Is it true? (History)
- Thread starter tkioz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What one of my history teachers taught me about Napoleon height was that he was average height for his time. However, he made sure his bodyguards were as big and tough as possible and they typically were much taller than Napoleon. Because his body guards were so much taller than he was; people who saw him from a distance assumed that Napoleon was short and thus the rumor was born.tkioz said:
I'm not sure if this is true, but we do have a modern example in the duo of Penn & Teller. Teller is of average height and Penn is a giant, towering behemoth. But, when looking at them side by side people typically assume that Penn is the average one and Teller is the one of abnormal height.
It definitely wasn't iron. A pure iron sword would be harder to make but less effective than bronze. That's why Bronze was so prevalent for so long, it took people a long time(and tin shortages) to learn how to make anything useful out of it(by turning it into steel).WouldYouKindly said:
Horses could carry men, cause I think I read that the Arabian horses would carry important men into battle. Chariots were just an awesome war machine, and it was like discovering the tank after always seeing your soldiers fight on foot.tkioz said:
For anyone knowledgeable in the Three Kingdoms era of China.
Can someone simply explain to me how the Sima family overthrew the Cao family and took over the kingdom of Wei? I'm a bit confused as to how all of it happened, what was Cao Shaung's part in all of it. What were Wu doing at the time?
Can someone simply explain to me how the Sima family overthrew the Cao family and took over the kingdom of Wei? I'm a bit confused as to how all of it happened, what was Cao Shaung's part in all of it. What were Wu doing at the time?
They didn't have the ability to make pure iron and since no iron is naturally pure, there would still be impurities in the metal. These impurities would make for a funky shaped structure which is stronger than pure iron.spartan231490 said:
Steel is still superior, of course. But impure iron could still be effective, if not as sharp as bronze, in the least it was more durable.
At Andrew Jackson's funeral in 1845, his pet parrot had to be removed because it was swearing.
The Confederate Army wasn't segregated. Some 50,000 blacks fought for them, 13,000 in combat roles. By the end of the war, however, they had created all-black units.
The slang word "hooker," which means prostitute, was gotten from the US civil-war general Joseph T. Hooker. He hired prostitutes for his army to keep up troop morale. They started being called, "Hooker's girls" which was eventually shortened to "hooker." The name stuck.
French Fries were made in Belgium, but they were called "French Fries" cuz they looked like French-cut green beans.
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost a child while living in the White
House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Now it gets really weird.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in
1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in
1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born
in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born
in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
Now hang on to your seat
Lincoln was shot at the theater named "Ford."
Kennedy was shot in a car called "Lincoln" made by
"Ford."
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their
trials.
And here's the "kicker":
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe,
Maryland.
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn
Monroe.
Lincoln was shot in a theater and the assassin
ran to a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and the assassin
ran to a theater.
The Confederate Army wasn't segregated. Some 50,000 blacks fought for them, 13,000 in combat roles. By the end of the war, however, they had created all-black units.
The slang word "hooker," which means prostitute, was gotten from the US civil-war general Joseph T. Hooker. He hired prostitutes for his army to keep up troop morale. They started being called, "Hooker's girls" which was eventually shortened to "hooker." The name stuck.
French Fries were made in Belgium, but they were called "French Fries" cuz they looked like French-cut green beans.
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost a child while living in the White
House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Now it gets really weird.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in
1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in
1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born
in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born
in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
Now hang on to your seat
Lincoln was shot at the theater named "Ford."
Kennedy was shot in a car called "Lincoln" made by
"Ford."
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their
trials.
And here's the "kicker":
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe,
Maryland.
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn
Monroe.
Lincoln was shot in a theater and the assassin
ran to a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and the assassin
ran to a theater.
