221248 Bullies, 4305 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 44
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12 345 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Lebell is offline
    Lebell's Avatar

    Just waiting for the paperboy.

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Lolland
    Posts
    12,500

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 3:29pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabetuno View Post

    Ancient warfare does not equal a fight, either then nor now. I can't list all the reasons, because there are too many, but some of them are:


    • Modern society revolving around laws and technology which enforces said laws.


    • GUNS! :qright1:
    • Warfare is to the death, fights are most likely not.
    yes and no.
    what made several greek citystates great, (and later after marius' reforms the roman republic) was the relatively new concept of teamwork.
    phalanxes could render cavalery useless in a direct head on assault, and for the first time in recorded history army units were closely and orderly working together.

    despite what popular movies would make you believe there werent that many casualties during the fighting.
    most people died in two significant timeframes: the moment their line broke (enemie sends in cavalery to finish fleeing oponents off) and in the weeks/months after due to infections of wounds.

    an average medieval battle would take 20 to a 100 fatal casualties.
  2. Lebell is offline
    Lebell's Avatar

    Just waiting for the paperboy.

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Lolland
    Posts
    12,500

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 3:34pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    here's some footage taken by the most excellentseries ' Rome' which is known for its accuracy (small army of historians advising etc):

    YouTube- Caesar's Conquest Of The Gauls.
  3. P Marsh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    501

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 3:51pm


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    If you look at the Romans, only the heavy infantry used phalanx tactics. The initial wave of light infantry would charge in first before the heavy infantry reached the front line and the lights would use slings and other easy hit and run weapons before retreating back behind the phalanx.

    Individual combat depends on what kind of warfare you're involved in. Charioteers and cavalry men would often jump from their horses and engage in standard combat if needed so individual training would be valuable depending on your position.
  4. excludedmiddle is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    289

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 3:55pm


     Style: BJJ (blue), Kempo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The Spartans are an exception. They practiced their pankration to the death. Of course, this meant the death of their slaves (the helots) who they were practicing on and who probably had no training at all. They must have gotten pretty good at it, though, since they were barred from competing in Olympic Pankration.
  5. Uglybugly is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    678

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 4:16pm


     Style: judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    They trained soldiers like they did in the old days because it was the best way to train a man to function in a military unit. to train a fighter in the same way is not automatically going to produce fight ability. A fighter needs well.. live sparring and some good tricks that would work against whoever he is fighting.
  6. Moenstah is online now

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    728

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 4:19pm


     Style: 空手 / &#2147

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think the writer of the article was just talking out of his ass. Take this for example:

    In either case, it is important to note that Philostartos’ opinions were based on athletes of the past, and not on the current state of athletics as he witnessed them. In fact, he felt that the athletes of his day were inferior to the athletes of the past.
    This is what they call a 'topos' (commonplace) in literature. Not completely unsurprising, because this particular author lived in the 2nd century AD! Long after the heyday of Greek culture and, especially as a sophist, always willing to please his Roman masters, who considered their contemporary Greeks as weak, decadent and 'Graeculi' instead of Hellenes.

    According to Philostartos, athletes of his day spent too much time eating, drinking and fornicating instead of actually training. In other words combat sports were more of a hobby than a way of life.
    And so the author insidiously inserts his own opinion...

    Come on, move on already. This article is written too much from a certain TMA point of view, not from a historical one.
  7. Moenstah is online now

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    728

    Posted On:
    3/26/2010 4:28pm


     Style: 空手 / &#2147

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebell View Post

    an average medieval battle would take 20 to a 100 fatal casualties.
    I agree with the majority of your post, but here you forget to mention that most medieval battles were of quite a small scale (as a thumb of rule: three figures max. both parties combined)

    Btw, Gabetuno, just like we in modern day societies have rules and laws about warfare, so did the Greeks.
  8. Lebell is offline
    Lebell's Avatar

    Just waiting for the paperboy.

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Lolland
    Posts
    12,500

    Posted On:
    3/27/2010 7:35am

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Moenstah View Post
    I agree with the majority of your post, but here you forget to mention that most medieval battles were of quite a small scale (as a thumb of rule: three figures max. both parties combined)
    where you there or something?
    oh you werent?
    i rest my case.

    Btw, Gabetuno, just like we in modern day societies have rules and laws about warfare, so did the Greeks.
    The medieval hostage-ransom rules were hilarious.
    No wonder the knights could be brave, they were usually taken alive for money.
    I imagine whole fleets of mailpigeons flying across mediaval Europe carrying notes that say: ' SHOW ME THE MONEYYYY!'
  9. TheMightyMcClaw is offline
    TheMightyMcClaw's Avatar

    MADE OF STEEL!

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    3,424

    Posted On:
    3/27/2010 8:02am

    supporting member
     Style: MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by capt. moroni View Post
    The phalanx.

    The bravest were those who did not break from the ranks to fight one-on-one. If a hoplite left his place, he directly endangered the man to his left by depriving him of his own shield. Unit cohesion was paramount.

    Individual training did help the individual hoplite, but not the phalanx.

    Even with the deterioration of the unwritten hoplite warfare code that came with the Athenians' radical democracy, which shifted power away from the oligarchical base of small farmers towards the unlanded trireme rowers in the city, and continued through the Peloponnesian War (Plato's time), the phalanx was still the core of a Greek army.

    Sports training is 1v1. That is almost worthless to the phalanx.
    It's interesting to compare those armies of old who fought in formation (such as the above mentioned hoplites and their phalanx, or the Romans) and those who did not (ie, the Celts).
    I think you all know how that went down.
  10. MrGalt is offline
    MrGalt's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Back in Tennessee...sigh
    Posts
    941

    Posted On:
    3/27/2010 8:17am


     Style: Seidokaikan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I loved this one:

    “...the one life was directly opposite to the other; the requisite state of body, the ways of living, and the exercises all different: the professed athlete sleeping much and feeding plentifully, punctually regular in his set times of exercise and rest, and apt to spoil all by every little excess or breach of his usual method; whereas the soldier ought to train himself in every variety of change and irregularity, and, above all, to bring himself to endure hunger and loss of sleep without difficulty.”

    Now, let's bring one more quote into it from the same site, regarding the training this guy promotes:

    "Classes are currently held on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:00-9:00 PM"

    You read that right, folks. Four hours a week. No wonder he thinks he's so much deadlier than some sport martial artist with his 6 a.m. roadwork, weight training, balanced diet, regular sleeping schedule, and all that nonsense. Mr. Moro never knows when 7 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays might come. That's why he must stand ready at all times with the deadliest of the deadly.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12 345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.