relatively easy no?
Quote:
We understood the theory of treachery and backstabbing
Ah so you don't understand diplomacy. Let me explain, coutries ally to you for as long as they can get more out of that alliance than they can without it. You failed to be valuable to them see?
Quote:
We didn't have to travel half way across the globe to kick butt. Lots of butt came to us to be kicked
Have you ever BEEN to england? Experienced the atrocious weather? And you wonder why we go abroad to fight?
Quote:
Is two not a small number by british standards?
I assumed you meant direct wars (not battles) against the persians, of which there were 3 main ones that I mentioned. Of those, 2/3 were fought over greece itself, not the colonies, and the 3rd was fought over persia (amongst other places) and not designed to be over her colonies. Which destroys the notion that the Greek-Persian wars were about colonies does it not? Which was your assertion was it not?
Quote:
And Alexander conquered Persia "once and for a couple of years" more than "once and for all".
I believe Alexander was alive in something like 320 odd BC* and his Generals descendents ruled Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor for a very long time. As a hint, the Selucid greeks, the Egyptians and Whomever ran Greece, were all if I recall* were still in power when the romans eventually took over those areas, which is something like (at least) 200 years later. Define "couple of years" please
Quote:
(Ofcourse, Persia did fall apart after that)
Oh yes, how unimportant
* I should add here, my knowledge of Ancient History can be very sketchy, I'm sure Lith will feel free to correct/clarify me in his biased, xenophobic (ie greek) way as needs be Ask me 19th century stuff onwards and I know it, don't expect preciseness in asking me ancients 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 12:41 AM |
|
|
hehehe...
I sure hope you were joking about the xenophobic part my friend... even tho you were right about me correcting (clarifying more like it) you
Alexander was born in 356 BC and died in 326 BC... 15 years after his death, his empire was split in the following parts:
Egypt and Palestine, ruled by Ptolemy Lagus
Mesopotamia and Syria, ruled by Seleucus Nicator
Northern Greece, ruled by Cassander
Asia Minor and Southern Greece, ruled by Antigonus, and
Thrace, ruled by Lysimachus.
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 01:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, I must admit that at Agincourt the British did a remarcable feat, as they were on the offensive and on enemy soil
Bah we only did what we did twice before That's the power of trained longbowmen for you though
actual many believe that agincourt was not won by the longbow at all. Since they also believe that even the long bow would be extremely hard pressed to hit through the french armour. Infact it was the french armour that was there down fall.
The soil on agincourt is pretty unique as in it can hold in a lot of moisture which is only released when its distrupted say by thousands of knights walking across it (not on horse back mind as they wasted the small amount of horsemen they had way to soon by attacking with them first on the two flanks) Meaning they had to slowly move through a field that was fast becoming a swamp. The lay of the ground itself was a major advantage as the french had to squeeze in to a narrow funnel to reach the centre of the english armour (where the big prizes were that they were after to ransom back)
If one Knight fell it was near impossible to get back up and they were all so close together it would cause havoc.
The english longbow men had no armour at all or very little so happily crushed the floundering knights in the fast becoming swamp. The only reason he took the bowmen is because he could get 2 bowmen for the price of a knight and funds were limited for the campaign.
As was explained fully in a channel 5 documentary (in between the tits and ass)
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 01:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
actual many believe
Many being "channel 5"?
Quote:
Since they also believe that even the long bow would be extremely hard pressed to hit through the french armour. Infact it was the french armour that was there down fall.
Ok this ignores a number of factors that I shall summarise for you.
Firstly the arrows often hit the horses carrying the french Knights, therefore knocking them to the ground. This as you said slaughtered the first attack.
Secondly the longbow excelled at countering enemy archery given the ludicrously french use of Crossbowmen even though an Englishman could fire 12 arrows to about 3 bolts
Thirdly the dismounted "knights" of the second and third battles were more like men at arms, not clad in full plate mail armour. Still heavily armoured in chainmail perhaps, but not on the level noted. This level of armour a longbow arrow could penetrate.
Fourthly (is that a word?) English archers developed specialist armour penetrating (modern word I know, but...), I wonder did the documentary test using these or standard arrows, as this would make a difference, as would the range and style of firing, the english would fire en masse without aiming so the arrows fell like rain, increasing the chance of one hitting a weak spot in the armour. I doubt somehow the documentary experimented with say 100 archers firing into a mass of seething frenchmen in chainmail with the arrows coming thick and fast and falling from height. Not going to happen.... worst luck, would have been fun to watch
Fifth taking archers also made good tactical sense, Henry V wasn't a moron he needed them to win, he knew that.
