05-31-2013, 06:11 PM
Mark,
But yes, you can count this as a 'win' if you so desire and that is your 'bag'. Me, it makes no difference.
I am sorry you took it this way. I am not trying to win. This is just a history forum about Rome and Greece (a good one though). We're allowed to disagree and as long as we are polite, we are encouraged to debate. As such, I am simply trying to point you in the right direction.
You provided a hypothesis in the last thread about how the Roman infantry fought. I disagreed and provided a source, in the form of Polybius, that countered your hypothesis. So, you then discounted Polybius. Okay, not what I would have done, but some could call it a method.
Yes, I have always believed the Romans fought side-by-side, just like the Greeks and their successors - to think otherwise never occurred to me....But until the 'where's the source - I won't believe anything that there isn't a source for - provide your source' suffers a bit of a 'loss', then I fear for the study here.
You fear for the study of history because people want sources and not assurances? If you want to convince me, or any other person, that your hypothesis deserves merit, then persuade us using historical methods, which include sources. If you don't care, then stop posting altogether. Don't get angry that I am debating you, it's not personal. If a source as widely known and accredited as Polybius contradicts your hypothesis, maybe you were wrong to begin with.
So, I will take time when I can to read sources and see - but equally, it seems, many here already have - so - where are the sources that do describe infantry fighting and cavalry charging? Produce your sources!
For the Roman Republican era, here's a list of the ancient sources I have studied so far (though I haven't read them all word for word). All discuss close in infantry fightin at one level or another:
Polybius, Livy, Caesar, Frontinus, Vegetius, Sallust, Plutarch, Orosius, Florus, Valerius Maximus
I am sure there are others. I just found out about Gellius due to Antiochus' below post, will have to read up on him too. And if I read something in one of these sources that contradicts my previously held beliefs, I'll readjust those beliefs. Because that's how history works.
PS I actually never commented about your opinions on cavalry tactics, I just focused on the infantry side. I am still in the learning process when it comes to the cavalry and have yet to really comment on it because I really don't know enough about horses or cavalry tactics used throughout the ages. Yet. I actually think your comments about the line spacing and depth bring up some good points. The emphasis of my studies started on infantry tactics (my background), specifically during the Republican period of Rome. But I continue learning more and more every day. And as I do, my opinions change.
But yes, you can count this as a 'win' if you so desire and that is your 'bag'. Me, it makes no difference.
I am sorry you took it this way. I am not trying to win. This is just a history forum about Rome and Greece (a good one though). We're allowed to disagree and as long as we are polite, we are encouraged to debate. As such, I am simply trying to point you in the right direction.
You provided a hypothesis in the last thread about how the Roman infantry fought. I disagreed and provided a source, in the form of Polybius, that countered your hypothesis. So, you then discounted Polybius. Okay, not what I would have done, but some could call it a method.
Yes, I have always believed the Romans fought side-by-side, just like the Greeks and their successors - to think otherwise never occurred to me....But until the 'where's the source - I won't believe anything that there isn't a source for - provide your source' suffers a bit of a 'loss', then I fear for the study here.
You fear for the study of history because people want sources and not assurances? If you want to convince me, or any other person, that your hypothesis deserves merit, then persuade us using historical methods, which include sources. If you don't care, then stop posting altogether. Don't get angry that I am debating you, it's not personal. If a source as widely known and accredited as Polybius contradicts your hypothesis, maybe you were wrong to begin with.
So, I will take time when I can to read sources and see - but equally, it seems, many here already have - so - where are the sources that do describe infantry fighting and cavalry charging? Produce your sources!
For the Roman Republican era, here's a list of the ancient sources I have studied so far (though I haven't read them all word for word). All discuss close in infantry fightin at one level or another:
Polybius, Livy, Caesar, Frontinus, Vegetius, Sallust, Plutarch, Orosius, Florus, Valerius Maximus
I am sure there are others. I just found out about Gellius due to Antiochus' below post, will have to read up on him too. And if I read something in one of these sources that contradicts my previously held beliefs, I'll readjust those beliefs. Because that's how history works.
PS I actually never commented about your opinions on cavalry tactics, I just focused on the infantry side. I am still in the learning process when it comes to the cavalry and have yet to really comment on it because I really don't know enough about horses or cavalry tactics used throughout the ages. Yet. I actually think your comments about the line spacing and depth bring up some good points. The emphasis of my studies started on infantry tactics (my background), specifically during the Republican period of Rome. But I continue learning more and more every day. And as I do, my opinions change.
