Ancient Warfare- A General Discussion Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**The_Grim_Angel**

Easy E if you need this discussion also for your game (Men of Bronze), then you must keep in mind the European bronze age ended in the 600 b.C., so before the creation of the hoplite phalanx and the institutions of the Ancient Roman Republic.

**Easy E**

I believe the use of Mercenaries became relevant after the loses in the Sicilian Wars against the Greeks, specifically Syracuse....

I maybe mistaken, or there are two different occasions where the Carthaginians faced manpower shortages due to warfare.

**Easy E**

How much of Ancient History is repeated tropes, versus a relatively fair accounting of what happened? Do you have some fun stories that were clearly "repeats", re-imagined, or sequel tropes you can think of?

**Warpig1815**

Hello! Spartan/Lakedaimon scholar here (BA Hons., currently MA).

'A fair accounting' is something that is a great debate in the academic community, and things that are taken as gospel in the wider community are a distillation of ideas that are, in some cases, either outmoded by 20 years or have developed significantly in thought.

Our view of historical events are transmitted through a miniscule range of sources - some 10% of what we theorise was produced. They main historical narratives are produced with the explicit notion of tracing war and politics, and generally have a huge dearth of the most crucial aspect of history - society. It's incredibly difficult to make sense of history when it's viewed outside of it's social context. Actions that seem unreasonable to us, evidently held significance for them. Compounding this is the decidedly partisan motivations of the authors, who were for the most part elites, male and statesmen. Now, we have next to no appreciation of history through the eyes of the lower classes, and basically nothing from women. And that's not mere SJW agenda either - these aspects are vital juxtapositions to understanding society in general. One cannot understand the Spartan coming home with or on his shield, if we do not understand the wife who promotes that outlook.

So historical narrative is incredibly problematic. It is commonly held that Thucydides and Polybius are 'impartial' historians who give a completely objective and honest view when constructing their accounts. This is generally utter tosh. Thucydides was greatly concerned with demonstrating the superiority and tenacity of Athens, and used his history as a vehicle to advance psychological studies of the poleis (The Greek cities). The Spartans are depicted as duplicitous, cautious and prone to greed. In comparison, the Athenians are daring, ingenious and fundamentally concerned with preserving freedom. Thucydides stands as a monumentally useful source in light of all we don't have, but he is not without issues. Polybius is another (and the subject of a current assignment for me). He is taken as another honest historian primarily because he claimed a most rigerous methodology and repeatedly asserted the need for truth. However, his work is chock full of complex political themes and, from what my research has concluded at least, his methodology (i.e. 'truth') is generally subordinated to whatever effect he is trying to achieve to influence his audience and further his agenda.

The subject of tropes is interesting. Ancient Greece was conventionalised and even history took on certain characteristics of form and function that were reproduced across generations of historians. Primarily, this was done to lend legitimacy to the author, whose authority was derived from having read widely. It's also because of the 'agonistic' nature of Greece. Agon is competition, but more precisely it's a sort of competitive spirit that pervades every aspect of Greek society. This includes history writing. So different authors would reinterpret their predecessors' histories as part of securing their audience's trust, but also differentiating themselves. It's probably more fruitful to view ancient historiography as less of a repeated set of tropes with fresh veneers, and instead to understand them as being fundamentally flawed works which reflect 'truth' (Or reflect a very specific truth as dictated by what the author chooses to include). That point is most relavent because if you read Thucydides you would barely know that religion existed in Ancient Greece - he unapologetically omits any religious aspect to his works. If you read Herodotos, of Hesiod before him, almost everything is tied back to a religious pretext. So you always have to cross-reference where you can.

Studying history is 50% understanding events, and 50% understanding the biases of each author. If you can identify, understand and account for the bias, then the 'truth' is easier to find. Of course, then you fall down the rabbit hole of dealing with your own biases and cultural coding. So... good luck with that. I still haven't worked mine out

I hope this is something approximating an answer for you, I was just enthused that Dakka has a history thread and I finally have somewhere to rave about history

**Easy E**

Good post Warpig.

It is also very interesting to me that what we know of Spartan (in written sources) all come from a non-Spartan perspective. It would be like if everything we knew about the USSR only came from American and NATO sources. Their would be huge bias there that would be tough to infer or understand even a generation out, much less hundreds of generations!

I am with you. Sources are sources, and they can not be treated at face value. They all have their own bias and objectives.

**Warpig1815**

No problem, I'm always happy to impart whatever knowledge I've gleaned as I'm incredibly privileged to have the opportunity to study.

Yep. It's one of the core challenges of my current, and previous, research dissertation. I'm consistently reminded that 'Sparta' (Or Lakedaimon to be more accurate) as we know it is a reflection of primarily Athenian values and animosity. Outside of epigraphy and non-literary material remains, we basically have nothing that speaks in an authentic Spartan voice. Your analogy to the USSR is also particularly relevant because Sparta has often served as a parallel for the Soviet Union (because of the perception of a society in which the state serves the military).

