|
Post by ~MangO_O~ on Apr 23, 2009 12:48:01 GMT -5
I speculate that they made the Spartan win so that they could have at least one White winning warrior haha
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 23, 2009 16:23:04 GMT -5
Yeah, was kinda thinking that really, ninjas aren't fair fighters, and would anything necessary to kill their targets. They are known for their patience and innovation as well. Oh well.
There was a historical Spartan saying (or another Greek - can't remember) I remember but forgot specifically who said it, but it goes something like "As an individual, a Spartan is the equal of any men, but fighting together as one, Spartans surpass all other men". However I guess people still think Spartans were supermen as individuals since the movie 300 came out.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 23, 2009 20:18:43 GMT -5
The 300 did showcase the group fighting tactics, but there is a mythology that they trained from birth to fight (unlike, say, warriors of any other culture). Surely you must hit diminishing returns after some point, and training an extra X years can only be worth so many additional warriors.
The poison thing reminds of Jerry Seinfeld's old joke: "If the Black Box is indestructible, why don't they make the whole plane out of the black box?"
^"I speculate that they made the Spartan win so that they could have at least one White winning warrior haha "
The conversation threads on the website veered towards racism at times, but many seemed concerned that the non-white warriors were allowed to win for political correctness. I guess that is the same thinking that led to underestimation of the Mongols and later the Japanese and Vietnamese. There is no doubt that Europe was at the forefront of military technology throughout most of history, or that on average some Europeans were bigger than some non-Europeans (I think people often make false imputations based on current body size as well though) but we shouldn't forget that Europeans never had a major advantage over non-europeans until the age of firearms - without them, I doubt we would have seen colonialism in its historical form.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 24, 2009 7:46:01 GMT -5
Any warrior culture not just the Spartans are trained from birth to fight. The Spartans were just so completely unique to the rest of the Greeks their prowess became much exaggerated, though not without reason. Spartans were the best warriors of Greece until the Macedonians, where both armies fought as organised regiments in phalanxes instead of individuals. Actually the Europeans were definitely not at the forefront of military technology throughout most of history. The Chinese was definitely the oldest and most advanced throughout human human history, as for Europe, Rome was inspired greatly from Egyptian, Greek, Persian and Babylonian powers in ancient times - hell they even modeled their gladius after the "Barbarian" Dacians near Carpathia. As for firearms, Chinese invented gunpowder, Turanians went "It goes boom" - and made bombs with it, bringing it to Europe, the Europeans then designed the firearm. As for the first ironclad warship as well - it was first invented in Korea before the West which won against Japanese Shogun Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea. As for the idea that some Europeans were bigger on average then some non-Europeans, all Western historians agree that in European history, they were actually quite small on average. This is from archaelogical evidence as well as historical armors - hard to deny such facts. During the Napolean era, Napolean recorded the average stature of all men conscripted into his army (a high percentage of the population), which is the main trigger for the conclusion that Europeans were quite small historically. BTW Europeans did have a strong advantage before, though the firearm was the kicker true. Heard of the... Roman empire? Outnumbered Greek phalanxes vs Persian troops? One on one combat though, hell that's hard. I'll just go with the Norse since I'm married to a half one
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 24, 2009 15:19:22 GMT -5
^The Chinese was definitely the oldest and most advanced throughout human human history, as for Europe, Rome was inspired greatly from Egyptian, Greek, Persian and Babylonian powers in ancient times Europe was a bunch of disorganized Barbarians for the most part until after the Roman Empire. I guess I had in mind the period beginning with the Roman Empire and afterwards (obviously the early great civilizations had their own innovations - chariots, first developing bronze and then iron weapons, etc.) Especially the middle-ages. I think European medieval, pre-firearm technology developed to a higher level than the Americas, Asia, Africa, and arguably the Middle-East. Plate armor, pikemen, knights (with their stirrups, spurs, and underarm lances), and longbow formations were probably the apex of pre-firearm technology, and while they existed in various forms throughout the world, a lot of the key innovations were made in Europe (military tech was probably one of the only areas where they kept making progress in europe during the dark ages and medieval times). The Europeans didn't have much in the way of organization - China would have been hard for them to conquer just because of the size of the empires - but I don't think China faced enough competition to progress militarily (or rather, they faced only a particular type of competition - skirmishes with nomadic horsemen - along the borders). Having a bunch of smaller countries, constantly at war, gave them a slight edge in technology, though certainly not in administrative capabilities or the ability to field armies as large as those of the Orient. The question of why Europeans gained such an advantage with firearms, even though the Arabs, Persians, and Chinese had all the technology (and had developed weapons using gunpowder), is one for the historians, but I think the extent of military competition in Europe probably helped. Of course, in the end the pen is mightier than the sword, and you could argue it is Guttenberg's printing press and not the development of corning for gunpowder that made the difference. Jared Diamond called his book "Guns, Germs and Steel" but I think you can make a case for the printing press too. ^Napolean recorded the average stature of all men conscripted into his army I wonder if he was obsessed with height?
