Sorry to be irritating, but is this intentional?

Users who are viewing this thread

Any specific book you are referring to? Have you even read any relevant books? Or say, a book in general? I have of course seen plenty examples of hoplites serving as mercenaries, but nothing that would indicate that it was the norm.
 
Calathar said:
this whole persian bs is rather funny, but
Dude, read a book on the Achaemenid army.
... Greeks weren't trained? Are u stupid m8? Actually all hoplites were proffesional mercenaries, fighting all around ancient world for money.
Are you ******** retarded? The Athenians actually saw training as cowardly.
Yup, militia wasn't trained, but the core of ancient greek armies were hoplites, and they were far more superior in training, tactics and equipment than Persians.
They are famous now, among idiots watching history channel. Read an actual book. The hoplites WERE the militia, moron.  Their own sources attest to that. The only regular, trained force in Greece in 480 was the Spartans. There were a few semi-regular mercenary forces as well, but those were generally veterans seeking employment.

Unlike the hoplites, the ethnic Persians are universally attested to as trained troops.
ALso, why did Alexander beat the hell out of Persians so easily if they were so superior to Greeks/Macedonians? :wink:
1. Alexander's victories relied on his cavalry. His infantry, which wasn't hoplites, was there only to hold the enemy infantry.
2. The invasion of Persia was anything but easy.


Guys, there is a lot of difference between History Channel and encyclopedia type books, and actual history books. Also, you'd do well to start looking at primary sources.
 
First, hello every one.
Second, every Greek citizens was trained, all major greek city states have gymnasium and palestre who was the base of education of the polites, the greek hoplites was far better than all elites persians soldiers, the history prove it. Out numbered the greek ofen manage to win. by the time of Alexander 6 years of wars was enough to break the so great persian empire Mr Roach, and don't tell me please to go read book because I have a big Bibliotheque and some of my friends are  historian and I never learn from internet, you sum up the Median War with one (Salamine) battle don't forget Platea, Mycale, the anabasis from Xenophon ect...
True the persian army was great war machine, but they meet there masters. And you forget they don't have to fight with all the greek city only a few, what will hapen if greek was unified they will crush Persian like mosqitos on a table.
So you see only what you want to see, and say only what you want to say. Be a little more honest with yourself and little more polite with the other please, don't be so fanatic with persians and so rascist with Greeks.
I wish you a good day.
Ps. sorry for my english is not my native language.
 
Asty said:
First, hello every one.
Second, every Greek citizens was trained, all major greek city states have gymnasium and palestre who was the base of education of the polites, the greek hoplites was far better than all elites persians soldiers, the history prove it. Out numbered the greek ofen manage to win. by the time of Alexander 6 years of wars was enough to break the so great persian empire Mr Roach, and don't tell me please to go read book because I have a big Bibliotheque and some of my friends are  historian and I never learn from internet, you sum up the Median War with one (Salamine) battle don't forget Platea, Mycale, the anabasis from Xenophon ect...
True the persian army was great war machine, but they meet there masters. And you forget they don't have to fight with all the greek city only a few, what will hapen if greek was unified they will crush Persian like mosqitos on a table.
So you see only what you want to see, and say only what you want to say. Be a little more honest with yourself and little more polite with the other please, don't be so fanatic with persians and so rascist with Greeks.
I wish you a good day.
Ps. sorry for my english is not my native language.
BS, BS, BS.
1. Richer hoplites could afford individual training, yes, but that was hardly too relevant for phalanx warfare where drill would've been much more worthwhile;
2. Any Greeks better than any Persians? Yeah, I am the racist here...
3. You have not read any of my posts.
4. If you see not believing the old tale of Greeks being outright superior to everyone else in everything (because that's what they say themselves) as racist towards you, you should pay a visit to a mental institution.
 
you guys should move this to The Sage's Guild  Historical Discussion your not even talking about the mod
 
Viking_Dane you right, and I won't spare my time on this tread. Mr Roach you can post and post again, insult, cry, but you won't change the result of history. The team tell you the mod is unfinished and unbalanced, so wait to see, they put a lots of works on it and I believe it will be one of the best mod around.Patient.
 
Asty said:
Viking_Dane you right, and I won't spare my time on this tread. Mr Roach you can post and post again, insult, cry, but you won't change the result of history. The team tell you the mod is unfinished and unbalanced, so wait to see, they put a lots of works on it and I believe it will be one of the best mod around.Patient.

Guys, in case you haven't noticed I never said the Greeks didn't have advantages. I just dispute the claim that they were inherently better soldiers. The phalanx was the most effective infantry formation for head on engagements at the time, and there is no denying that. But that is no reason to claim they were more trained, better equipped and in any way superior overall.
 
Roach my good man, please don't start a debate and then scream BS everytime someone posts a response that doesn't correspond to your opinion. You claerly belive that you know everything there is to know about this era of history, and nothing anyone says will change that.

Gentlemen (and ladies) please don't bother posting in this thread, since it will clearly serve no purpose.

I strongly suggest that this thread is locked.
 
shostak said:
Roach my good man, please don't start a debate and then scream BS everytime someone posts a response that doesn't correspond to your opinion. You claerly belive that you know everything there is to know about this era of history, and nothing anyone says will change that.

Gentlemen (and ladies) please don't bother posting in this thread, since it will clearly serve no purpose.

I strongly suggest that this thread is locked.

What I hate is that your "response" is just reposting one 19th century misconception after another.
 
The only advantage the Persian armies always had was their size. Persian armies had very light gear compared to Greek soldiers, as they were trained and experienced in desert/open land battles.