I think the distillation of it is that if you're looking for 'truth', you've doomed yourself already. History is one massive 'best guess'. It galls me when the media makes reference to 'history' as though they are quoting something concrete and unassailable, without realising (or simply ignoring) that there are a whole tangle of conflicting views behind it. Then people take it as gospel and make 'informed' decisions - yikes. A little knowledge is dangerous, as the saying goes.

Strangely enough, for a video game, Assassin's Creed hit the nail on the head - 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted'.

**Olthannon**

Can't believe I've missed this thread, I've always been keen on historic minis but I've never bought some except for conversions. Years ago I did plan on making an Albion army for fantasy using some victrix models but I ended up never doing it. So I've never really delved into these parts of the forum.

Just to join in on this discussion, I'm an archaeologist and do work up and down the UK. Although part of the job is working on every period, my on research specialisms were in prehistory up to the late med period. A lot of the work I do also involves public outreach and heritage communications.

With classics studies you are indeed relying on a small group of sources with inherent bias. But as Warpig pointed out, as a heritage professional your job is about interpreting that and parsing that out with new information.

Within archaeology, we use historic sources as a basis but we also deal a lot with context. Which is fundamental to understanding the past based on limited understanding. There is an entire material backlog and years of research that helps inform your decision about a site. "Context" in the archaeological sense is the atom, it is the building block to everything. We deduce reasoning of a current site based on our other learned knowledge. To me the best thing about archaeology is that you are dealing with the everyday. You're dealing with people who don't turn up in historical sources, you're dealing with poor people, women, children, people from other races. They all exist within the history of the world but depending on the writer, might "mysteriously" vanish.

Just yesterday I had a piece of 12th century pottery in my hand that was clearly locally made, nothing special you'd think. Except, because it was decorated very simply, the potters thumbprints were still visible on the clay surface. That would never be written about historically because that was an everyday item.

I would say that professionally, we don't know everything, but there is a lot we do know. When you're talking about something, we never talk in absolutes because history is constantly evolving. And "best guess" from a professional of 20 years is still pretty sound. There's a lot of "don't trust the experts" bobbing around across the world but I would try to veer away from that. I think people do see that as heritage people saying "yeah we don't know". But really, it's because you don't want to appear like a tit for saying "Aye lads, history is sorted".

I think the main problem people have when understanding history is that it is constantly being rewritten. The public sphere of information is roughly 20-30 years out of date behind academic thought. Although, on the day to day I regularly see people spouting something considered historical fact in the Victorian period. Unfortunately that is down to a lack of journal articles and academic books being available to people without a degree. And that is a real shame, its difficult to get public history readily available. In a way, a setting like a forum is ideal because there's not much getting in the way of actual discussion. Unlike a popular TV history show, which has all sorts of things changing the narrative.

I also think people now with access to the internet can learn a whole lot, but sometimes that stuff just isn't up to date. Again as Warpig pointed out above, alongside old sources you have not only the political bias of the original source but also the political bias of the modern writer and how they deal with the source. Tricky right? That's why history is constantly being rewritten. Which makes it fascinating, because there's always something new to learn about.

Certainly this is the case for historical movies and TV. I think because these things have been made, people assume that some research has been done. That is definitely not true. And also just because there's a historic advisor on a programme doesn't mean the design and art team listen. Historical accuracy is essentially an impossibility, but people will write reams of text about how things are and are not.

Lastly, Easy you were saying about tropes. One perfect example is Richard III being a hunchback. We get that from Shakespeare and that comes from ancient Greek theatre. The evil inside someone will also disfigure their outward appearance. This is why the traitor Spartan was a hunchback too. And then SHOCK, when Richard III was uncovered, turns out he did actually have a dodgy spine. Likely that Shakespeare was using that as an extra dig. Remember, Shakespeare himself was writing to Tudor audiences who wanted him to be this cartoon villain. Shakespeare's histories are most certainly a propaganda piece. But as a source, still interesting. And despite that spinal deformation, he was still out in the vanguard. And you have to be a little bit 'ard to be there. He was obviously a good fighter and its likely his armour was designed to offset the spine in someway.

I think I've just rambled nonsensically, but basically joining in with Warpig about historical sources.