Quote:
The lay of the ground itself was a major advantage as the french had to squeeze in to a narrow funnel to reach the centre of the english armour
It's to be noted the english only adopted this position after the french refused to attack them further along the funnel in a position better suited to the french. The english were forced to advance and fire on the french before they stirred.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 02:10 AM |
|
|
The arrows did there bit but were not the deciding factor. They did kill the horses on mass but they did not have thousands of them anyway (horses had little or no armour)
The test was done using the special designed arrows for piercing metal but even these did not manage it. I mean a hell of a lot of arrows were fired causing chaos but not the thousands of kills. These were not just men at arms but were all the richest nobles in france and armoured like it.
I wish i had taped it for reference it was very interesting if extremley low budget graphics (if you can call a man laying playing cards around that lol )
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 03:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The arrows did there bit but were not the deciding factor
The test was done using the special designed arrows for piercing metal but even these did not manage it. I mean a hell of a lot of arrows were fired causing chaos but not the thousands of kills
Errr that's kinda the point, the confusion allowed the peasants in to assault the french with ease and capture them in their thousands, the prisoners were later killed in their thousands.
Quote:
These were not just men at arms but were all the richest nobles in france and armoured like it.
With respect no more than probably 1/4 of these (at the VERY most) were nobles and there was some 25,000 men in those 2 lines so I heard, that's 15,000 lightly armoured frenchman also.
I'm not saying it's the only factor, but it's probably the most important one as it sets the ball rolling for those that follow.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
doomfreak
Famous Hero
The Crispinator
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 06:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And we are just about the least religous nation on the face of the planet. My family are like the only people in the state of Virginia that attends any religious function.
This is a joke, right? The only nations that the US isn't religious when compared to are the Middle Eastern Theocracies. I spent 13 years of my life in various parts of Virginia and I can guarantee you that there are a lot more families than just yours that attend religious functions. Although thankfully, I wan't one of them.
Australia is probably the least religious country cuase hardly anyone goes to church or anything. But at least Jedi Knight is an official religion here (I'm not joking)
____________
Holden means a great deal to Australia...
|
|
BoogieMan
Famous Hero
The John of Spades
|
|
posted September 10, 2003 01:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Adolf denied people their democratic rights and killed them en masse in gas chambers, we just denied them their democratic rights. See? We were nice..... Ok not as nasty as others...
Like I said before ... shallow.
Quote:
The same "competent analysis" would also would it not tell you conquering Asia and reaching India with a starting force of 35,000 men was a small chance.
Or that 1,000 troops could never hold arnhem bridge for 4 nights, 5 days whilst surrounded when "competent analysis" claimed that 3 days was the maximum 10,000 would be likely to hold it for. Since you never tried, you will never know if it could have suceeded.
No, it wouldn't tell that. Alexander knew perfectly that he was capable of doing that, because his army was better trained (and I reffer mainly to the phalanx) and, in time of need he would be able to bring reinforcements.
And at Arnhem bridge, the 1000 were forced to hold out otherwise they would've died and the enemy would have gained an important strategical advantage. They had no other choice.
What I am trying to say is that war is not just a game of chance. It would have taken a very irresponsable and hot-headed leader (on our part) to order a campaign against the turks when the chances were so slim and the situation didn't call for it. You don't play with your subject's lives like that. More than that, Poland and Hungary could not have been given a better chance to invade
Quote:
Alexander was born in 356 BC and died in 326 BC... 15 years after his death, his empire was split in the following parts:
Egypt and Palestine, ruled by Ptolemy Lagus
Mesopotamia and Syria, ruled by Seleucus Nicator
Northern Greece, ruled by Cassander
Asia Minor and Southern Greece, ruled by Antigonus, and
Thrace, ruled by Lysimachus. (Lith)
As Lith pointed out, your entire point above this is both innacurate and irrelevant.
Not entirely. The newly arisen states were not under the same rule (and their level of independence grew with time) So, in the end, Alexander's campaign was a failure, as it didn't lead to the birth of a grand empire as Alexander would've wanted it. (That's the efficiency I was talking about)
Quote:
Greeks in general only resurfaced in Byzantium (even tho it was actualkly the eastern part of the Roman empire, all the officials and commoners were pretty much of Greek origin...)
Like you said, Byzantium doesn't count as Greece or Macedonia because of the roman influence.
Quote:
...and a few centuries later, the Macedonians would take part in one of the biggest territorial wars of the Balkans... (Lith)
I'm not sure what you mean by a few centuries, but if you're referring to the Balkan Wars in the late 1800s I would like to remind you that Macedonia, which had previously been a turkish PROVINCE ( that one's for Hudson), was assimilated by Serbia (it's northern half) and Greece (southern half)
Quote:
This is politics, not geogprahpy. The geographical part you skipped entirely, because, I presume you know I am right. Last I checked, the early crusades never even touched Turkey in terms of attacking them. That means they hit other countries.... Not Turkey, not the ottomans, therefore would have a little bit of a problem beating them....