In contrast, Greek armies were smaller due to high armament costs, easier to resupply and to organize, with much heavier armor/weaponry and better tactics/strategies. Plus they were mostly fighting in homeland, which gave a significant boost to morale.There must be a reason the Persians suffered one crushing defeat after the other when battling with the superior Greek military force.

However, since we got a little off-topic here, I agree that for gameplay reasons the units should be balanced, since a game that's too one-sided is boring and dull.



 
shostak said:
Roach my good man, please don't start a debate and then scream BS everytime someone posts a response that doesn't correspond to your opinion. You claerly belive that you know everything there is to know about this era of history, and nothing anyone says will change that.

Gentlemen (and ladies) please don't bother posting in this thread, since it will clearly serve no purpose.

I strongly suggest that this thread is locked.

This.


So many people posted their opinions and you simply choose to ignore and doubt every one that doesn't reflect your own opinion.

Your nationalist feelings do not change the fact your ancestors got their azz whooped by the Greeks repeatedly during the ancient times. Yes, the Persian Empire was great, yes, you had a great army and all that, but don't you come here like a little kid whining because you cannot comprehend that somone can actually manage to be a better soldier than a Persian one.
 
alexispao said:
shostak said:
Roach my good man, please don't start a debate and then scream BS everytime someone posts a response that doesn't correspond to your opinion. You claerly belive that you know everything there is to know about this era of history, and nothing anyone says will change that.

Gentlemen (and ladies) please don't bother posting in this thread, since it will clearly serve no purpose.

I strongly suggest that this thread is locked.

This.


So many people posted their opinions and you simply choose to ignore and doubt every one that doesn't reflect your own opinion.

Your nationalist feelings do not change the fact your ancestors got their azz whooped by the Greeks repeatedly during the ancient times. Yes, the Persian Empire was great, yes, you had a great army and all that, but don't you come here like a little kid whining because you cannot comprehend that someone can actually manage to be a better soldier than a Persian one.

I think this is less of an issue with opinions, and more of an issue with facts. The argument that went on wasn't opinionated; rather, it was based on historical fact versus historical fiction. As far as I can see, Roach supported his arguments with valid reasoning, and I personally agree with his statements.

On the other hand, the people who disagreed with Roach usually didn't employ reasoning and logic, which made their arguments flawed and varied. As you can see, many of the arguments were repeated over and over, and were often disproved or thrown into doubt a few pages or posts before.

However, Roach, you're letting your frustrations get to you. I suggest trying to maintain civility (hopefully I used it right), although I can see how it would be hard if people repeat the same thing over and over.

However, the main point of this thread was to talk about the mod, and yes, I think that the Persian city troops are underpowered a little.
 
i think people should stop posting and take this somewhere else stop taking up lynores thread
 
alexispao said:
Your nationalist feelings do not change the fact your ancestors got their azz whooped by the Greeks repeatedly during the ancient times. Yes, the Persian Empire was great, yes, you had a great army and all that, but don't you come here like a little kid whining because you cannot comprehend that somone can actually manage to be a better soldier than a Persian one.

straw-man.jpg


How nice to see you just jump on the bandwagon and don't even bother to read a thing I have said so far. For the final ******** time, I am not Persian, I don't know a single Persian person and I share no ancestry with them. I am not trying to prove that the Achaemenid empire was greater than anything, since I am more interested in the Roman empire. What I am trying to do is drive fanboyism out of this forum. Well, bad try - this forum is simply too saturated.


Now, if any of you still are capable of comprehending what you read, here's my argument summed up:
Yes, the Persians got defeated a fair number of times, but they also defeated Greeks a fair number of times. I am trying to tell you that they had a capable military, and none of their troops were expendable slaves, and that one cannot take accounts liable to chauvinism and bias at face value.


Regarding the actual mod: it is not balanced yet, so I am not going to say anything there. However, Persian gear is obviously overpowered.
 
Greetings, I've read the thread (about to download the mod).

The only motivation I could see for Greek levies from a city being higher level than their Persian counterparts is that perhaps in some sense you are tapping straight from the pool of equipped militia present in the city.
In the time period that the mod is set, the citizen soldiers were expected to provide their own equipment, so it kind of makes sense that you'd recruit them as such. AFAIK it was only after the Macedonians showed the rest of the Hellenic world how things should be done that the city states made changes. Athens started providing standardised equipment for its soldiers (shields bearing Alpha is the example here) and presumably training. Other cities had developed trained units of hoplites much earlier (Thebes is the big one here, not too sure about others). So I would see this as the justification for Greek City recruits being better 'off the bat'.

However, doesn't this kind of imply that if the Persian King wanted to mount a campaign he would have to round up a bunch of recruits and train them from scratch every time? This seems implausible to say the least. Experienced soldiers don't suddenly lose their experience after they return from a campaign, they maintain it. You'll have to excuse my ignorance on the matter, but the Persians must have maintained some sort of standing army or in effect had one due to the size of their empire, and thus there must have been a core of experienced/trained troops the King could draw from.

Perhaps Roach does have a point after all.


As for the army composition being 90% hoplites, that's a little odd. From what I've read there were quite often 1:1 for light troops to hoplites. However, I suspect this varies greatly at different dates. I'd expect to see many more hoplites than peltasts at Marathon for example. But then into the Peleponnesian War-proper the use of light troops increased greatly, once the Greeks got out of the thick-headed heavy infantry mindset. From what I recall, by the Spartan-Theban war, most hoplites had sacrificed armour for mobility. Wasn't there a sort of hybrid, like a lightly armoured hoplite with a long spear but smaller shield? Think I'll shut up and download the mod.
 
Back
Top Bottom