skel

i think could easily agrue that they were almost one in the same...

thanks for sharing that jim! i never knew such an armour existed. i found that info very interesting.

if you reread what ive said youll find nowhere did i say that armour was noneffective and useless. its the same as elbowpads and a helmet when you ride your bike... it will protect you somewhat, if you get sideswiped by a car going 30 mph youll still have a broken back and a concusion. armour protects the soldeir from minor things that would otherwise hender their ability to carry on in the battle, such as a graze that normally would have been bone deep is now only a fleshwound after passing through the armour. but when you thrust with all your might as soldiers do in battle it will go right throuigh your armour and into your flesh killing you either at that moment or when the battle is done. please dont twist my words and read them clearly before you accuse me of saying things that i did not say or mean. and if at some point you manage to show me proof that my statements are false then i will admit my wrong and thank you for making me a smarter person.

along with the saving private ryan scenes i also think that several scenes in Band of Brothers were very good and grusimly(sp?) real at times...

that would depend entirely on what time period and what were my concerns at the time...

your calling me stupid because i said something that is almost entirely true? body armor really does not help you much at all in a real battle. yes sheilds do but sheilds arent really considered "armour" they are... "sheilds" if you dont belive what im saying about armour then by all means.. go buy a roman lorica and put it on yourself and have a friend fire arrows at you and swing swords at you and see what happens... PS. jimbow, if you could guide me to a link supporting what you said about the Milanese armour, id appreciate it because i cant find any links really saying much about its effectiveness in combat...

Not the case so far as I'm aware. In the Hundred Years War, Milanese armour stopped even arrows from the English longbow, it was that good. The arrows just bounced or stuck without full penetration. The English almost lost their part of France, had the Italian mercenaries wearing it not decided to loot the baggage train and forget about their French paymasters The French armour was not as good as the Milanese. Can't remember the battle, will post if it comes to mind. In fact, there is a theory that the English longbow was not all that effective against French armour. really?? ill have to research that.. i have never heard of this lil fact...

i think the taking of the torrell (both scenes) in The Messenger: Story of Joan of Arc were really good seans... also the opening to gladiator the end scene in King Arthur in Troy when the greeks attack the walls of troy for the first time and troy fights them back... and all of the battle scenes in braverhart

has any one here read the book, The Histories, by Herodotus? im thinking about buying it from amazon.com and was wonder what people thought about it. i know its a major source for almost all accounts on ancient world histories. i guess i just wonder how it was to read it? was it dificult at all? which translation would you recommend?

i just want to say that i think alot of you mentioend the types of armor used by both armies, and say that it is an advantage or disadvantage because of what they wore... in all reality, no armor ever made could stop a sword or arrow from penetrating flesh in a mortal way. yes armor protected against graces, light slashes, weak thrusts, and other cuts and scraps from weapons and battlefield surroundings, but when it all boils down to it, a sword or arrow will go right through everything you are wearing and it will kill you. just wanted to mention that because i have seen alot of responses saying...oh but our armor is much better! again like i said before.. it would all boil down to tactics and who is in command.

i think what most of you guys are doing is putting them all on an even playing field, when in reality, the field is NEVER even. i think the outcome would depend souly on the commander and the way he chose to attack. its quite clear that both armies are vast and would stand an equal chance on the field, with the hans and their cross bows and cavalry, and the romans and their professionalism and experience. i belive history clearly shows that numbers and skill of army are absolutly meaningless if their is a bad commander at the helm. i personally belive that the chinese (although i really know nothing about themA) would resort to almost gorilla like warfare, but the romans however are much more stratigic i belive and while persistance like that of asian armies is one hell of a force to be reckoned with, in the end tactics and well planned events, such as the romans are quite good at, will always prevale(sp?), which as i said..lies in the hands of the commanders.

i just wanna respond to that last comment about the "shineyness" of the armour... i have been reenacting medivial combat for several years now and i can tell you for a fact and from experience that chainmail and scalemaille both have a great potential to ..shine... mind you, its not like bling bling diamonds and platinum kinda shine, but in the sunlight it definatly can...it all depends on how well you take care of it...

