Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
237
-
43
-
40
-
38
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
28
-
@storagebox1793 No. the first invasion was a massive three-pronged expedition led by the two most renown Mongol generals and a son of the Gran Khan himself. Only at Mohi the Mongols had 70.000 cavalrymen, plus infantry, auxiliaries, chinese engineers, servants, etc. The expeditionary force in Hungary alone easily exceeded the 100.000 men. Then there was the second column, that raided Poland with 10.000 men (one tumen), and the third, that followed the Danube. 20.000 men (two tumens) were only the ones that pursued King Bela in Croatia, and had been defeated in a series of ambushes, because the Dalmatian terrain was not favourable to Mongol tactics.
Plagues tend to be lethal for the siegers too.
26
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
Historically they didn't inflict those casualties. And this has little to do with using the phalanx correctly. The phalangites were not using the sarissas incorrectly.
Flat terrains are not so common in Greece. If you can accept battle exclusively in flat terrains, and cannot move from there, you are going to lose anyway.
Some centurion (not "the Roman Commander") did so, and, the fact that some centurion did so talks of the fact that they were frustrated, not frightened for the losses. As already said: "In all the engagement between the phalanx and the developed (not early time) legion, at first the phalanx advanced, because the legion couldn't break through a perfectly formed phalanx, but the legion suffered negligible losses. Then something happened, and at that point the legion adapted and slaughtered the phalangites". Fact is tha the phalanx needed TOO MUCH THINGS going its own way.
Had the Generals maintained control and kept the Phalanx stationary then the battle would have been inconclusive in the best case, OR the legion would have outflanked the phalanx (you must keep contact with the enemy to prevent it to manuver, and that was important for the phalanx, since the legion was faster and easier to manuver).
I've not talked of "Greece". However Rome used a fraction of his forces in the Macedonian wars, and the legionaries at that time were conscripts as well. However, as said, having a cavalry so dominant that it could dispatch the enemy cavalry, then regroup and invest the back of enemy infantry WAS NOT A GIVEN, it was not like the others didn't know the horses. To the roman cavalry was not requested to be so dominant, it was enough for them to keep the other occupied (a goal that you can accomplish even with an inferior cavalry)
21
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
@federicogiana Columbus was backed by the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is.
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
19
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
In all likelyhood the Iliad is based on a real war, but Troy being the city on the Hisarlik hill is debatable. We know it was considered that in Hellenistic and Roman period, but we also know that it was a tourist attraction. In Hellenistic period, in "Troy", there were, IE, the tombs of heroes that didn't even die there.
There's no guarantee that the entire city wasn't a tourist trap.
The city had been abandoned at the start of the Iron Age. It's entirely possible that, at the end of the "Greek dark age", when the poems on the Trojan war had become famous, people started to search for the city sung there in the region of the Troad, but the memory of the real location had been lost. Then the people that lived around Hissarlik hill reasoned "look at the fine ruins we have here. The shore, the rivers, all seems pretty similar to the poem. And all these people are searching for Troy. Let's THIS be Troy." and proceeded to make Santa Claus' village. Then Santa Claus' village influenced the later narrations of the poem, so the location and the poem became even more alike.
Infact the location is pretty similar, yes, but none of the Hisarlik's city strata really line up with the events of the poem. We have to mix up two separate levels to have a big city in the Mycenean period (but destroyed by an heartquake, not a war), and a city destroyed by a war (but too late for the Myceneans to have done that).
12
-
11
-
11
-
Infact the "Vesuvius" we know, the central cone visible at 2:18, didn't exist back then. What existed, and the Romans called "Vesuvius" was the semi-circular ridge of Mt. Somma, also visible there. It was there that, for example found refuge the rebels of Spartacus, and it was its internal, very steep, slope (while the external slope was covered in vineyards) that they descended using vine branches as ropes.
that of 79 AC had precisely been the last of a series of explosions, thousands of years apart, that destroyed the old vulcanic edifice of Mt. Somma.
The Romans didn't, and couldn't, recognize the Vesuvius as a Volcano. Because it had nor the shape, nor the activities they could attribute to a volcano.
While the "campi flegrei" shown continuous signs of volcanic activity, even without erupting (hence the name) the Vesuvius didn't. It was absolutely quiet.
The current central cone formed in the subsequent two millennia of effusive eruptions, and infact it was lower than the ridge of Mt. Somma still in 18th century depictions.
See R. Cioni, R. Santacroce e A. Sbrana, "Pyroclastic deposits as a guide for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius Caldera".
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
+b33lze6u6 He really was a genius, way ahead of his time. Mind that he had to fight (usually obtaining great victories) with what he had at disposition. Few african hevy infantry, the rest mercenaries from Gaul, Spain, Balearic Islands, Numidia, all with different fighting styles, often not really reliable, but he managed to extract the best from every one of them often using even their weakness at his advantge, and always perfectly using the environment as a weapon that worked for him.
But, like Napoleon centuries after, he, in the end, trained his own enemies. The Roman generals of the late part of the war were wastly superior to those of the early part, cause they grew up studyng Hannibal's strategies. At Zama, Scipio simply made that Hannibal could'nt invent anything. The final disposition of his men, in a long line, was to avoid every surprise, to prevent any outflanking maneuver, and rely only on the strenght of the heavy infantry.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8