I know you were right about the first crusades, geographycally and historycally speaking. My point, however was that the crusades involved huge expenses that were never justified by long-term achievements. And the latter crusades did fight the turks with ridiculous results.
Quote:
Ah so you don't understand diplomacy. Let me explain, coutries ally to you for as long as they can get more out of that alliance than they can without it. You failed to be valuable to them see?
We were much more valuable to the Polish than they were to us. I'm sure that they wouldn't have wanted tha turks getting close to their borders so they needed us to keep them at bay, while we needed to concentrate our war efforts on the incoming turks. Those were the main reason for peace. Unfortunately John Albert's (king of Poland) foolish attempt to invade made us realize that they could be as dangerous as the turks.
Quote:
I assumed you meant direct wars (not battles) against the persians, of which there were 3 main ones that I mentioned. Of those, 2/3 were fought over greece itself, not the colonies, and the 3rd was fought over persia (amongst other places) and not designed to be over her colonies. Which destroys the notion that the Greek-Persian wars were about colonies does it not? Which was your assertion was it not?
My assertion was that the Greeks only had to fight the Persians twice on their own ground because they had the posibilty to take the war elsewhere (colonies, Persian ground) while we didn't have that option.
Quote:
I believe Alexander was alive in something like 320 odd BC* and his Generals descendents ruled Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor for a very long time. As a hint, the Selucid greeks, the Egyptians and Whomever ran Greece, were all if I recall* were still in power when the romans eventually took over those areas, which is something like (at least) 200 years later. Define "couple of years" please
My reasonings regarding this aspect are mentioned above, next to Lith's accurate data.
Quote:
(Ofcourse, Persia did fall apart after that)
Oh yes, how unimportant
I never said it was unimportant, I'm sorry if that was how it sounded. In fact, it was the only long-term goal that Alexander achieved (eliminating the Persian threat)
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2003 01:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The arrows did there bit but were not the deciding factor
The test was done using the special designed arrows for piercing metal but even these did not manage it. I mean a hell of a lot of arrows were fired causing chaos but not the thousands of kills
Errr that's kinda the point, the confusion allowed the peasants in to assault the french with ease and capture them in their thousands, the prisoners were later killed in their thousands.
i just said that cos it was coming up for 2 oclock and had to get up for 9.
The arrows were crap end of discussion and channel 5 rulez
By the way did u watch this tv show tonight using total war "rome" computer game? The people were so crap but its quite good.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 12, 2003 01:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Like I said before ... shallow
It was an attempt at humour had you noticed you would not have considered it serious...
Quote:
No, it wouldn't tell that. Alexander knew perfectly that he was capable of doing that, because his army was better trained (and I reffer mainly to the phalanx) and, in time of need he would be able to bring reinforcements
Uhmmm no, look at the facts, Alexander crossed the dardanelles with a force no more than probably 1/5th of that Darius could probably (and more than once did) field. The persians were rich, behind excellent fortified cities (many of which Alexander sacked) had excellent forces that were battle hardened, were well lead (darius was unlucky, not useless), fighting on their own ground with good terrain to defend and so on. Alexander's army were no better or worse than Darius' overall (don't care WHAT some people say, the persian army was not inferior, just using a different style to the greeks which had worked against other armies quite well), who included Greek Hoplite mercenaries at grancius. Alexander and his excellent subordinates overcame these problems with brilliant talent, bravery and daring.
Quote:
And at Arnhem bridge, the 1000 were forced to hold out otherwise they would've died and the enemy would have gained an important strategical advantage. They had no other choice.
Oh so wrong. Firstly they could have surrendered, it's a myth that the SS killed every enemy that surrendered to them, they did NOT have to fight on until out of ammunition. Secondly why is exploiting an "important strategic advantage" a "no other choice" situation? They were supposed to be there, and they were doing their job, and doing it damn well considering. They could also have withdrawn from the bridge early in the battle when it was clear the rest of the force would not reach them, in small groups.
Quote:
What I am trying to say is that war is not just a game of chance. It would have taken a very irresponsable and hot-headed leader (on our part) to order a campaign against the turks when the chances were so slim and the situation didn't call for it.
History is littered with generals who took a great risk that paid off and won their army/country a lasting and great victory (Nelson at Trafalgar, Alexander's whole campaign, Waterloo and so on). Those that do not even try cannot then complain when the enemy do not fear them in the slightest.
Quote:
You don't play with your subject's lives like that. More than that, Poland and Hungary could not have been given a better chance to invade
Instead you subject them to centuries of invasion. Try Alexander's method, before invading persia who also subjugated some rather nasty neighbours, by giving them a beating so they wouldn't try anything whislt he invaded Persia.