Cheers,

**Warpig1815**

Another wild Northumbrian appears - this thread is now my favourite thread

To add to Olthannon, another issue we get is the line between archaeology as a scientific mode of investigation and classics as a primarily textual mode. What this means is quite often we have Classics scholars conciously trying to fit the archaeological finds to textual narratives. The End of Roman Britain is one such area of HUGE debate. Essentially, we have sparse texts which describe the era as a period of mass decline, hardship, hysteria and war - but our archaeological picture suggests a marked uptick in local economies, a lack of evidence of widespread unrest and an uncertainty on when (or even where) exactly the Roman administration phases out. In between we have Classics scholars trying to force the archaeology to support the narratives without accepting that sometimes the narrative is entirely bull***t. And archaeologists do the same. There is a tendency for archaeologists to denounce texts as being entirely unreliable, without investing the time to look past the biases and find the kernels of 'truth'.

I also FUNDAMENTALLY agree with Olthannon on the case of TV programs. They are wonderful for inspiring interest in history, but as a credible source of information they make things x10 worse. This is because they tend to distill complex info down into bitesize chunks, but what that does is to distort the nuances. Worse still (and I regret to say that with the politicisation of everything this is becoming endemic), is when TV programs use 'history' to support their opinions on modern social or political issues. That feeds into the 'don't trust the experts'. Modern social issues now inform people what is 'correct' (i.e 'cancel culture'). But a lot of history is unpalatable or incompatible with these ideas, and so it gets discarded outright. Throw into the mix the constant revision of history as new data comes to light and, as Olthannon says, we end up with a view that historians and archaeologists 'don't know what they're on about'.

TLDR though - I thoroughly encourage anyone reading this to volunteer on a local archaeological dig. The feeling you get when you find anything, and you realise you're the first person to see and touch it since it was left there by somebody centuries ago, is nothing short of magical.

**Easy E**

Olthannon wrote:

Again as Warpig pointed out above, alongside old sources you have not only the political bias of the original source but also the political bias of the modern writer and how they deal with the source.

Looking at you Victor Davis Hanson! LOL!

**Warpig1815**

Easy E wrote:
Olthannon wrote:

Again as Warpig pointed out above, alongside old sources you have not only the political bias of the original source but also the political bias of the modern writer and how they deal with the source.

Looking at you Victor Davis Hanson! LOL!

OOF. Yep, Hanson's ideas are certainly controversial at times. But his breakdown of agricultural practices and razing is still unparalleled. For me, it's more Donald Kagan and Peter Krentz that I'm cautious of. Especially Krentz - he's known for his 'Wrecking ball' arguments

.

**Easy E**

Kagan.... interestingly enough both Hanson and Kagan are pretty "mainstream" and "pop" culture for ancient historians. If you go to a B&N you WILL find their books on the shelves.

**Warpig1815**

As US authors, it's likely that they're more prevalent on bookshelves over with you, but even here both of those authors creep into the mainstream. And not totally without worth, they both have interesting points of view to forward. But they are an excellent example of that which may be 'mainstream' is not canonical in the academic community. And part of that is the machinery of publication, not academia. There are many scholars with absolutely fascinating stuff to say, but their publications remain in the shadow because they're in obscure departments in less prestigious universities (Or are independant scholars).

I'm concious this may be derailing your thread Easy, but it's really interesting (and important) for me to understand the wider public's perceptions of history.

**Olthannon**

Warpig1815 wrote:
As US authors, it's likely that they're more prevalent on bookshelves over with you, but even here both of those authors creep into the mainstream. And not totally without worth, they both have interesting points of view to forward. But they are an excellent example of that which may be 'mainstream' is not canonical in the academic community. And part of that is the machinery of publication, not academia. There are many scholars with absolutely fascinating stuff to say, but their publications remain in the shadow because they're in obscure departments in less prestigious universities (Or are independant scholars).

I'm concious this may be derailing your thread Easy, but it's really interesting (and important) for me to understand the wider public's perceptions of history.

Funnily enough I made a thread on here a few years ago about public perception of archaeology and it was really interesting to see people's responses on here. I had forgotten all about it until this thread caught my eye.

There's a lot of (almost exclusively) male history authors who are mainstream but that doesn't mean they are any good! But they do get a lot of publications out and they get bonus points for being "controversial".

Like ancient warfare, super interesting but there's so much beyond just the battles. The politics leading up to it, the craftspeople producing the arms and armour. The lives of the soldiers themselves.

Years ago when I was doing my undergrad I did some really interesting stuff about PTSD in the ancient world. It was basically talking about the fact that when people were "haunted" by old battles or plagued by enemy spirits when they returned to battle sites, it was just them suffering PTSD but not being able to vocalise it in the same way as we do now.

Like Warpig says, there is a lot of incredible stuff out there but there's a lot of difficulties in getting things published.

