Talk:Ancient warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The definition of "ancient", which refers to the fall of Rome, seems suitable only for the Mediterranean. How would you define ancient with regard to China, for instance? Burschik 06:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Need a section on Archers & Skirmishers — various bows, javelins/pilum, & slings. RJH 18:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- might want to avoid sounding like recounting units from various gaming systems (& yes I know some are based on actual historical army divisions) --ZayZayEM 02:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Removing headings
I'm removing the headings that have no information.
- Strategy, tactics, and weapons (changing to "Tactics and weapons")
- Armies
- Strategy
- (Removing from "Cultures")
- Sumerian
- Israel, Judea, and Samaria
- Korean
- Etruscan
- British Islander
- Celtic
- Maurreen 01:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Rwemoving some culture sections
Adding detail and corrections on the Vikings and moving it to Medieval warfare. Vikings are after Roman Empire so Medieval Warfare article is a better fit.
Some editing on the Vikings-- the usual spelling edits (no doubt I have some mispellings somewhere as well) but qualifying some more questionable statements. For example it is said "The Vikings also possessed another quality that was unheard of at that time. They were both sailors and soldiers." It was also said "raids for profit, something totally foreign to European civilization." In fact there have been numerous people who approached from the sea and fought on land, from the "Sea Peoples" invading North Africa, to the profit-seeking Mediterrean pirates liquidated by the ruthless campaign of Roman general Pompey the Great. Still whoever started the section deserves credit for at least getting the ball rolling.
Still to come (sometime) Mention of the Celtics should be made since they figure in Caesar's Gallic War. I am combining them with the Germans since they were all classified "barbarians" by many Romans, with few attempts to separate them.
Enriquecardova 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proportions of Greek warships
There seems to be some disagreement as to how to describe Greek triremes - either that they were "ships with long oars" or "long ships with oars". I favour "long ships with oars" because Triremes were about as long and thin as physics and the technology of the time would allow; the oars, while hardly short, were no longer than they needed to be given that there was one man to each oar.
- I agree they were long ships, but I think the original intent was directed at general readers who don't know what a trireme is. Their most striking feature is their oars, which aren't like any modern oars of only a few feet in length. Especially for the upper-most deck of oars, these were of incredible length. If a modern person looked out and suddenly saw a trireme, I doubt the first thing they'd exclaim is "what a long ship!"
- The article Trireme is the right place for details, such as their beam.
- (By the way, it helps to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end. See the "Your signature and timestamp" button above the edit box.)
- --A D Monroe III 1 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
[edit] Chariots confusion
The use of chariots is much older than the Assyrians of the 7th century BC.
This paragraph was removed:
While useful in the Middle East, chariots were not used everywhere. In some areas, most notably Egypt, chariots were used to transport nobles, but the army's core was still the infantry. The Nile allowed for easy transportation of massed infantry by ship, making chariots' speed far less of an advantage. Egypt's main enemies were the Saharan nomads and the southern Nubians, who could be repulsed by the superior numbers of the Egyptians. By abandoning chariots Egypt made itself vulnerable to any outside invaders, such as the Hyksos or Persians, who did reach them.
- Below is written: "The flat and open land of Egypt also provided good conditions for wheeled vehicles." Self-contradictory.
- Above is written how chariots were used during a battle. I doubt the Egyptians used ships instead of chariots in land battles, especially not against the Sahara nomads.
- So "by abandoning chariots Egypt" was overrun by the Hyksos? Hyksos is generally thought to have introduced the chariot into Egypt. Is the author familiar with the Battle of Kadesh?
--JFK 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cultures section - add 'Steppe nomads'/'Horse peoples'?
Does anyone else think that the Eurasian horse-riding steppe nomads deserve a mention here? Some of them did feature in a number of ancient conflicts, notably the Parthians (nomadic before they took over Persia), the Huns, the Scythians/Sakae and their offshoots (Sarmatians, Roxolani, etc) and the various tribes who harried at China's borders (the White Huns and Yuezhi, amongst others). A lot of the warfare was endemic raiding, but in the case of the Parthians and Huns, could also be large scale invasions of settled urban peoples. Their evasive mounted-archery style of fighting was quite distinct from other contemporary ways of fighting too. Thoughts? Doctor Atomic 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bible Times
I know many of you might not think the Bible is all-out true, but it is still a historical document. The very first "battle" or "war" recorded in It is in Genesis 14. Take a look or ask me if you're interested. Colonel Marksman 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)