me too. i just mowed the lawn, now i hafta clean the kitchen and go run 2 miles. blah.
Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post
- Thread starter The Ancient Mariner
- Start date
Can't do that here, it's pouring rain out.
That sucks, we just had 2 days of rain and yuck. its sunny now-- i went and split wood for half an hour-- cleaned my chimney last eve, so now I can burn when the cold hits.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Perun said:
I love THAT song, well the instrumental mid-section anyway.
And quite the good one, I might add.
____no5
Free Man
Perun said:
I'm not very familiar with the battle of Plataeae -plus, never been impressed from it....
On the other hand I'm a big fan of the naval battle of Salamis, which I consider the key battle
of Persian wars -a milestone in European history like Marathon, Poitiers & the siege of Vienna
Here is the location of the battle :
The Greek ships were opposite, where the island is (the very first shore you see),
and the Persian, where the shipyards are (balcony side), and outside to the left.
Notice the complete lack of space; and we speak for a force of 800 -1000 Persian ships against 300 -400 Greek
Apparently it was impossible all Persian ships to participate the same time,
the main reason why they lost.
I try sometimes to picture the battle and every-single-time I'm amazed and I can't believe it
how Persians they've been so stupid to go and fight in that hole with such a big army!!!
Plus, as some experts claim, it wasn't even necessary for Persians to involve themselves in that battle
-for that one I don't have the credits to answer, I've just read it, that's all
ps : King Xerxes was sitting in the same mountain that the picture is taken, a bit higher....
I disagree. The battles of Plataeae and Mycale were what ended the Persian invasion. After Salamis, the Persian army was still intact, given that Salamis was a naval battle, and the Persian fleet was severely damaged, but still capable of reinforcing a major campaign.
Xerxes fled Greece with a large part of his army, but left Mardonius with an elite part of it in Greece. With two thirds of the Persian army unharmed in Asia and a fleet that could be re-formed and strengthened at any point, nothing was decided after Salamis, and Xerxes could have reinforced Mardonius at any given time if he ran into trouble. The simultaneous Greek attack on Mardonius' army at Plataeae and the fleet at Mycale destroyed these hopes, because both forces were completely destroyed. The only thing Xerxes could now have done was launch another land campaign, which was futile, because invading Greece without naval support did not work. After Mycale, the Greeks had full major superiority.
BTW, I consider neither Marathon (as explained in the post) nor Poitiers (the most overrated battle ever) key events in European history.
Xerxes fled Greece with a large part of his army, but left Mardonius with an elite part of it in Greece. With two thirds of the Persian army unharmed in Asia and a fleet that could be re-formed and strengthened at any point, nothing was decided after Salamis, and Xerxes could have reinforced Mardonius at any given time if he ran into trouble. The simultaneous Greek attack on Mardonius' army at Plataeae and the fleet at Mycale destroyed these hopes, because both forces were completely destroyed. The only thing Xerxes could now have done was launch another land campaign, which was futile, because invading Greece without naval support did not work. After Mycale, the Greeks had full major superiority.
BTW, I consider neither Marathon (as explained in the post) nor Poitiers (the most overrated battle ever) key events in European history.
I can give you the basics- since I don't consider it a key event in European history, it won't appear in the current series of blog posts. 
Poitiers is always considered the turning point of Arab expansion and a heroic defence of the Franks who avoided being conquered by them. That's wrong- the Arab campaign that led to the battle was a simple raid. The Arab expansion already stalled in Spain, and the Arabs didn't have sufficient manpower to sustain a conquest of the Frankish empire. Their goal was plundering Tours, no more. Had they defeated the Franks, they only would have plundered the region and withdrawn. The Arabs had done numerous raids like that previously and would go on to do them later.
The thing is, the Franks didn't know that, and at that time, the Arabs still had a bit of a nimbus of being undefeated in battle, so the Franks believed they had saved Europe.
Poitiers is always considered the turning point of Arab expansion and a heroic defence of the Franks who avoided being conquered by them. That's wrong- the Arab campaign that led to the battle was a simple raid. The Arab expansion already stalled in Spain, and the Arabs didn't have sufficient manpower to sustain a conquest of the Frankish empire. Their goal was plundering Tours, no more. Had they defeated the Franks, they only would have plundered the region and withdrawn. The Arabs had done numerous raids like that previously and would go on to do them later. The thing is, the Franks didn't know that, and at that time, the Arabs still had a bit of a nimbus of being undefeated in battle, so the Franks believed they had saved Europe.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Just curious, Then what do you have to say about this:
(copied from wiki):
----
Popular conservative military historian Victor Davis Hanson shares his view about the battle's macrohistorical placement:
“ Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates.".”
Paul Davis, another modern historian who addresses both sides in the debate over whether or not this Battle truly determined the direction of history, as Watson claims, or merely was a relatively minor raid, as Cardini writes, says "whether Charles Martel saved Europe for Christianity is a matter of some debate. What is sure, however, is that his victory ensured that the Franks would dominate Gaul for more than a century." Davis writes, "Moslem defeat ended the Moslem’s threat to western Europe, and Frankish victory established the Franks as the dominant population in western Europe, establishing the dynasty that led to Charlemagne."
---
Thus it could be seen as a turning point in the history of Europe?
(copied from wiki):
----
Popular conservative military historian Victor Davis Hanson shares his view about the battle's macrohistorical placement:
“ Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates.".”
Paul Davis, another modern historian who addresses both sides in the debate over whether or not this Battle truly determined the direction of history, as Watson claims, or merely was a relatively minor raid, as Cardini writes, says "whether Charles Martel saved Europe for Christianity is a matter of some debate. What is sure, however, is that his victory ensured that the Franks would dominate Gaul for more than a century." Davis writes, "Moslem defeat ended the Moslem’s threat to western Europe, and Frankish victory established the Franks as the dominant population in western Europe, establishing the dynasty that led to Charlemagne."
---
Thus it could be seen as a turning point in the history of Europe?
Disagree. Muslim raids continued after Poitiers. Southern France was a frequent target for Muslim raids after the battle for over a century, and a French town, don't remember which one (can check when I'm home) was held by Arabs for several decades in the 9th century. Moreover, Arab pirates plundered Rome in 846, more than a century after Poitiers.
Charles Martell was an important character in Frankish history, but the Franks were already the dominant political body in Western Europe, and Martell's policy even weakened its position. Hanson just likes a big battle and tries to overemphasise its importance, typical for a military historian.
Anyway, I prefer positive arguments, i.e. not arguing why somebody is wrong, but why I am right. That's what I intend to do with that blog, and I already stated that I am going to leave out many other famous dates as well. In that vein...
New Perunology.
Charles Martell was an important character in Frankish history, but the Franks were already the dominant political body in Western Europe, and Martell's policy even weakened its position. Hanson just likes a big battle and tries to overemphasise its importance, typical for a military historian.
Anyway, I prefer positive arguments, i.e. not arguing why somebody is wrong, but why I am right. That's what I intend to do with that blog, and I already stated that I am going to leave out many other famous dates as well. In that vein...
New Perunology.
Perun said:
This, especially the bit about Hansen.
I never thought I'd see the day where an articulate member of this forum resorted to a "this" post. 
By the way, I have the day off from work and I am prepared to spam the living shit out of this forum today...
By the way, I have the day off from work and I am prepared to spam the living shit out of this forum today...
Fuck you, it's the spam forum.
Wow. Feeling hostile today? 