**xerxeskingofking**

how have i just discovered this thread!

on the topic of reliability of historical sources, i have heard this anecdotally, and its only tangentially related, but it serves to illustrate some of the problems with historical accounts, specifically in what the don't say, rather than what they do say.

the anecdote relates to the Tale of Genji, a japanese work form the 11th century. It was written by a courtier of the Japanese emperor, and written for the other courtiers of that court.

in that time, it was considered over-familiar and rude to use a nobles given name, if they held a rank or title, so most of the characters are named either with positional titles (ie "Minister of the South", "Governor of the Capital", etc), or relational nicknames if they held no position (ie "Heir Apparent", "the Shining Son", etc), and these changed over the course of the work as the people age, retire, get promoted etc. contemporises to the work (ie the intended audience) would know who these nicknames were refering to and when the "Minister of the South" became "General of the Palace Guard", or whatever, but modern readers must piece this together form contextual clues. (A modern example would be something like working out that the First Lady in 1999, the Senator for New York in 2008, and the Sanctuary of State in 2015 were all the same person.)

another element is the things they considered worthy of note and things they just didn't talk about because "everyone knows it already". one of the scenes of the book is a feast, and the author writes extensively about who attended, how they were dressed, how appropriate their clothes were, who was gossiping with who, etc, but never onces mentions what food was being served. they just assumed that anyone reading would know the sort of food served at a feast, same as a modern author might not mention the food at a party because modern readers know what "party food" is.

these are just a few example of what historians have to deal with when trying to use historical works as referances for what was happening. Its like trying to figure out ww2 combat form looking and contempory media. you might have a flim like Saving Private Ryan, or the Band of Brothers series, that is pretty close to what we think happened, but you might be trying to work it out form a copy of Inglorious B*****ds. Honestly, we just dont know.

**Kroem**

I find that the version of events I read first takes on a disproportionate importance in my mind, and it takes quite a lot of dissenting evidence to shift me away from that being the 'true' version!

Appreciate most people find archaeology terminally boring unless presented by Tony Robinson, but it is curious how that is the main area of growth in historical evidence.
Reading a book recently about some dark age findings which changed the academic consensus on certain things was quite interesting.

**Warpig1815**

xerxeskingofking wrote:another element is the things they considered worthy of note and things they just didn't talk about because "everyone knows it already".

Oh boy - mate that is my whole life. Context is everything in Classical studies and unfortunately our illustrious ancestors are just as remiss in detailing what they had for breakfast as we are (Incidentally, I have no idea what Spartans ate for breakfast. Must make a note of that...

)! But it is a very real and significant issue in pursuing history that what we get is the filtered version of events that our ancient authors deemed worthy of committing to papyrus. And this is 50% what they deemed to be important, and 50% what they chose to conceal. Thucydides' omission of any talk about religion is a classic example of this - you would assume it just didn't exist for them despite religion being present in almost every action undertaken in Ancient Greece. There are so many examples of this, but unfortunately I can never recall a good anecdote when I need one

Kroem wrote:I find that the version of events I read first takes on a disproportionate importance in my mind, and it takes quite a lot of dissenting evidence to shift me away from that being the 'true' version!

Appreciate most people find archaeology terminally boring unless presented by Tony Robinson, but it is curious how that is the main area of growth in historical evidence.
Reading a book recently about some dark age findings which changed the academic consensus on certain things was quite interesting.

Archaeology is our prime method of historical growth, as you put it, because the institution which formerly preserved texts, i.e mainly the Catholic Church, is a shadow of what it was. Of course, I am speaking in a Western sense, but whereas almost every nation used to have numerous monastic communities dedicated to preserving ancient texts, those institutions were greatly eroded as nations broke free from the Church's influence and coalesced into modern states. I should note at this point as well that the monastaries were highly selective in what they kept. Some monastaries deemed it a good idea to preserve as much 'wisdom of the ancients' as possible because it was 'proof' of God's wisdom passed to man. Others chose to only keep those bits which could be reworked into Christian canon. So selective transmission distorts what we have (E.g - Almost all Ancient Greek theatre, and much History, is from an Athenian perspective, simply because it was a highly influencial city - not because nobody else produced stuff. It's the same as tourists assuming 'London' is the only place in Great Britain for example). Anyway, from the Renaissance onwards we had a boom in people taking an interest in the texts, but that meant that they often got lost in private collections and royal archives - which got further lost as dynasties rose, fell and intertwined. So now, although we still are finding new fragments of texts all the time, it's a long slog through forgotten archives, libraries and tiny parish churches in the arse end of nowhere (Unless you can persuade the Pope to unload the Vatican Libraries

).

Instead, Archaeology has become our main method of pushing along new discoveries. but that comes with the issue that we lose lots of the personal colour that texts provide us. But my favourite example of when the two converge is the Vindolanda Tablets. Here's an excerpt for you guys:

Spoiler:

Or this one:

Spoiler:

**Easy E**

I love the (accidentally) baked tablets from Assyria and the Near East. My faded memory says from Urgat, but I maybe way off!

