socrates sucks. why do europeans still promte the fucking useless greek philosophers who only made shit up and actually achieved nothing. Look at fucking perikles or miltiades who actually achieved something. These are people we should look up to.
>>43839900 >there are actual documents of his work there are accounts of his work, but no primary source itself >inb4 what difference does that make a huge difference. the credibility is already questioned when the biggest supplier/re-distrubter of Socrates work is Plato himself.
>there's a reason that even though we know Shakespeare to be a real person, there is controversy that isn't settled whether or not Shakespeare actually "wrote" most of his work Even if it was a primary source "Socrates" it is hard to validate that it is indeed one man, and not a collective or a ancient pen name.
>>43839529 Alexander really just won because of his weapons tactics which really weren´t his. The only thing he did was read things about persia liking it and deciding hey i will fucking invade them. He later proved to be a terrible politican but thankfully he died and his generals could do the actual hard work.
Alexander was the reason his father was even able to unite Greece under his control by winning the battle at Chaeronea. It was his decision to take advantage of the gap in Greek battle formations and charge in there.
Also while his father can indeed be credited for creating the famous Macedonian army, he didn't get to use them in a larger scale in a huge campaign. There's no telling if he had been even half as successful as was Alexander at conquering Persia.
Don't forget Alexander won one of the most glorious battles in the history of mankind, Gaugamela. But it's not just that he was able to achieve something this great, it is also that he was always in the center of the action. In every battle he was alongside his companion cavalry, charging into the enemy lines where the fight was always the most ferocious and decisive. He didn't hesitate for a second when he was faced with a greater army.
That's really something to look up to.
Also why do you think he was a bad politician? His megalomania?
>>43841285 I´m just saying he wasn´t a genius or anything he was more someone with ambitions superior tactics . Which were really simply, basically he had huge ass spears and his enemies couldn´t reach his army and were confused.
>>43841324 I just heard that he was bad at actually gouverning his empire which is propably why he was killed. On the internet i just find that he kept everything how it was. Nevertheless his empire broke apart when he died so there´s that.
>>43841820 It weren´t his tactics. Persians were just bad at war. Which could already be seen in the first persian greek war. It´s just a part of the greek mentality to stay inside the own polis. But macedonians weren´t really greek. So he adopted greek tactics and fought the paper tiger that was the persian empire.
>>43841791 >which is propably why he was killed This is some deeper shit I'm not advanced enough to understand, yet? Because he died of fever. A fever from a river that til this day has bacteria or someshit in it.
He was a bad ruler in that his ego got too big and he tried to forcefully bring both Greek and Persian cultures together. This may have worked but not in such a short timescale, especially taking into account he died and this only made the historical cultural schisms worse. His successor was weak and none of the nations really wanted to stay united with eachother.
His death and the death of his empire after it hadn't really much to do with what he did. There's not much he could've done. If he lived longer then sure, but that's not what happened.
>basically he had huge ass spears and his enemies couldn´t reach his army and were confused >this is literally a 6 yearolds level of apprehension of strategy
It's not impossible to counter a phalanx. And the phalanx wasn't even the main reason Macedonians won battle after battle. As I said, the decisive blows by Alexanders cavalry that he led personally were of much bigger significance.
>>43841932 It's not so much that Persians are bad at war, it's that Greeks got everything on their side in the Greco Persian wars: terrain, hometurf, and the fact that Persians were far from their homes and didn't really give a shit about Greece.
Then Persians lost against ALexander because Darius was a weak king and the people, again, didn't really give a shit about the war. They greeted Alexander when he entered Babylon.
>>43842055 He kept an army of tens of thousands of men supplied and on the move for almost ten years straight, with little in the way of a pre-existing command structure. Meanwhile if you rank with in the top tier chess players you are often considered to have some level of genius
>>43842137 Well we both agree that persia was weak so what´s the problem. They were so succsesful because they didn´t conquer and destroy they let the conquereds system of culture and gouverning stay. So they were pretty popular and just had manpower. Their tactics were terrible to non existent. That why it was so easy for Alexander to destroy them with superior greek tactics. He just had to follow the patterns. And it actually happend often that really easy tactics made a country unbelievably superior. Just look and the mongolians and pic related. That´s what destroyed the Huge ass spear tactic. Yes, huge ass shields. Unable to pearce with the spear which on that distance of up to 7m dind´t have a lot of power.
>>43842717 Read my comment again. I said mongolians. That´s exactly what they did. And then conquered almost all of asia. That´s just my point. Sometimes really easy and almost obvious little changes in the tactics forged the biggest empires.
Why do you keep talking about something you obviously have no knowledge of?
The testudo was best for sieging. In a close combat it would've served no purpose.
The real success of Rome came not from testudo. It came from the ability to learn from enemies and to adapt. Carthaginian navy was beaten by inventing bridges that would connect two ships in a battle, effectively making it a land battle.
The biggest part of Roman battle strategy was the maniples. The ability to constantly have fresh men in the front was a great advantage. Plus the Roman weaponry and shields were created specifically for fighting in a very tight formation, which ensured that no matter of the numbers in a battle, Romans would always have a number advantage in the melee battle by simply having men closer together.
Then there's the pilum.
There's so much more to what made Romans successful than a "really easy tactic".
Also Persians were good at war. How do you think they managed achieving such an empire?
Your explanation is that they let the conquered keep their culture, but that doesn't explain how they got conquered in the first part.
Let me tell you how: they were good at desert warfare on flat grounds. Horse archers, great archers in general, light shields against arrows and good tacticians is what got them that far. Greece was whole another monster. Mountainous, melee focused heavy infantry. Plus what I already mentioned in my earlier post.