is it a documentary or a movie?? (ie. based on real events or about real events??)

just curious if any of you history buffs love history so much that you do any kind of reenacment? i currently am a member in a medieval combat society called belegarth and once march roles around (or i turn 18 in april) ill be joining a local chapter of the SCA (society for creative anachranism incase you dont know) i think reenacment is probably one of my biggest hobbies.. how bout any of you??

my dream is to live in ireland or scotland and have a castle built by these guys www.castlemagic.com

i think a large part of hannibles success against the romans was due to his use of battle tactics that the romans werent very used to fighitng against. such as hannibles ambush at lake..tresimine? i forget the names of battles sometimes.. if im not mistaken hannible did several ambush attacks on the romans, and his use of cavalry and the elephants(in the earlier battles) helped him out a substantial(sp?) amount..

so the eledged Arthur was dead well before that movie was even to have taken place??

yes i dont disagree that they had cavalry, but what i was saying is that they didnt use them to their true potential relying in large part on the infintry... am i wrong??

i dont know too much about the chinese but from some of the reasons that you mentioned nic, such as calavary.. i know that horses have been a huge factory in some of romes greatest losses have they not? in wars like with hannible and other barbarians? i recal reading a thread here that mentioned one of romes big defects in its legion was lack of cavalry use... and as far as the chinese pikes nad polearms i do think the romans could chew those up simply through experience of fighting them with other wars. however its my undcerstanding that the romans have a way of snatching a victory under impossible odds and always having just the right commander to do the job, like scipio with hannible ( i use hannible simply cuz i know it better then i do other wars of rome...) my vote would go for rome in a suprising comeback near the end of the war...

from my limited study on sarmatians the only thing i can really say about the movie and the real ones is that they were protrayed realisticly for the most part. they were descendants of scythians and supposedly amazons aswell, they were great archers who (through images found) road on horses. at the begining of the movie in their first charge youll notice that some of them had long spears with them. they also used this in real life i belive as a second offensive after their rain of arrows that they derived from the scythians. their armor also was depicted fairly well i belive as they wore metal plates on leather, also they were eastern so they would have had some eastern style armor such as the scales and the helms you saw in the movie (ie. tristians helm). if im wrong about any of that please correct me.

reading some of your replies made me think of the new online game that MYTHIC (creator of Dark Age of Camelot) is producing in the next year or so. the premis for it is Rome in space sort of. what do yall think of that idea? is it possible that (was was stated romans were very inventive..) they could have eventual created space travel and such? or if they kept on the path that they were going (not as far as their downfall is concerned) would they have stayed with slaves and never even imagened the idea of space?? edit:: heres a link to the games site for those who havent heard of it. http://www.imperatoronline.com/about/

i think what i find the most fascinating about rome is its military. not just its military but the way it used it to create the largest most memorable empire in history. ancient militaries and combats have always intrigued me... ever since i saw bravehart since then ive pretty much dedicated my knowledge of history to learning about darkage/pre darkage life. it all just fascinates me.

hey every one! my name is Skel. i stumbled across this site a while ago while looking for anciet rome/pre-rome history. i wasnt sure at first if this site was even still functional but apparently yall post here quite a bit! um.. a lil about myself. i love ancient history. primarily ancient rome and gaelic history. infact i love it so much that i am a member of a medieval combat society called Belegarth. and as soon as i turn 18 and go off to college i will be joining the SCA and hopefully learning as much as possible about pre 1700s history.

what if the great roman empire never fell? how do you think it would be today? as far a structure, leadership, military, and everything else goes? do you think the empire would have continued to grow and in present day would consume most of the world? im really curious as to what you all think, you all know so much more about rome then i ever could. i greatly enjoy reading your posts

i have been wondering for a while now and searching for just as long... when did rome conform to christianity over their ancient gods? also how did the change take place?