I personally believe that Parmenion was the how do i say the experience that held back Alexander from commiting into rash mistakes on the battlefield.Alexander was good but at times i believe he was much much too rash so i think Parmenion was the thing that prevented him from commiting to rashly.I'll try to find some sources on why but it might take time this comp is new so no websites.Originally posted by redrooster79:ermm...since you are interested in Alexander III then i put this to you. In your opinion, was Parmenion the reason behind Alexander's success or was he a conservative old man always getting in Alexander's ambitions. The first view was held by Amnanias while the second by Callisthenes i think.
These two were first hand account other from Perdiccas's journals.
lol honestly that site is way to bias the people who moved into what is now known as macedonia.They are slavsOriginally posted by redrooster79:Macedonian are neither greek nor slavs. there is genetic testing done to atest to that fact. Although largely believed to be of slavic stock, the genetics test have proven a sizable amount of people in macedonia belongs to neither greek or slavic genetic stock but to a macedonian ethnbic stock.
Macedonia is settled by 66% ethnic macedonians(although there could be a sizable slavic portion in there) with sizable groups of them living in albania bulgaria and greece.
I myself do not really care for this conflict but the fact remains that site has good objective articles.
Originally posted by |-|05|:Macedonia of old is only partly in modern day Greece. Modern day macedonia consist of land the was only 38% of ancient day Macedonia. Neither is modern day mecedonia not part of ancient macedonia nor is it too far north.
Anyway Macedonia of the old is in present day greece.Macedonia is part of Thrace very close to the Greek penisular.Modern day macedonia is way way to far north.[/b]
The Great city of Constainople was seige at least 11 times of which it's walls was only breeched twice once in the 12th cent during the 4th cursade when they stormed the sea wall and the 2nd and last time was during the 15th cent when the arabs using a brand new cannons pounded the walls and stormed the city.The city at that time was defended by a mere 40,000 soldiers of which 5,000 out of a possible 100,000 males of fighting age were locals.The rest were allies and hired soldiers.The Turks numbered some 200,000.Originally posted by Saint Valentinian:Hmm..anyone knows about the fall of Constaninople? if im nt wrong, it was besiged quite a few times in it's history, however managed to surivive, due to it's solid fortifications.
The Fall of it was partly due to the advent and clever use of cannon/artillery to bombard the Walls
Not gunpowder black powder.Gun powder is more powerful and less volitile then black powder.Yea the guy who created the guns was a christan but the roman emperor rejected his idea.The Romans had their own cannons but these were small cannons.The city was lost simply cause there was too little people to defend againest it!Heck the turks CARRIED their navy overland into the harbour!Originally posted by redrooster79:The largest cannon that was used to bombard the walls was named Urban after it created who was refused employment in christiandom and thus went over and offered his services to the turks. i think he was killed during the siege during an accident to his cannon. Maybe somebody took notice of his betrayal.
Anyways the whole of christiandom stood at one side and watched the center of the orthodox church captured and plundered. The pride of the orthodox church then became a mosque.
I think the city's fall was brought along sooner when some side door was left open or something when a sallying party retreated hastily. Also the Genoeses guarding the wall retreated when their captain was injured. The Byzantine (or roman) emperor deserves mention cause i think he died protacting his city dieing at the gates.
Did the secret of greek fire die then? or was it earlier. some speculate that the byzantines discovered gunpowder before the chinese(B.S) and that it was an ingredient of greek fire.
Seems like eastern invaders had a habit of carrying their fleet overland.Originally posted by |-|05|:Not gunpowder black powder.Gun powder is more powerful and less volitile then black powder.Yea the guy who created the guns was a christan but the roman emperor rejected his idea.The Romans had their own cannons but these were small cannons.The city was lost simply cause there was too little people to defend againest it!Heck the turks CARRIED their navy overland into the harbour!
Nope the Ingredients were lost.Blackpowder was weaker..i think the composition was different with more sulfer and maybe no saltpeter not to sure.They are saying that Greek Fire was something like a thicker version of Naplam which ingredients is quite classified.Originally posted by redrooster79:Seems like eastern invaders had a habit of carrying their fleet overland.
You're saying you have seen sites which claim to have the ingredient of greek fire? i'll like to take a look, another forum that i go to have people experimenting for the possible ingredients to greek fire.
Aren't the ingredient's for gunpowerder and black powder almost the saem? gunpowder uses sulfer saltpeter, coal, what does black powder use?
i do not know why i always have disputes with you over numbers but from what i read, mehmet had 80,000 -150 000 while the romans had 10 000 (and 10000 is generous quotation, many quoted much less) witht his best troops being volunteers from the trade cities of italy.Hahahaha cause i use numbers from many sources and average it
It is ironic that throughout the earlier history, the peoples of the East/orient were very developed and possesed cutting edge technology during their period, yet, during the later stages of history, almost all of them were defeated by western powers. What was the reasons for this decline..Typical Asian Surpremnessium(sic) The Chinese thought they were the best in terms of culture and had no need for western inventions and ideals....that has and always will be their downfall...sadly
Oh yes and about hannibal, we will get to Zama shortly but why do you think he did not take Rome. Politics? Unable to siege a city? Siege weapons? hoping for a treaty with favourable terms for carthage?Well he lack seige equipment and had too little troops.....a mere 30,000?The defeat of his Brother who was bringing reinforcements and the lack of revolt among rome's vassals was the death blow to his plans.How could he Storm a city that after putting 80,000 men into the field and had them all killed/defeated/capture could raise another 20,000men and also had 50,000 men roaming around their empire!!!Hack the Carthagins(sic) destroyed the Roman Navy twice!!!!! and yet each time rome came back with a bigger navy!!How do you defeat someone like that?!
40,000 is way to little with the Churches reportedly being swelled to max capcity.....that's already 100,000 people with the Hagia Sophia being able to handle 50,000 people!Originally posted by redrooster79:I always thought gunpowder was just the same ingredients but more finely meshed up.
There is a problem with taking an average from many sources is that one source that quotes too much or too little would throw your avegrae off.
Yeah the Captain was a Genoese name Giuliani Longo something.
There were 5000 greeks and 2000 volunteers from mainly italy.
The population was 40,000 and that was the numbered swelled by refugees. This was not the Constantinople of old but the capital of an empire that had been on the decline for a very long time who had for a very long time lost her grain and soldier themes in anatolia.
Yeah greek fire was used just a little before the discovery of gunpowder in china. I think it was during the reign of Constantine IV from the line of heraclius. A Macedonian family i believe.