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 24, 2009 15:43:20 GMT -5
Europe was a bunch of disorganized Barbarians for the most part until after the Roman Empire. I guess I had in mind the period beginning with the Roman Empire and afterwards (obviously the early great civilizations had their own innovations - chariots, first developing bronze and then iron weapons, etc.) I think we are undermining pre-Roman Europa. To be honest, I appreciate it much more then pose-Roman Europa, "barbarian" is just a title given to us by enemies who know how to use the pen instead of the sword. Barbarian is one title that my people shared with pre-Roman Europeans, and one who calls another culture a barbarian, is just simply born of ignorance. Plate armor was excellent most definitely, I'll have to agree with that, though it has some serious weaknesses in which European powers exploited over the centuries - which brought the age of the knight to an end. Pikemen have been in use by Middle-Eastern, Civilised African, and Asian cultures as well as Europe, so I can't say it's their achievement. Stirrups, lancers, and cavalry power however, it's DEFINITELY not from the West. There are three main contendants for the invention of the stirrup - the Nomadic Eurasian tribes, the Chinese, or the once nomadic Persians. All three have their claims, Eurasia is leading by far though but China is still fighting for the claim. Longbow power is also over-rated at a mere 120lb draw weight and less range then the greatest bows in history - the Hun/Turk/Mongol composite bow with 150-200lb draw weight and range 200-300 yards surpassing the longbow. As for the Chinese, their weakness is not their lack of exposure to conflict. It's a combination of internal disunity, utter corruption, and lack of a warrior culture that could withstand nomadic conquest which resulted in them being invaded by nomads at every turn (first Mongols then Manchus, and now still the PRC is currently run by Manchu descendants - which is something that is causing a lot of racism against mixed-Mongol/Chinese people - they are considered demons themselves, unfortunately my daughter happens to fit into this category). Military/political/economic competition most definitely, as well as scientific racism to justify their genocide of non-European cultures (replacing the past religious Christian racism of "Righteous" vs "Infidel"), definitely. Agreed, it's a fact. Pen is definitely mightier then the sword. Mongols wrote one book, our enemies wrote 10,000+ Yes I've always wondered what would strike him to insist on such a survey, nonetheless no matter his reasons he seems to have given historians one of the only unquestionable statistical conclusions of Europeans prior to modern times. It's rather interesting the response from modern Europeans however, it's always like "WHAT?! We were that puny?" hehe, kinda cute.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 24, 2009 20:03:55 GMT -5
No offense intended with the Barbarian comment. I just meant that they were never able to organize an empire on the scale of the Romans or the middle-eastern civilizations of the time. Perhaps I should have emphasized the "disorganized" part. I'm not trying to make a value judgment - the so-called Barbarians did just fine without some of the slavery and other forms of exploitation that the "great" empires like Rome, Greece, and Egypt required. And perhaps they were less Xenophobic and racist, which gave them no reason to amass armies to conquer other people in an organized, systematic fashion (though I'm not sure you could say that of the Vikings). ^Plate armor was excellent most definitely, I'll have to agree with that, though it has some serious weaknesses For example, French knights getting decimated by British Longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt. Try closing all that distance across a muddy field after your horse gets taken out by a hail of arrows. ^Pikemen have been in use by Middle-Eastern, Civilised African, and Asian cultures as well as Europe, so I can't say it's their achievement. That's fair. I think it was the Macedonians who "invented" the pike in its modern form, though it's not clear when a spear becomes a pike (I guess when you lengthen it for use against mounted troops using particular formations?) ^Stirrups, lancers, and cavalry power however, it's DEFINITELY