...I thought that movie was based on true events? :soapbox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rota
Printable View
...I thought that movie was based on true events? :soapbox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rota
It was inspired by true events, but most of the movie is fictional.
In RL history, though, the Spartans were pretty :modedit: good at what they did...although they didn't quite look like ninjas...
Based on true events, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooke ♥♥
But, you'd be amazed how many people think it's practically a documentary. :D
People's views on Sparta is WAAY to exaggerated. They think Spartans are like Super Saiyans with power levels over 9000! Rome could outright destroy Sparta. Sparta had better individual fighter, but war is not about one person (Or the whole army) being good fighters. With better weapons, armor, technology, tactics, strategy, and flimsy, poorly trained army could own the Spartans.
Everyone in Sparta was a good warrior. Even the women were trained to fight which was unheard of at the time. Plus, the Greeks invented the Phalanx, which the Spartans perfected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalent
Too bad a wall of shields doesn't protect you from a 5-ton boulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by armbarchris
Just because you're good at fighting doesn't mean you'll win.Quote:
Originally Posted by armbarchris
1) As I mentioned in my prior post, the Lacedaemonians were twice defeated in the battles of Leuctra [371 B.C.E] and Mantinaea [362 B.C.E] by the Thebans led by the Theban hegemon Epaminondas who had better trained hoplites and cavalry units than the Lacedaemonians leading to the period of Theban hegemony in Thessaly, Boeotia and Central Greece from 371-362 B.C.E. Also, the metropolis of Athens partially recovered its former sovereignty over the Aegean Sea leading to the lesser period of Athenian hegemony from 378/377-355 B.C.E with Athens possessing the Aegean islands of Cos, Chios, Thasos and Samos.
In addition, during the Diadochian Wars of Succession after the abjuration or the dissolution of the Alexandrian Empire, the Lacedaemonian bid for Grecian autonomy from the Macedonians failed as the superior Macedonian phalanxes with their pezhetairoi units [phalangists], cataphracts [kataphractoi] and Hetairoi or Companion Cavalry trampled upon the Lacedaemonian and allied Greek contingents. The dense phalangiarchies or the phalanx formations of the Macedonians with the outward protrusions of the sarissae [A) During the reigns of Philip II of Macedonia and Alexander III of Macedonia, the sarissa pike was approximately 16-20 feet long, and B) During the Wars of the Epigonoi or the Hellenistic Successors the sarissa pike was extended to approximately 21-24 feet.] dominated Mediterranean warfare till the Mediterranean conquests of the Romans.
2) The Macedonians refined the phalanx formation and transformed it to the dominant method and tactical formation of military engagements in Mediterranean warfare before the Romans. The Macedonian forces were divided into the units and formations of:
Standard Subdivisions of the Macedonian Grand Phalanx during the Alexandrian Conquests from 335-323 B.C.E
lochos: 16 phalangists
tetrarchia: 65 phalangists
taxiarchia: 128 phalangists
syntagma: 256 phalangists
taxeis: 1,024 phalangists
synapism: 4,096 phalangists
phalangiarchy: 8,192 phalangists
diphalangiarchy: 16,384 phalangists
tetraphalangiarchy: 28,687 phalangists
The Romans operated in a formation categorized as the quincunx. The Roman checker board formations were divided into the three lines that contained the main field contingents and one line that contained the linear contingents of skirmisher and other auxiliary forces:
Standard Roman Consular Army [2 Roman Citizen Legions and 2 Roman Auxiliary Legions]
1st Line: the Velites and other skirmishers [1,200 soldiers]
2nd Line: the Hastati [1,200 soldiers]
3rd Line: the Principes [1,200 soldiers]
4th Line: the Triarii [600 soldiers]
However, even the Macedonians and the Hellenistic Despotates were subsumed into the fold of Roman hegemony: the Seleucid Basileus Antiochus III 'Eupator' was defeated by the Romans and by the Attalids of the Kingdom of Pergamum at the battles of Thermopylae, the Eurymedon River and Magnesia. In addition, the Romans were successful in combating the Macedonian and Epirote phalangiarchies of King Pyrrhus I of Epirus with the battles of Heraclea [280 B.C.E] and Ausculum [279 B.C.E] being minor victories for the Hellenistic despot Pyrrhus I of Epirus, and the battle of Beneventum [275 B.C.E] being a considerable defeat of the Epirote and Macedonian forces of Pyrrhus. At the conclusion of the Pyrrhic Wars [280-275 B.C.E], Rome extended its hegemony and sovereignty over Magna Graecia [A region in Southern Italy that was a dense conglomerate of Grecian cleruchies or colonies.] with its domain stretching from the Po River in Northern Italy to Calabria in Southern Italy.
Also, the Romans defeated the Macedonians under King Philip V at the battle of Cynoscephalae [197 B.C.E] and under King Perseus at the battle of Pydna [168 B.C.E]. The Romans then defeated the Macedonian usurper and claimant Andriscus ["The pseudo-Perseus"] during his rebellion from 149-148 B.C.E. At the conclusion of the Macedonian-Roman conflicts, the Romans divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into a classification composed of the Roman satellite states of Pella, Pelagonia, Thessalonica and Amphilochia. Finally, the Greek city-states that composed the Achaean Confederation in the Peloponnesus, Attica and Boeotia had dilapidated from their former glory under the general Philopoemon with the end result of the utter subjugation of the Achaean Confederation by the Romans in 146 B.C.E. In 130 B.C.E, the rebellion of Aristonicus [133-130 B.C.E] was put down in which the Pergamene Kingdom of the Attalids was subsumed into the fold of Roman hegemony, governance and administration. In 63 B.C.E, Pompey 'the Great' annexed the remaining regions under the Seleucids and defeated or eliminated the last Seleucid dynasts, tetrarchs and claimants of Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, Philip II Philorhomaios, Antiochus I of Commagene and Seleucus Kybiosaktes.
I have no idea what Conrad is trying to say but I think he means that history is incredibly boring and why should we care?
Sigilstone17, I would never say such vile and putrid words!
The history of Classical Antiquity, the Medieval Period and the Byzantine Empire as well as the philosophical concepts and viewpoints of Platonic, Aristotelian, Ciceronian, Medieval Scholastic, Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romantic philosophy are not mere interests or passions that I harbor and pursue but rather my life's purpose and my greatest happiness and ebullience in life!