**Warpig1815**

Hahaha yeah they're great. The above one is perhaps one of the most famous. Found in the house of Ea-nasit, in Ugarit:

Spoiler:

Basically, this dude Nanni bought some copper and got screwed over by Ea-nasir who delivered rubbish and kept the money. What makes it hilarious is that the letter was found in Ea-Nasirs house - he'd basically gone 'Yeah, nah' and flipped Nanni off. And 5000 years later you can still feel Nanni's palpable rage at having been right royally swizzed

**Easy E**

Now, let's put this discussion in the context of wargaming. As a general rule, we want defined "units", "abilities", and even a defined "look" that frequently does not really exist.

I.e. all Sherden should look like X, while all Egyptian Infantry looks like Y, and Romans all have Bracers! Okay, that last one was not serious but you get my point.

How does source review overlap or get influenced by wargaming?

**Olthannon**

It's a very difficult thing. Mainly because people have an extremely narrow view of how people looked in history and its a hugely warped by TV and movies. To me, historical accuracy is an idiocy. Or rather, people focus on the wrong things when it comes to defining what makes something "accurate".

For instance, the Roman army in Gladiator is several hundred years out of date but the decision was made to have them like that because it made them look more "Roman". As in the public perception of them from every other film.

The Roman army after the 1st/2nd centuries CE didn't have many Italians in it. It was predominantly Hispanic, North African and Gaulish. Legions and auxilia were made up of similar peoples, just their unit tactics were different. There was a unit of Syrian horse archers stationed at Arbeia at South Shields on Hadrian's Wall, as well as several Iraqi units. During the 11th and 12th centuries and forever on there was a lot of trade with the Near and Middle East. It was a huge dock in the North East (and still would be were it not for the milk snatcher). The first mosque in the UK was built there and it was why Muhammad Ali visited South Shields when he came over to the UK. The people of South Shields are known as "sand dancers" as a result of all this. Migration has been a constant part of our collective human history and that is particularly driven by armies on the march.
Some people seem really shocked that there might be Romans with black skin, but I always say, have a look at a map.

People of colour have always been a part of populations of Europe but particularly in the Victorian period they were ignored, purposefully removed or otherwise dismissed, tie this in with all white film and TV casts and now people say "history is being rewritten" because there's a few black people knocking about in period dramas these days.
Why is any of that important? Well it is and it isn't. If you're from migrant stock like me, it's difficult to feel as if you have a home in the country you live in, especially when people give you gak for it. It's important for people to know that people have always been shifting and moving around, everyone has a shared human history.

When the Roman army officially retreated from most of the western empire, a lot of people stayed behind. Not to mention that a bulk of the armed forces of the Roman armies at that point were Germanic. So all that fall of Rome stuff isn't quite true.

The Victorians loved "decline in civilisations" like the Dark Ages (which didn't exist).

You mention the "sea peoples" Easy, but there's a good chance they didn't even exist either.

We mentioned earlier about politicising sources, the Victorians are massive on this. The British Empire was massive but also even at the time, pretty obviously bad. So scholars and intellectuals had to prove the worth of the empire. Basically, without empires there is only barbarism, so Germanic or Sea Peoples running amok. Cities being burnt, rebellions etc. It's also why neo classical architecture exists. Why Washington DC looks the way it does. Why every bloody country house in the UK has the same architecture, marble busts and columns all over the shop. Every European empire saw themselves as the inheritors of the Romans. Hence Napoleon and the Nazis using an eagle as their symbol. It meant they could prove themselves better than anyone else. Ancient History is still incredibly important because so much of it still impacts our lives today. People in the more modern past put so much stock into it that it still has so many consequences even now.

My favourite example of this is that the American founding fathers had a serious, serious discussion about changing the official American language from English to Attic Greek. It was eventually shelved because they thought it would be too difficult, but imagine if that had come to pass...

So to round this blather up with some semblance of a conclusion or a TL/DR: historical accuracy is a lot of bollocks. It can only be taken so far and people who have a go at you because your stuff doesn't look right haven't got a leg to stand on. The Ancient World was a vibrant colourful place with peoples all over the place mixing and living together. History is constantly rewritten and interpreted so always try and learn new things. It isn't a stationary thing. Never be ashamed of your model painting when you consider what used to be works of art! Ancient warfare models always struggle with looking similar, so don't fear the conversions!

**Warpig1815**

Two parts to this answer. This first, in response to Olthannon, for anyone interested in the ongoing discussion of history as a concept. Olthannon raises some excellent points and is by no means incorrect, but I'll chime in on some areas I'm (respectfully) uncertain about:

Spoiler:

Firstly, you are quite correct that 'whitewashing' is a bit of a problem with our scholarship, which bleeds over into media (including wargaming) that is influenced by history. And a HUGE part of that is early modern European nations seeing themselves as the inheritors of classical civilisation. The Roman Empire in particular, as the one which is the most visible from antiquity, was often used as a pretext for Empire in early modern history, and was used to cover up a host of ills perpetrated by all European countries (See D. Mattingly 'An Imperial Possession' for more on this). It is entirely unhelpful to portray such a diverse world through the lens of the same 40 Hollywood actors over and over and over again. Olthannon has covered this malaise quite well, and I'm pretty sure most readers will be more acutely aware of the phenomenon.