not from the West. Stirrups were invented by the Mongols or chinese, that's right. But spurs were a Norman invention, and the Europeans did improve the saddle design for their heavy cavalry - it's not clear to me, as a non horse-rider, whether the "cantled saddle" design would help a horse archer - it seems the main purpose was to hold the lance underarm and give it support so you could charge at full speed, something that gave a big edge over Cataphracts and previous cavalry troops. Obviously I'm not going to win a debate with a Mongol over who were the supreme cavalry troops of all time, or which was the greatest innovation! [Apparently there is still a big debate among European historians about whether the Feudal system arose BECAUSE of the importation of the stirrup from nomadic Asians. So win one for the Asians in terms of what was the most "important" military innovation of the middle-ages.] ^Longbow power is also over-rated at a mere 120lb draw weight and less range then the greatest bows in history - the Hun/Turk/Mongol composite bow with 150-200lb draw weight and range 200-300 yards surpassing the longbow. The whole point of the longbow is not the power per se. European bows were cheaper and quicker to make, and more durable in poor weather conditions. They were deployed based on specific tactics that required large numbers of archers. The composite bow was a great invention, and particularly useful for horse archery, but they are not clearly superior for all purposes (for some Geekery check this out www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/kobe97.pdf)Maybe they'll test out these bows on the Deadliest Warrior? It would be interesting to see a horseback archery demonstration and see how a Mongol composite bow compares to an English longbow in the laboratory (it might depend a lot on who's firing the bow of course). They really need to have horseback combat to do justice to the Mongols overall though. You are right that I am probably over-estimating European military technology in the earlier medieval period - after all, they did get owned in the Crusades, by the invading Mongols, etc. by non-European armies. It would have been interesting if the Mongols had pressed on past Hungary/Austria into Western Europe, had they not had leadership issues (with various Khans dying) - would they have rolled over Western Europe, or would the prevalence of more forests, castles have slowed them down? ^as well as scientific racism to justify their genocide of non-European cultures (replacing the past religious Christian racism of "Righteous" vs "Infidel"), definitely. I agree. Firearms only enabled European colonialism. They certainly didn't make it inevitable. On the other hand, competition between European powers probably did speed up the pace of colonialism once it started. Asians like the Japanese got into the game rather late. ^Mongols wrote one book, our enemies wrote 10,000+ I should know this, but what was the one Mongol book?
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Apr 24, 2009 21:50:47 GMT -5
Yeah this show sounds awfully similar to Animal Faceoff from Disvovery Channel. Except here you have different fighting style simulations rather than wild animals ripping each others to shreds. Overall, whether it's wild animal, ancient warrior, or even superhero fight simulations, it's all cool:)
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 24, 2009 22:04:15 GMT -5
The thing with the animals fighting is that intelligence and tactics matter less, so you might even be able to do a more accurate simulation of a fight. Although a lot depends on the environment, perhaps even more so than with human warriors. Even I could defeat a Great White Shark on land. The other thing with animals is their motivation to fight, rather than to just run away. Which reminds of the "Man versus Beast" show they had on Fox a few years ago. They had Carl Lewis come out and analyze the keys to victory for the human sprinter and the Zebra. The key for the Zebra: "Know you're in a race"
Another nice element of the Greatest Warrior is that the mock fights at the end are between actual humans, and aren't based on animation. I found that kind of annoying the few times I watched Animal Faceoff. On the plus side, they probably don't have the annoying trash talking between the biologists supporting each animal (or do they?)