Quote:
Not entirely. The newly arisen states were not under the same rule (and their level of independence grew with time)
They were under greek rulers or descendants of greek rulers, just because Alexander himself did not live to rule the country, or because the Greeks living in the Mainland did not rule those areas does not mean they were not under greek rule or influence.
Quote:
So, in the end, Alexander's campaign was a failure, as it didn't lead to the birth of a grand empire as Alexander would've wanted it. (That's the efficiency I was talking about)
Very wrong, Alexander may have aimed to overrun the entire empire and so on, but I would imagine his greek allies would have been happy enough teaching Persia a thorough lesson she'd never forget. That was achieved. Had Alexander lived his aims probably would have been achieved. Even so, the greek aims were a sucess, even if Alexander's were not.
Quote:
Like you said, Byzantium doesn't count as Greece or Macedonia because of the roman influence
Greek influence continued right through those countries, langauge, art, religion, literature, culture, politics, all aspects of Roman life were influenced from very early on by the greeks. In the east greek influence stretched well beyond the romans overtaking the area as the romans probably couldn't have ran the east without greek/semi greek people to assist them.
Quote:
I would like to remind you that Macedonia, which had previously been a turkish PROVINCE (that one's for Hudson)
And? Why do I need reminding of this? Can you see a post where I said different?
Quote:
My point, however was that the crusades involved huge expenses that were never justified by long-term achievements. And the latter crusades did fight the turks with ridiculous results.
The crusades did some of their aims, they united europe at times, they produced short term gains to the church and those states involved etc. They never were about long term achievements. Of course the latter had ridiculous results, by then the crusades had lost their zealous nature, no-one cared by then enough.
Quote:
My assertion was that the Greeks only had to fight the Persians twice on their own ground because they had the posibilty to take the war elsewhere (colonies, Persian ground) while we didn't have that option.Quote:
But the whole point is they DIDN'T take the war elsewhere though did they? They never used that option as both sides preferred war on the state itself, and both sides realised to stop the other, conquering them, or thrashing them soundly on their own land was the only way to garuntee results in the long term.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
BoogieMan
Famous Hero
The John of Spades
|
|
posted September 12, 2003 12:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They were supposed to be there, and they were doing their job, and doing it damn well considering. They could also have withdrawn from the bridge early in the battle when it was clear the rest of the force would not reach them, in small groups.
That's exactly my point, it was their duty and they honored it! Just like our leaders' duty was to protect the land, not do the impossible and conquer Istanbul
Quote:
History is littered with generals who took a great risk that paid off and won their army/country a lasting and great victory (Nelson at Trafalgar, Alexander's whole campaign, Waterloo and so on). Those that do not even try cannot then complain when the enemy do not fear them in the slightest.
History is also littered with generals who lost all they have previously achieved due to their ambition and their hunger for glory (Napoleon and Hitler trying to conquer Russia, Alexander + India + his sickness)
Quote:
Instead you subject them to centuries of invasion.
Attempts of invasion, all failed.
Quote:
They were under greek rulers or descendants of greek rulers, just because Alexander himself did not live to rule the country, or because the Greeks living in the Mainland did not rule those areas does not mean they were not under greek rule or influence.
Still, they did not act as one, the Asian/African states were not under direct control from Mainland Greeks, and like I said, by the time the Romans conquered them they were fairly independent.
Quote:
the greek aims were a sucess, even if Alexander's were not.
That's what I said (at the bottom of my previous post).
Quote:
Greek influence continued right through those countries, langauge, art, religion, literature, culture, politics, all aspects of Roman life were influenced from very early on by the greeks. In the east greek influence stretched well beyond the romans overtaking the area as the romans probably couldn't have ran the east without greek/semi greek people to assist them.
I never said that Bysantium knew only roman influence, I said that it cannot be considered one with Greece or with Macedonia.
Quote:
ME: I would like to remind you that Macedonia, which had previously been a turkish PROVINCE (that one's for Hudson)
HUDSON: And? Why do I need reminding of this? Can you see a post where I said different?
You didn't, but this takes us back to page 1 of this thread where you undermined my people's merits of holding off the turks for 500 yesrs without being turned into a turkish province (unlike Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Serbia). This is basically where our discussion began.
Quote:
But the whole point is they DIDN'T take the war elsewhere though did they? They never used that option as both sides preferred war on the state itself, and both sides realised to stop the other, conquering them, or thrashing them soundly on their own land was the only way to garuntee results in the long term.
You are basically argueing with yourself here. After seeing 2 attempts of invasion from the Persians, the Greeks (well, Alexander) invaded Persia themselves, thus taking the war on Persian ground. That's what YOU said the Romanians should have done with the Turks, take the war to their ground (to teach them a "thorough lesson" and so on, and so on), although we were in no position to do so.
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.
|
| |
|
|