BUT.

History is also used just as politically nowadays, and I would be remiss not to point out that it is not just conservative groups who manipulate it. The use of the Syrian horse archers, with all due respect Olthannon, is just such an example. Now, without bringing politics into the sub-forum, my sole point here is that issues on immigration are not clear cut in the modern world and neither were they in the ancient world. The confirmed presence of migrant groups, in the form of Syrians or Iraqi bargemen from the Tigris, does not confirm that they were NOT viewed with mistrust either, or, to put it a better way - just as we are quick to point out genetic diversity in antiquity, we should not impose modern values to infer that these people were universally valued or respected. Which I appreciate is an uncomfortable consideration, but it is nonetheless a valid aspect of balanced enquiry. Racism, ethnicism and nationalism (The last one in a very broad sense in antiquity) were very much points of contention in the ancient world too. In a Greek context - the flexible way that Macedonians were included or excluded as Hellenes or Barbaroi depended on precisely who the author was pitting them against is a perfect example of how the ancient world could not make it's mind up either. It is nothing new to the human race that we mistrust and segregate ourselves.And as we have seen, writing or re-writing history is foundational in establishing or 'protecting' concepts of culture. To round it up, what I'm saying is that true history (Which we cannot ever see) does not conform neatly to either perspective. In the case of the Roman Army, what was paramount was keeping bodies in the ranks - it is the most inclusive segment of society by dint of sheer practicality and an uncaring administration. But when you move into the comparatively luxurious civilian world, which is also more obscure, we should be cautious about carrying over that assumption. And all of this is without saying that population movement around the Empire works both ways. Septimus Severus may have been an African Emperor from Leptis Magna (in Tunisia), but his genealogy was thoroughly Italo-Roman, with a little bit of Punic thrown in. He was African by birthplace, but culturally and genetically he was very much assimilated into Italo-Roman circles, coming from an equestrian family. So you see that history can be manipulated both ways, by both the traditionally conservative groups, but also by modern liberal political thought which equally seeks to justify it's opinions. A final example, if anyone is brave enough to read it, is 'Black Athena', an argument which seeks to argue that Ancient Greece's culture was derived from African origins by way of Phoenicia and Egypt. It has been widely panned by academics as being based on essentially no confirmable data. Nevertheless, it has been used by groups who wish to manipulate the prestige of Classical heritage, and there have been hypotheses generated on the back of this that Ancient Greeks were racially similar to central Africans. Again, this is a highly politicised argument based on the slimmest evidence for political purposes.

Also, we're not quite sure if people did actually stay behind after the withdrawal from Roman Britain. The consensus is HOTLY debated, with arguments both for and against any semblance of continuity after the administration breaks down. I wouldn't like to throw Olthannon's argument out the window, because we (And most certainly I) just don't know. But equally, I would be cautious of accepting it too. The evidence is simply not there to suggest widespread continuity of life, so we must either accept that we are looking in the wrong place/context to see it - or it didn't exist. Again a topic of huge debate!

I'll also note that sand-dancers is a much debated term (Like all North-East epithets!

), but another very likely origin is because 'Shields' in it's original form meant a fisherman's hut, and both North and South Shields were fishing towns on either bank of the Tyne attested to as early as the 13th Century (Likely much older, as the area in general has a particularly intense Saxon history owing to the monks of Wearmouth and Jarrow). Part of the fishing industry there was trapping crabs and fish in the low tides, by means of 'yares' - fishing traps erected across the river Tyne. So it's argued that 'Sand-dancer' comes from the practice of going out onto the flats to collect the fish, or possibly from the glittering fish convulsing as the water receded. Unfortunately, it's one of those terms which totally eludes definition and can be defined in numerous ways.

But, Olthannon does raise other crucial points. Populations are not static by any means, and we should not be outraged when we have non-whites turning up in areas that we do not expect. This is not rewriting history - this is simply portraying history as it was.