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 25, 2009 7:50:40 GMT -5
;D No offense intended with the Barbarian comment. I just meant that they were never able to organize an empire on the scale of the Romans or the middle-eastern civilizations of the time. Perhaps I should have emphasized the "disorganized" part. I'm not trying to make a value judgment - the so-called Barbarians did just fine without some of the slavery and other forms of exploitation that the "great" empires like Rome, Greece, and Egypt required. And perhaps they were less Xenophobic and racist, which gave them no reason to amass armies to conquer other people in an organized, systematic fashion (though I'm not sure you could say that of the Vikings). Well that is true for the most case, but Celtic civilisation for example was actually very far-reaching and influential, stretching not just but northern Spain, British Isles, Ancient Dacia, and even all the way to Anatolia. They also had coinage, solid metalworking and architectural skills as well as a distinct culture. They were also quite friendly with Carthage at that time. As for the Vikings throughout history they didn't invade others due to xenophobia or racism but lack of resources. Their advantage comes from one of the finest vessels in world history - the longboat, which can not only sail on open water, (Norwegians reached Iceland for example), but is also small enough to sail through waterways and rivers. They could attack, rape, loot, and sail away before any armed resistance could be organised to respond. Furthermore they could attack almost anywhere due to their longboats. Heh yup, not to mention the effectiveness of blunt weighted weapons against plate armor. Main strength of a heavily armored knight in plate armor is when he's on horseback - as in heavy cavalry charges, weight counts!!! French losses to the English in history is rather quite embarrassing, since the French were richer, had more armor, had more troops, as well as having more knights. English however, always seemed to have fought more like an army while the French - a true feudal society, fought for personal glory. Battle of Crecy is also a shocker, with French knights trampling over their own crossbowmen just because some idiot yelled "Charge". ;D Well, the first known 'Phalanx-type' formation was recorded to be used by the Sumerians, but I have my doubts about its effectiveness compared to the Greek Phalanx. They just saw an very ancient engraving of men with spears and shields marching closely together. Spears/pikes have been in use by pretty much everyone in history, but I agree - no one used them as well as the Spartans or Macedonians. The Greek Phalanx is the ultimate and greatest invention ever when it comes to spear/pike warfare. Credited to the Spartans by most scholars, the formation allows the first 3 ranks of soldiers to fight at the same time, giving Greek armies a rough 3:1 advantage compared to other armies' infantry. Macedonians however, they definitely perfected this inventing the Sarissa, extending the long spear to a pike, which allowed 2 more extra ranks to thrust their spears (5 ranks in total). Combining such revolutionary infantry formations with powerful and precise cavalry charges, the Macedonians under Alexander rolled over Persia. Scottish armies, Swiss armies, all modelled their pikemen tactics after the Greeks and Macedonians. Many have already did such tests, the Mongol bow won with power and range. They fired the bows dismounted, - since no one does horse archery anymore either then stuntmen or re-enactment actors. You are right though that composite bows do have a weakness in poor weather. Well, castles or walls never stopped the Khans - though it did give Chingghis Khaan a hard time at first in China until Turks brought in the trebuchets from the Middle-East, forests never stopped the Khans either. Winter never stopped the Khans either - in fact the Khans always prefered to fight in winter! RAIN though - who knows lol BTW Hungary may have lost in the battle of Mohi, but Hungarian troops fought really, really good, King Bela rode through his ranks urging his men to honor and remember their fierce nomadic ancestors from the Uralic steppes and yes, on that battle, they fought fiercely like nomads. General Subuatai himself almost lost. Mongols never invaded for no reason however, all the conquests were instigated by enemies of Chingghis Khaan. The war against Hungary was declared due to Hungary's refusal to hand over the Cuman refugees (Turkic nomads fleeing westward). Mongols didn't start wars for no reason, but in war, they definitely make sure as hell it's finished Well, European colonialism via the Crusades got buttwhooped, but yes, their intention of colonialism was always there. Heh Japanese, sadly remembered as the ones who 'backstabbed all of Asia'. You know the weird thing about the axis powers both Germany and Japan, they were quite aggressive, but they did not assimilate or commit cultural genocide unlike Western colonial aggressors. Secret History of the Mongols
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 25, 2009 15:53:11 GMT -5
^As for the Vikings throughout history they didn't invade others due to xenophobia or racism but lack of resources.
