For those interested in the battles of classical antiquity, today represents an important date. And the name “Marathon” lives on for all those masochists who insist on doing those punishing runs in London, New York and other places.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
19 comments to A battle, long, long ago |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I hate to be pedantic, but “Philipp August Böckh in 1855 concluded that the battle took place on September 12, 490 BC in the Julian calendar, and this is the conventionally accepted date.”
Which is not the same as September 12th on the Gregorian calendar.
John, whatever.
Wicked Greeks – fighting against world political unity and multiculturalism.
Soon this battle will either be forgotten – or remembered as yet another source of shame for the evil West.
So what is the equivalent date in the Gregorian calendar?
The difference between the calendars is three leap years in 400, and Marathon was 2501 years ago, so that’s an 18-day difference(since 2000 was a leap year and 400 BC would have been). So add 18 days, and you get September 30th.
The equivalent date is September 12. It’s an anniversary, not a calculation of time.
Your blog. Your rules. Just saying is all.
Is it just me. Or do the famous ancient Greek military victories against Persians amount to jamming a whole bunch of men with long spears into bottlenecks in the terrain. Seemed to work fine against Persians. Not so much against Romans.
Are Persians just too lazy to take the long way around or what?
Steve, Greece is mountainous- there might not have been a long way around! (Come to think of it, the Greeks were beaten because there was another pass, and the Persians moved behind the defenders and attacked them, so that answers your question, I hope.)
Steve does have a point, in that if you simplify a question far enough, the answer becomes very simple. And the answer to his question is ‘what’.
Cheers
‘what’, LOL. I guess that is the correct answer.
The only battle between Greeks and Romans I could find in Wikipedia was the battle of Corinth (I had never heard of it.) Apparently, they met on an open field. The Romans turned their flank. And that was all she wrote.
Not sure why the Greeks didn’t use the terrain. They were still using Hoplites.
Apparently, the Greeks were largely unified under a Macedonian king at the time instead of being independent city states like in the age of Persia. Maybe they just had lousy generals at the time.
A Persian army had many units – but most of the infantry (other than imperal “Imortals”) were rabble (slaves dragged from various places).
As Patton might have said – hit the centre hard (and fast – remember SLOW IS DEAD) enough and it does not matter if you are outflanked. Few real life Generals are good enough (or have good enough troops) to pull off a Hannibal at Cannae.
When you are vastly outnumbered (Greek citizen soldiers against “Persian” hordes) being outflanked is basically unavoidable anyway.
But do not try “smash into the centre – burst through and kill the General, before their outflanking moves have time to take effect” when facing ROMAN LEGIONS.
As for spears (late Greek and then Hellenistic versus swords.
Different argument – either can win (their are infantry ways of dealing with pike).
But also remember the type of soldiers involved.
By Hellenistic times citizen soldiers (although they still existed in theory) had been de facto by a class of proffessionals loyal to Kings (as employers – not out of any national unity).
Still good enough to beat a “militia” – but Roman Legions are not (in any modern sense) a “militia”.
Roman troops (even though, in those times, technically soldier citizens) were trained KILLERS.
Taught to kill everything in front of them (to cut it up like a threshing machine).
The rules of conduct (induding semi surrender or handing over the battlefield) of the professional pikemen, and the parade ground stuff of the remaining Greek soldier citizens meant nothing to Roman troops.
They just related to everything in front of them as a target – something to kill.
To Ancient Persians every Roman Legion would have seemed like Imortals (other than the stange masks and stories of cut up faces). An entire army made up of troops as good as the King of Kings personal guard.
To give people some idea of what Roman troops could do.
Think of “Zulu Dawn” – the 1878 wiping out of 800 British troops (and 400 native allies).
Roman troops might well have WON that battle (and without rifles).
First they would have prepared defences (Roman troops did not camp without prepared defences).
And Roman shields, armour and helmets, and TACTICS, would have proteced the men from Zulu weapons – whereas nothing would protect the Zulu from Roman sword thrusts (which only go three inches deep – not even the hand is exposed).
A mass attack (on a camp) by unarmoured foes – that is a Roman dream.
By the way…..
Zulu throwing spear against Roman shield.
No effect.
Roman spear against Zulu shield.
Zulu most likely dead – but, even if not, shield useless (dragged on to the ground by the bend in the iron).
Roman sword thrust against Zulu shield.
It gets through – and out again.
Zulu shield push against Roman shield push.
Try Lada cars – against tanks.
Of course (even if, for some reason, they had left their field artillery behind) the Romans might just prefer to sit at the top of their wall.
The one behind the ditch with the nasty stakes in it.
The wall and ditch that were not there when your Zulu scouts checked this place a few hours ago.
Dropping specially shaped (hand shaped – simple but deadly, for unarmoured foes) rocks on your heads.
Or using their slings to fire lead bullets (they carried those to) into your face, at distance.
But I did say “without rifles”.
Are people starting to see why Romans dominated so much of the world for so many centuries?
The talk of Romans vs Zulus reminded me of this thread.
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/01/marines-vs-ancient-romans.html
Basically, can one regiment of U.S. marines with a magic supply line of bullets, bombs, and food defeat the entire Roman empire. I thought it was an interesting discussion.
As far as the current discussion.
“Are people starting to see why Romans dominated so much of the world for so many centuries?”
While the Romans certainly had a high quality army, they were not unbeatable. They lost often enough. They would just come back the next year.
As always the true strength of the Roman empire was the strength of their home economy compared to those of their rivals. For example, Hannibal spent several years slaughtering Roman armies left and right. The Romans always had enough wealth and man power to field another one. Hannibal gets beat once and Carthage is done for.
In the end, once the Roman government managed to screw up the wealth machine established in the days of the Republic thoroughly enough, the empire fell.
“That man is little to be envied whose patriotism would not gain force upon the plain of Marathon, or whose piety would not grow warmer among the ruins of Iona”
— Samuel Johnson
” (Roman troops did not camp without prepared defences).”
Glaber?
Steve’s 11:35 comment, “In the end…”, gave me a chill.
Yes the Roman army did make mistakes (even in the great days).
And, yes, its true strength (like America later) was the massive economic resourses (and manpower) resourses behind it.
Even as late as the time of Marcus Aurelius (although centuries of Empire were already at work – undermining the Res Publica) Rome could come back not just for terrible defeats (invasions that went through the Empire right into northern Italy) but also plague that spread all over the Empire.
But later…..
Roman civilization was undermined by out of control government spending (starting with Severus), inflationary finance, and then….
The vile “late Empire” of Diocletian and co. Where most peasants were turned into de facto serfs – and were taxes went from high to crushing.
Also the Roman infantry (the basis of the Empire) gradually turned into a rabble (apart from the elite army, that from Constantine onwards, just followed the Emperor onwards).
Helmets, shields and so on stop being bought and are (in theory) made in vast state arms factories.
I say “in theory” as the products of these places may have been so bad as to be unwearable/useable
Or the troops may have become such untrained rabble that they could not even comfortable use helmets, body armour and shields.
Certainly the late helmets I have seen look like they were knocked up by chimps (rather than skilled men).
As for the shields…..
The proper Roman infantry shield is replace by a flat bit of wood – it makes me sick to think of them.
And the sword migrates from the right hand side to the left – those who have swords at all appear to be using something like the old cavalry sword.
These are not trained Roman troops.
They are not Romans.