This said, there are (on the other hand) more egregious examples where modern values are imposed on historical settings, and these are equally unhelpful to gaining a fair approximation of 'the truth'. For example, BBC's 'Troy: Fall of a City' portrays Achillies as a bald, black man, where in the Illiad he is described as 'fair, red-haired Pyyrhus'. Why does this matter? Well, it does, to a surprising degree. The Illiad is a story of intense emotions and is fundamentally based on pitting traits and temperaments against one another. In a world where photography and video did not exist, detailed description that puts the listener/reader into the action (termed ekphrasis, with an enormous amount of theoretical study behind it) was a key element of transmitting the message of the work. So in a modern adaptation, removing Achilles' core traits also removes all the connotations felt by the original audience, associated with his beauty, temperament, virtue and concepts of arete/aristeia ('Excellence' in war). It removes a large part of Achilles identity as a character. So my point here is that, again, imposing modern values onto historical material is not simply balancing the books for a fairer modern world, because (in some cases) it has enormous implications for the material you're trying to present. And in cases like this, it is fair to argue that it is 'history' being re-written (I know - the Illiad is pseudo-history at best. But it is a core part of history in that it is a reflection of how the Greeks saw themselves).

Anyway, this is not to pan Olthannon, just to add a bit more meat to the pot so to speak

Second part, in reference to Easy's question about specifically wargaming stuff:

Spoiler:

The overlaps with wargaming in particular and source analysis tend not to be retrojections. That is to say, it tends to be scholarship influencing the wargaming, rather than wargaming influencing the scholarship. The influence of re-enactors, as experimental archaeology, is another area entirely and has yielded some fascinating insights. For more on that, read about Linothorax reconstructions, the viability of longbows and wear pattern analysis on bronze age weaponry - all stuff which has furthered out understanding just by people with a passion getting together and hashing out ideas

But as I say, usually, it's wargaming feeding off 'history'. But when the underlying history is perilous and perhaps dubiously proposed, we get a knock-on in wargaming, which is very frustrating. Some examples:

My absolute worst niggle with 'defined looks' in wargaming is the insistence on Spartans having a Lambda shield device and pilos helmets. Both of these 'definitive' 'facts' are based on absolutely TINY scraps of info which certain scholars have pushed, especially into Osprey Publishing's guides on warriors - but they are by no mean's accurate. Thus, wargamers have neat serried ranks of little hoplites with dome heads and uniform shields and, in my most humble opinion, I disagree

Campbell breaks down the Lambda issue exceptionally in his Osprey Book 'Spartan Warrior 735-331'. He is most convincing and effectively dispells the former acceptance by Dr. Nick Sekunda (Also publishing in Osprey Books). I'll summarise:

Xenophon records that in c.392 Sicyon was beseiged during the Corinthian War. A Lakedaimonian (Spartan) regiment (mora) was holed up with them, and when both sides deployed to fight outside the city, the Argives routed the Sicyonian contingent. In steps Pasimachus, commanding the Spartan cavalry. He orders the dismount, picks up the Sicyonian shields and charges the Argives:

'The Argives, seeing the Sigmas on the shields, assumed that these were more Sicyonians and felt no apprehension at all. Pasimachus, running into battle, said; "By the Twin Gods, Argives, you will find you have made a mistake about these Sigmas". So, fighting with his small party against greatly superior numbers, he was killed as were many of those with him. (Xenophon, Hellenica, 4.4.10)

Basically, it has been assumed that because the Sicyonians had Sigma's on their shields, we ought to assumed that Spartans also had Lambdas. And, obviously, the text makes no mention of that. All Xenophon is alluding to is that if the Argives had known it was Spartans holding the shields, they would have thought twice. Our only other entry is around the 7th Century in Photius' Lexicon, which apparently draws off Theopompus (A 4th century Historian) and Eupolis (A 4th century comedian). The link is tenuous, and may be an out of context joke by Athenians. Other than these passages, there is 0 evidence for Lakedaimonian Lambdas.

The pilos being exclusively worn in the Lakedaimonian Army is another area that annoys me. I've already wittered on long enough, so I'll not provide an explanation unless anybody wishes to hear it. TLDR though - It's another non-entity which is promoted by a narrow reading of a tiny passage in a single book by one author. And it is then dispensed to wargamers as 'fact' with the result that everyone's army has unifromly neat little hats, which bears (probably) no resemblance to a Lakedaimonian Army. Add in your Lambdas, and we're looking at something which is more at home in Game of Thrones than on a historical wargamer's tabletop...

**xerxeskingofking**

ok, specific equipment question:

in the movie Hero, we are shown a late Warring States Chinese army(3rd century BC, or roughly contemporary to the Punic Wars in Europe). in particular, we see two types of bow that i would like to question the historical evidence for.

In this short video, we have regular archers (nuff said), some weird foot bow style, and a multi-arrow, pseudo-ballista...thing.

now, is thier any evidence for either of these latter two systems being used? the footbows seem to almost be a early crossbow design, with a channel for the arrow to rest on, and using the stronger leg muscles to do the work, but i was under the impression the Chinese of this time had already worked out how to make prober crossbows with triggers (certianly, those had been found in the Terracotta Army, which was form the very end of the 3rd century BC), so why mess around with this thing?

likewise those multi-arrow things are very weird. They're hand drawn, not torsion powered (so not actually ballistae), and have two people drawing on them, but it still seems a very...inefficient way to do things. given the large number of arrows per bow, it wouldnt have a very good power to shot weight ratio, even with a longer draw than a normal bow.

is thier any historical evidence for either of these two practices? I recognise that Hero isnt realistic in any way, but i'm curious where the flimakers dug up the ideas for this? the foot bow thing in particular just seems so counter-intuitive to "normal" concepts that it's almost too weird to make up.