Well, the idea that you can just take from others is not that much better - not the same as Nazism, but it might not be a coincidence that Wagner and other proto-Nazis were heavily influenced by and enamoured of Norse and Celtic mythology (since the Southern Europeans and Middle-Easterners who were the most influential for "Western civilization" were not blond haired and blue eyed enough for Hitler). I guess they were more like school yard bullies. It makes sense that given their relatively poor farming land, they had to loot and plunder, at least until their wood-working skills progressed beyond Longboats to encompass IKEA furniture.
Still, you make a valid point that a lot of the early war-like civilizations did not possess an ideology of racial supremacy per se, though it's not clear to me that "rape and plunder" for economic reasons is so much better.
^BTW Hungary may have lost in the battle of Mohi, but Hungarian troops fought really, really good, King Bela rode through his ranks urging his men to honor and remember their fierce nomadic ancestors from the Uralic steppes and yes, on that battle, they fought fiercely like nomads. General Subuatai himself almost lost.
Hungary might be the only reason there aren't Mongolian genes in there with ALL Western European populations.
^Mongols never invaded for no reason however, all the conquests were instigated by enemies of Chingghis Khaan. The war against Hungary was declared due to Hungary's refusal to hand over the Cuman refugees (Turkic nomads fleeing westward). Mongols didn't start wars for no reason, but in war, they definitely make sure as hell it's finished
Everyone claims some provocation for starting a war. Are you really saying the Mongols were not motivated by motives of territorial expansion, desire for riches and plunder, or proving their mettle and honor? That they conquered the largest land-based empire in the history of the world because at each step, the other side engaged in some provocation that merited the response?
^French losses to the English in history is rather quite embarrassing
The history of French warfare is quite embarrassing. Except for that brief period under Napoleon, they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory.
^You know the weird thing about the axis powers both Germany and Japan, they were quite aggressive, but they did not assimilate or commit cultural genocide unlike Western colonial aggressors.
I don't think the Germans had enough time to really prove it either way. Their colonial period lasted about 30 years, a pittance compared to England/France/Portugal/Spain/Holland. There certainly was a lot of British propaganda about the Germans being terrible colonial overlords, but I think a fair assessment would say that they were less brutal than the British, and that their empire was predominantly economic. I don't know as much about the Japanese, though their WWII empire was certainly as brutal as anything the Europeans did. My grandmother, who was in Singapore at the time, was forced to learn Japanese and work as a telephone operator - two of her brothers were killed (probably for some kind of resistance activities).
