3 ms·

Is that actually true? Aren’t there several examples of relatively small cavalry forces (of knights) winning against much, much larger forces? Quickly googling

• ch4s3 3y ago
  Yeah, its basically wrong.
• caycep 3y ago
  I would agree w/ the OP - from what I can gather, at least from Brett Devereaux's blog, the serious academics seem to focus more on the economic/political history behind the warfare, i.e. how could Rome afford/produce enough metalwork to equip X or Y amount of legions, afford salaries etc, how could different greek cities feed the men in the field for so many days and however many miles of marching, etc. Also, slavery. 1 on 1 duels are glamorous but are more apt for literary works than warfare which is really a branch of political/economic science. Modern samurai popularity seems to owe a lot to Kurosawa's desire to film Westerns...I can't recall exactly, but I had come across a few accounts where public resentment of the samurai class as corrupt government officials surged from time to time...
  • HideousKojima 3y ago
    >how could different greek cities feed the men in the field for so many days I thought that until the last few centuries foraging/pillaging was the main way armies were fed in the field. Gives the obvious advantage of not needing to maintain and defend supply lines.