**Warpig1815**

I have no expertise with China admittedly...

The guys with the foot bows are... odd. In an Ancient Greek context, there is definitly something similar - the gastrephetes. Basically, it was a crossbow in the modern sense, but you used your stomach to press down on a sliding channel and cock the bow. Apparently the Chinese crossbows could be drawn using a belt claw, and this was done lying down. So there is precedent.

Similarly, we have evidence of multi-arrow crossbows in China, specifically repeating crossbows which fed bolts into the channel via a top magazine and was reloaded by a lever which was used to rapidly work the string. Those multi-shot throws are also attested, but tend to be gunpowder propelled rather than torsion or manual power. The 'Hwacha' was a notable Korean design used against the Japanese in their invasions of Korea.

As to why this would even be a thing. Well, it likely wasn't, but one argument I can see in forgoing any trigger mechanism or torsion bundles is simple cost and complexity. If the army in question is scratch or poorly supported, then these weapons will still produce a thick volley (very inefficiently) with little to no expertise or specialist materials needed to construct trigger mechanisms.

But yeah. I am not Chinese warfare expert, and I too would love to know if this is a fair representation. I suspect not.

**Olthannon**

In a word, yes. All of the things in the video are accurate representations of Qin dynasty siege warfare. Both were used in combat simultaneously as both the horn composite bows and crossbows in use at the time had different uses within warfare. Just because they themselves are accurate does not mean the movie itself is accurate. However, the video you sent has an extremely disparaging description based on nonsense? It's illogical an army would use that amount of arrows? Like I said before, people pick the wrong things to freak out over when something may or may not be accurate.
There are numerous Chinese texts written at the time that go into detail about correct posture and all the rest of archery. The greater draw distance using these foot operated crossbows is extremely useful in a siege.

These are very different to the Greek, Roman and Pictish crossbows used at the time.

Crossbows have an interesting history in that they are used frequently in warfare but like guns, considered distasteful. So they are used in different periods despite the fact the technology already exists. People forget that human agency plays more of a role in warfare than technological advancement. Simply because one thing seems better on paper does not mean that in history this is the same.

**xerxeskingofking**

Olthannon wrote:
In a word, yes. All of the things in the video are accurate representations of Qin dynasty siege warfare. Both were used in combat simultaneously as both the horn composite bows and crossbows in use at the time had different uses within warfare. Just because they themselves are accurate does not mean the movie itself is accurate. However, the video you sent has an extremely disparaging description based on nonsense? It's illogical an army would use that amount of arrows? Like I said before, people pick the wrong things to freak out over when something may or may not be accurate.
There are numerous Chinese texts written at the time that go into detail about correct posture and all the rest of archery. The greater draw distance using these foot operated crossbows is extremely useful in a siege.

These are very different to the Greek, Roman and Pictish crossbows used at the time.

Crossbows have an interesting history in that they are used frequently in warfare but like guns, considered distasteful. So they are used in different periods despite the fact the technology already exists. People forget that human agency plays more of a role in warfare than technological advancement. Simply because one thing seems better on paper does not mean that in history this is the same.

ok, cool. I wasn't doubting that archers and crossbowmen were in use together (they co-existed in medieval europe quite happily, after all), it was just i hadn't seen credible stuff about these foot-bows before, or the big volley bows being used in that time period (as opposed to the later gunpowder rocket launcher things).

the greater flim is very inaccurate, its a wuxia work with heroic individuals with abilites on par with comic-book superheros. The comments about the illogical use were directed at the scene within the greater context of the flim (that video has edited out cut-aways to the heros and such, just showing the Qin archers doing their thing), where the army marches up to an apparently undefended city/calligraphy school (no defensive walls, no troops, just a few buildings with a fairly normal garden wall around them), then smothers it with those massive arrow volleys (which two protagonists seek to heroically deflect, in best wuxia fashion, so that a third one can complete a task within the school), then just marches away without attacking further, with no infantry assault to actually take the school that they were shooting at. It was that "lol, lets just shoot this place up with arrows, then go home for tea and biscuits" way the Qin army operated in that movie, that the video creator was saying was illogical, rather than them using mass volleys.

some people in the comments took umbridge at the number of archers firing and the amount of arrows being shot, but i think those comments were form people who have no conception of the capability of mass production using historical methods, and just think "no way some peasants in mud huts could afford, or be able, to make all those arrows".