I could go on with Mongolians but I'd probably run out of characters.
I want to finish off by saying that no matter how fucked Persia was once Alexander came, it doesn't take away from his achievements. If a boxer gave up before the fight, it would not taint his opponent, especially if he has a history of winning. It just means that his potential didn't get a chance to be revealed.
>>43843061 When did i say he didn´t deserve the name great or something. He could be dumb as fuck i would still consider him great. He did have briliant tactics. It just weren´t his. The persians were so succsseful because they had manpower. They just threw bags of meat against their oponents (like stalin btw). I know that rome was so succseful because they addapted. it´s just that this tactic made the phallanx useless. I was just trying to show that sometimes a simple tactic can be enough to win even when the odds are highly against you in terms of manpower.
>>43843161 I don´t need a fucking argument. The brit already explained why. Also because of homer many historians think the greeks sometimes invented someone to be the father of writting down history(homer) or philosophy (socrates).
>>43843300 part of me wants to start some form of movement where we become social gadflies and try to do what socrates did. but rather then piss everyone off we get them to like us the for them to follow suit by convincing them that questioning everything you believe in is just a better way to live. hire a bunch of charismatic guys to make speeches to the public while being unaffiliated with any political movement. it would be awful nice to see that.
>>43843351 Try to poke someone with a shield thats as big as him with as 7m long spear. They just blocked and in the back they threw these genius spears at their oponents that had weak metal in the middle and would deform when they hid their shields making them useless. I know a bit about these things.
>>43843304 >He did have briliant tactics. It just weren´t his What the fuck? Whose then?
If anything, it's the tactics that were Alexanders and the army his fathers. Besides there's much much more to winning a war than tactics. One of them is decision making. This is what Alexander did; good decisions.
>The persians were so succsseful because they had manpower No.
They had manpower once they had gained most of the known world as their empire. Til then their success lied on what I said.
>(like stalin btw) All he did was find a way to cope with the shortage of resources and military equipment. He had to stop the German advance at any cost whatsoever. He had to stall them just enough for the forces to arrive from Siberia. Once they got to the frontlines, the war was over. Germans saw no success from that point onwards and the high numbers of Russian casualties is not due to some "meat" strategy, but instead due to Russians lacking the experience Germans had. Both the soldiers and higher ups. Plus their equipment was still problematic, though less so towards the end of the war.
>>43843817 As i said i didn't say he's dumb just not a genius. The phallanx was greek. Greeks were generally great at war. They just never had ambitions to conquer the world. They stayed in their polis. I'll stick to what i said about the persians. I just hate stalin because he's responsible for killing one of my relative, and no he was not a nazi. Just a german living in russia. That's why i brought that up. I hate that fucker.
>>43842609 >>43843061 The Roman advantage was Italy, large amounts of land suited to the Mediterranean agriculture of the time and situated at the heart of Mediterranean trade. Look at Pyrrhus and Hannibal, their wars with Rome were characterized by them winning battles but losing the war due to attrition.
After they had naval superiority in the Mediterranean they could concentrate large numbers of troops anywhere on the coast, overwhelming the Hellenic states one by one. Their maniples were medium infantry, more or less equals to the phalanx on uneven ground but not if they had to confront them directly, though this they could avoid due to supply from the sea, they could loiter in enemy territory causing trouble, forcing the enemy to leave favorable ground and confront them.
>>43844756 No it is fucking nothing. That's like people saying the ten amendments were an unbelievable step towards human rights. Every fucking decent civilisation figures that out. People do that naturally.
>>43844505 Why are you doing this? You know you can just read about history. There's lots of information about it and it's interesting. There's no need to make stuff up.
>They just never had ambitions to conquer the world Holy hell lmao
Please keep going. Tell me about the Carthaginians.
>>43844602 My autism keeps overthinking everything but I've trained myself to treat everyone and everything as what it seems at the first glance. It's nearly impossible to underestimate the stupidity of the internet.
>>43845148 I was just mocking you m8. I just wanted you to tell me more about ancient history since you seem to have a very good understanding of it. Then I asked about the Carthaginians cause I had this awesome pic that was itching to be uploaded.
>>43845209 Oh how nice. And people say pol is just about trolling. Yeah i had latin in school so i pretty much had to learn everything about ancient rome. The language really sucks though. I was so bad that in the end i had to do this huge fucking presentation why rome fell and then i became really intrested in history. Schools really suck at making it interesting.
>>43845705 No I was laughing at your extremely almost unbelievably simplistic understanding of the ancient history. So I asked you to keep going cause I was having a laff. Then I asked about the Carthaginians because I had that cool pic.
>>43845764 Well fuck you i enjoyed talking to you so i thoight you did the same. Anyways i was just trying to prove that alexander didn't succed because he was so unbelievably smart because he was schollar of the great aristotle. It's just you automatically become simplistic trying to defend you argument. Sure you're somehow right. He was a good general. But not extraordinary in his skill. He had a fairly weak opponent and far superior tactics and brilliant people to back him up.
>>43845875 From my experience that just because he says it's the evil bankers fault but i haven't seen that much of him. But on that panel he was really fucking annoying and at the was more the idiot. He said ukip was against the weak people like minorities and disabled. Thena disapled person in the audoence said that's fucking bullshit. Thought that's kinda revealing on what type of person he is.
>>43845764 Now i get. You think sayingthe greeks didn't have ambitions to conquer. Maybe you should read some history because that's actually correct. Even when it was stupidly easy for them to take over other cities they didn't. They only forged alliances.
Thread replies: 123 Thread images: 12
Thread DB ID: 53492
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.