• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

What is your favorite part of history

NIGHTBRINGER said:
Because Attila was a bad ass. Cruel by today's standard's (and even by the standards back then), but effective. A group of barbarians striking fear in the greatest power of the time.
Click to expand...
But by that time the Roman Empire was split in twain and thus divided had varying levels of control
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
True... but they were still the powerhouse of the world. Weaker than their earlier selves, but still should have been unparalleled.
Click to expand...
Not particularly. Both sides of the empire retained a modicum of the earlier legions organization. Field armies had become much less threatening however.

Furthermore, both eastern anand Western empires were increasingly diluted by Germanic mercenaries and commanders, which further compromised training and effectiveness. This also caused a weakening on tbe northern border because they had to deal with barbarian immigration/incursions

Honestly in my estimation Bellisarius and his African expedition was the last true example of a projection of Roman power.
 
Lord-Marcus said:
Not particularly. Both sides of the empire retained a modicum of the earlier legions organization. Field armies had become much less threatening however.

Furthermore, both eastern anand Western empires were increasingly diluted by Germanic mercenaries and commanders, which further compromised training and effectiveness. This also caused a weakening on tbe northern border because they had to deal with barbarian immigration/incursions

Honestly in my estimation Bellisarius and his African expedition was the last true example of a projection of Roman power.
Click to expand...
But Attila and the Huns were still definitely the underdogs. It was still an amazing feat to stand up against Rome.
 
g447.jpg
 
1350-ish, Black Plague and 100 Years War. Mostly, I love it because it's the transition period between the knights dominating the battlefield and the rise of the well trained commoner.
 
"favourite time" is difficult...
A time in which I would like to live? I honestly think right now is better than any point in the past. Far from perfect but let's face it: Earlier times were crap in SO many regards we cannot even imagine.


I used to be a fan of ancient Greece and Egypt, and they are still interesting to me, but these days I am more into the times that we know more about. There is a whole lot of HUGE holes in our knowledge about ancient times. In medieval times that gets a lot better.


Padre said:
1350-ish, Black Plague and 100 Years War. Mostly, I love it because it's the transition period between the knights dominating the battlefield and the rise of the well trained commoner.
Click to expand...

An interesting time indeed!
I tend to say early 15th century is my "favourite" for that very reason. Another reason why that new PC game "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" is exactly right for me btw., being set in 1403.


I also kinda "like" ~400 AD. Stilll a bit of Romans around, and already quite well into the the big Migration Period (~350AD - ~ 600AD) with all the cultural clashes and technological adaption to different kinds of warfare.


...and then the Viking times (~800AD - ~1000AD). Also covering the Moors for example.


....Argh I cannot decide.
 
Aginor said:
"favourite time" is difficult...
A time in which I would like to live? I honestly think right now is better than any point in the past. Far from perfect but let's face it: Earlier times were crap in SO many regards we cannot even imagine.


I used to be a fan of ancient Greece and Egypt, and they are still interesting to me, but these days I am more into the times that we know more about. There is a whole lot of HUGE holes in our knowledge about ancient times. In medieval times that gets a lot better.




An interesting time indeed!
I tend to say early 15th century is my "favourite" for that very reason. Another reason why that new PC game "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" is exactly right for me btw., being set in 1403.


I also kinda "like" ~400 AD. Stilll a bit of Romans around, and already quite well into the the big Migration Period (~350AD - ~ 600AD) with all the cultural clashes and technological adaption to different kinds of warfare.


...and then the Viking times (~800AD - ~1000AD). Also covering the Moors for example.


....Argh I cannot decide.
Click to expand...
I agree our knowledge of the ancient world is incomplete. We do know quite a bit though
 
Lord-Marcus said:
I agree our knowledge of the ancient world is incomplete. We do know quite a bit though
Click to expand...
Well, that's the main problem: we don't know how much we know (or not) and that has led to a huge number of false (or maybe false, for some it is hard to tell) assumptions about how the society worked.
 
Aginor said:
Well, that's the main problem: we don't know how much we know (or not) and that has led to a huge number of false (or maybe false, for some it is hard to tell) assumptions about how the society worked.
Click to expand...
Most of what we know comes from philosophers as well. This compounds the issue
 
Lord-Marcus said:
Most of what we know comes from philosophers as well. This compounds the issue
Click to expand...

Definitely!

Like for example a colleague and I were talking about big battles in history. Turns out that estimates of army sizes or numbers of casualties in some historical battles vary immensely (like in: one source says 50,000 and another says one million).
Most prominent examples are the Battle of Jerusalem, Thermopylae and the Battle of Marathon.
Half the stories about them are just legends. And often our sources are sepulchral texts (like paintings in Egyptian tombs) and those were very prone to shamelessly exaggerate.
 
Aginor said:
Definitely!

Like for example a colleague and I were talking about big battles in history. Turns out that estimates of army sizes or numbers of casualties in some historical battles vary immensely (like in: one source says 50,000 and another says one million).
Most prominent examples are the Battle of Jerusalem, Thermopylae and the Battle of Marathon.
Half the stories about them are just legends. And often our sources are sepulchral texts (like paintings in Egyptian tombs) and those were very prone to shamelessly exaggerate.
Click to expand...
Which battle of Jerusalem?

Yes troops counts outside of those of the enlightenment (Louis XIV and upwards) are horribly embellished for dramatic effect.

One of my professors once posed the question "I wonder what happened to the dead at the battle of drepana?"

He went on to sarcastically posit a theory where all the bodies eventually came together because of the tide and formed a sort of "corpse raft" until carrion took care of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top