Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by bugs View Post
    That is a sick joke, you know that.
    we live in a sick world. look what CIA did with Ugoslavia.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by russian1983 View Post
      we live in a sick world. look what CIA did with Ugoslavia.
      and what exactly was that?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
        Oh, but he wasn't. He was "dictator for life". A cucumberg is not a banana.
        I have some cucumbergs growing in my garden.

        You're right, definately not a banana. The first emperor of Rome was Augustus born BC and died AC. He came after Caesar and actually had more power.
        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

        Comment


        • Originally posted by russian1983 View Post
          we live in a sick world. look what CIA did with Ugoslavia.

          Russian, please dispense with innuendos, especially when they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. And if you must make references to support your view that the world is sick, please explain what you mean and provide details.

          --jad
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • Originally posted by russian1983 View Post
            Ceaser brought on the destruction of the republic. in fact he was first real emperor. he took over power and ruled as a dictator; thats really no different since he proclaimed himself the emperor. Why else would you take over rome if not for the power over entire empire. emperor is a dictator; senate is just an advisory unit.

            The title Emperor (as we know it) did not exist in the days of Caesar. Caesar wanted to proclaim himself King not emperor. The creation of the non-monarchial title 'emperor' was Octavian doing and was the consequence of the Caesar assassination and the public hatred of kings. Certainly, the good Caeasar was an absolute dicator in all but name.

            The two words King and Emperor, with their different meanings (emperor > king) were really etablished in Europe after the 300 AD, when emperor meant Rome, and king meant some low-level Barbarian chieftain. Although, during Roman times, king also meant a head of state that was a full monarchy as oppose to Rome's quasi-republican system.

            That is in Europe. Elsewhere, in China, Caliphate and Mongole Empire, there was as well a emperor-king-type of relationship.

            China: emperor, vassal-king
            Caliphate: caliph, sultan
            Mongolia: Khakan, khan
            Turkish: sultan, malik

            In persia, both titles remained the same and never split; shah.

            Comment


            • Zraver,

              I am hoping that this isn't too off topic, but it can and has been argued that stirrups are not essential to shock cavalry tactics. High saddles can compensate for part of the instability of the horse and absorb some reaction, hence the Persians, Macedonians and Germans were able to charge their enemies. Stirrups were very useful and multiplied shock power, but evidence suggests that you can do it without them.
              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

              Comment


              • Actually, Triple C, I don't believe the Macedonians had saddles. Some of the eastern groups like the Scythians had them, and the Romans were the first Europeans to adopt saddles for military use in the 1st century BC, as their own cavalry wasn't particularly effective, so they needed any advantage they could get. In Alexander's time, all the rider would've had was a fur or layers of felt draped over the animal's back and sides.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                  Zraver,

                  I am hoping that this isn't too off topic, but it can and has been argued that stirrups are not essential to shock cavalry tactics. High saddles can compensate for part of the instability of the horse and absorb some reaction, hence the Persians, Macedonians and Germans were able to charge their enemies. Stirrups were very useful and multiplied shock power, but evidence suggests that you can do it without them.

                  pre-stirrup lancers tended to use an overhand thrust and short throw using the horses momentum to add force. rather than an under-armed carry possibly with a cradle if the lance was big enough to use the horses mass to add force. The Companion's style probably looked a lot like the Commanche of the wild west but more organized and heavily armored.

                  Modern artist show the companions using a long lance underhanded but a period carving of a Persian Cataphract shows an overhand use. Persian Cataphracts were inspired by the Macedonian/Hellenic cavalry.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armed-horseman.JPG
                  Last edited by zraver; 23 Jun 09,, 19:54.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    pre-stirrup lancers tended to use an overhand thrust and short throw using the horses momentum to add force. rather than an under-armed carry possibly with a cradle if the lance was big enough to use the horses mass to add force. The Companion's style probably looked a lot like the Commanche of the wild west but more organized and heavily armored.

                    What is interesting is that some units were designated as sarisophoroi(pike bearers) which suggest they were using a weapon longer than the standard cavalry lance.So there are exceptions to the rule.The lack of both saddles and stirrups can at least partially be compensated by training.Riding was actually used as fitness exercise for leg muscles.From my experience-it's a lot more difficult,but not impossible.Experienced horsemen actually controlled the horse with their legs(at least to a degree) liberating their hands for fighting.
                    The difficulty of training horsemen was one reason why cavalry was somewhat less numerous in ancient times.
                    Those who know don't speak
                    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                      What is interesting is that some units were designated as sarisophoroi(pike bearers) which suggest they were using a weapon longer than the standard cavalry lance.
                      That is interesting.




                      So there are exceptions to the rule.The lack of both saddles and stirrups can at least partially be compensated by training.Riding was actually used as fitness exercise for leg muscles.From my experience-it's a lot more difficult,but not impossible.Experienced horsemen actually controlled the horse with their legs(at least to a degree) liberating their hands for fighting.
                      The difficulty of training horsemen was one reason why cavalry was somewhat less numerous in ancient times.
                      Most good riders should be able to do this. You can't shoot a bow one handed for example.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                        Zraver,

                        I am hoping that this isn't too off topic, but it can and has been argued that stirrups are not essential to shock cavalry tactics. High saddles can compensate for part of the instability of the horse and absorb some reaction, hence the Persians, Macedonians and Germans were able to charge their enemies. Stirrups were very useful and multiplied shock power, but evidence suggests that you can do it without them.
                        The plains indians in the US were incredible warriors on horseback, and they didn't use saddles or stirrups. I wonder where they would fit in within the overall heirarchy of cavalry, or if they can even be called cavalry.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          The plains indians in the US were incredible warriors on horseback, and they didn't use saddles or stirrups. I wonder where they would fit in within the overall heirarchy of cavalry, or if they can even be called cavalry.
                          They would probably be most like unarmored cummans or other steppe people pre-stirrup. A mix of bow and light lancers each armed with the functional equivalent of an axe (stone/flint/obsidian) or mace (war club/coup stick)

                          Light cavalry roles would fit them just fine.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X