A others have said, no, it is not true. People were riding horses for a long time before the rise of the nations you mention.tkioz said:
However, where did you get your information that these nations used Chariots? The Romans did not use Chariots in any large numbers. They did use cavalry, and did understand the importance of the horse in warfare, but it was almost always allied cavalry, used to screen the army. In short, they were auxilia units and not attached to the main Roman fighting force. That is not to say that cavalry was a "secondary unit", they were often comprised of provincial elites and led by Roman equestrian officers. The Batavian units of Germanic stationed in Britain in the 1st Century AD was highly prized by the Romans and consider and elite unit. There were also praised for their ability to swim!
The Greeks too, used war chariots very little. The mountains terrain of Greece does not allow for easy use of cavalry, or chariots. Again, that is not say that the Greeks did not employ horses, but in Greek warfare the heavily armed hoplite was king.
The Egyptians did make some use of the chariot. However it was not widely used as wheeled cavalry as you might see in Rome:Total War. Instead, a chariot would more commonly carry a very heavily armored man to battle, where he would dismount and fight on foot. The chariot would the withdraw. This was done because the armor was too heavy for the man to walk to battle. There are some examples of archers firing form mobile chariots, but these are rare(ish)
Source: I have a M.A. in Classics.
True the Romans had not stirrups, but they did have a leather saddle that "gripped" the riders thighs with flanges, allowing them to mount a pretty effective charge. True, not as powerful as Medieval cavalry.Owyn_Merrilin said:
The Romans used cavalry from as early as the Roman Republic (c. 509-27BC), many Centuries before the Late Empire.
Source: I have a M.A. in Classics.
The way I understand it, they used cavalry, but they didn't rely on it much until much later, largely because their footsoldiers were more effective. I could be wrong, though -- I'm still working on my bachelor's degree, although I have completed all of the requirements for my history minor.HerrBobo said:
It may have been made of bronze at some stage, but the Roman Gladius we know was made of an iron alloy. It was probably copied from an type of Iberian of Carthaginian weapon around the 4th Century BC. This form of the weapon, used by the Republic troops, often had rather bulbous head and a narrower blade, though this got phased out in later Republic, early Empire.spartan231490 said:
It was only about 28 inches long; it was for stabbing, not slashing. Typically it was worn on the right side of the body, so it would not interfere with the scutum (shield) and pila (javelin). In theory the Roman soldier would take the blow from the foe's weapon with his shield held high and them while the foe' weapon was engaged the would gut his opponent with a sharp upward stab of the gladius.
Source: I have a M.A. in Classics.
The Romans appreciated the role of cavalry on the battle field from the time of the Republic. At the battle of Cannae, for example, the Carthaginian North African cavalry were instrumental in the Roman defeat. The Romans later employed there same cavalry as auxiliary troops after the defeat of Carthage and the subsequent alliance with Numidia.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Cavalry was always a very important part of Roman warfare. Not thee most important, for sure, but still vital.
From the AD 200's the nature of Roman warfare (and indeed all warfare) changes. The Romans come into contact more and more with the Parthian Empire, who employed large amounts of cavalry. In response to this the Romans began fielding more cavalry and there were more heavily armed too. It was still the infantry that one the battles though.
The problem with Roman history is that it is so vast that at one point or another it can seem that a certain type of army was the one the Romans used. What can be said though, with a fair degree of certainty is that the Romans always effectively used cavalry and it was always secondary to the infantry.
Ah... the more you know, huh... still, for an C18th/19th that wasn't short.spartan231490 said:
As for the 'Roman sword' question, for the most part... no. Early (as in early-early Republic circa AUC 1) they would already have started to phase bronze swords out, and this is well before the introduction of the gladius. The gladius was not native to Rome, but Hispania (Celt-Iberia IIRC), and was adopted as a standard Hastatus/Princeps weapon shortly after the Punic Wars (the triarius would have wielded an even shorter sword to compliment the spear that was his main weapon). And for the most part, the gladius was constructed from steel, a few archaeological digs uncovered pattern-welded examples.
As for length, with a shield wall... good luck getting a swing in, and the large shield compliments close quarter utility of the stabbing sword, and bear in mind the average Latin adult male was only between 5 foot and 5 foot 6 tall.
EDIT: Bugger, someone's already answered... and a better educated answer at that. Do ignore...