|
|
|
Post by penguinopolipitese on Apr 25, 2009 17:22:28 GMT -5
three words: samurai. versus. viking.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 26, 2009 6:33:49 GMT -5
Well, the idea that you can just take from others is not that much better - not the same as Nazism, but it might not be a coincidence that Wagner and other proto-Nazis were heavily influenced by and enamoured of Norse and Celtic mythology (since the Southern Europeans and Middle-Easterners who were the most influential for "Western civilization" were not blond haired and blue eyed enough for Hitler). I guess they were more like school yard bullies. It makes sense that given their relatively poor farming land, they had to loot and plunder, at least until their wood-working skills progressed beyond Longboats to encompass IKEA furniture. There are very minor influences in Norse or Celtic mythology that mirrors modern North-European racial ideas. The Romans/Southern "Civilisations" have been bullying northern "Barbarian" civilisations for thousands of years. Btw Vikings killed 10x more Northern-Europeans then South-Europeans, this is prior to forced Christianisation - which Norse kings violently imposed on their own people to gain favor politically with other Christian nations. In the dark ages, it's all about survival. Nomads could kill, rape, plunder each other repeatedly over a simple insult like poaching one single deer from their territory. They fought good, but despite unexpected losses to the Mongol forces, it was still sufficient to press the invasion - the kicker was the death of Batu Khan, which Mongol troops turned inwards within the Empire. I would say the Hungarians were the 2nd best Mongols had ever fought, 1st has to be the Mamluks, who are Kipchak Turks. Takes a nomad to defeat another nomad in those times. China: Jin Dynasty expeditions into Mongol soil, collecting slaves and turning tribes against each other in a goal to eventually subjicate the Nomads. Toghrul was turned against Temudjin for example, the Chinese called Toghrul "Wang Khan". Chinese have been an enemy of Nomads since ancient times. Kara-Khitai: Escaped Naiman leader Kushluk usurped the throne of the Kara-Khitai Khanate and declared war against Chingghis Khaan. When this war ended the Mongol Empire borded the Turkic Khwarezmian Dynasty of Persia. Persia: Chingghis Khaan by this time was quite on building up his empire, employing Chinese and Persian scholars, philosophers, architects, and engineers to build Karakorum. He sent emissaries to the Turkic Khwarezmian Shah to open trade. Instead, the Shah executed the Mongol emissaries sparking the war that open the door to Europe. Russia: Turkic nomads, the Cumans who were on the run from the Mongol Empire warned the Russian principality of the threat to the East, Russian princes answered their call but were defeated by a reconnaise force lead by Subuatai. Mongols did not return until 15 years later with a full invasion force. Hungary: Similar to Russia, it seems the Cumans really got Europe into a lot of trouble more then once. Lovers not fighters There is not a simple rule that says if a nation was involved in colonisation - that they are like England, France, and Spain who committed genocide while expanding and put up racial "human zoos". Portugal and Holland unlike the other colonists for example - generally did not. Japan was visited by the Dutch and the Portuguese first for example, Christianity entered Japan as well as firearms, but it was a peaceful trade exchange rather then traditional colonisation. Aye, Germans have been pinned "the bad guys" by hypocrites much too often. Not many even bother, the ones who do tend to bother however are the neo-nazis themselves but instead of being more cunning to aid Germany they just go all radical. Japanese brutality, aye, that's real. During the Nazi regime they were the "Hononary Aryans" and "The Japanese, though of a different ethnicity, were considered by Nazi ideologists, such as Heinrich Himmler, to have similar enough qualities to German-Nordic blood in order to warrant an alliance with them." ;D Race and politics... just like the Church and politics in medieval Europe.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 26, 2009 16:13:36 GMT -5
^There is not a simple rule that says if a nation was involved in colonisation - that they are like England, France, and Spain who committed genocide while expanding and put up racial "human zoos". Portugal and Holland unlike the other colonists for example - generally did not.
My reading of Portuguese history must be different than yours. I thought they wiped out almost all the natives in Brazil, and then imported the most slaves of any country from Africa to the New World. Have you ever seen the movie - "The Mission"? The Jesuits were actually kicked out of Brazil for trying to prevent complete genocide, assimilation, and slavery of the Indians.
I agree that the Dutch might have been a bit better though. They seemed to have a higher ratio of trade to settlers/plantation colonies, which usually leads to better terms with the natives and less outright genocide, though they had their slave colonies in the Americas like anyone else that required slaves to replace the "lack" of natives.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 27, 2009 0:40:51 GMT -5
Generally I guess generally isnt a good word, perhaps "Better then other colonists" is much more accurate. Nonetheless the Spaniards blame the Portugeuse, the Portugeuse blame the Spaniards yet at the same time some national Portugeuse willingly believe they were did more then the Spaniards, proudly admitting they genocided shamelessly - which other Portugeuse just go "Bah!"
|
|