New editorial - Western Civ & Spartans

[Rod-Thornton]

Btw, the centrality of the ancient Greeks to the foundations of Western Civilization once was an obvious truth...

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton031005.html

Do you believe that it still isn't one? I seem to recall the Western Civ books from the wife's and my own college years recognizing that the "Rennaissance" was thus termed because it was a "rebirth" of classical knowledge...not a new synthesis of it (albeit many new ideas did blossom)...but rather the rebirth of knowledge given foundations clearly and firmly planted in the Greek culture. I also recall how the Roman empire was listed as borrowing very heavily from the Greeks.

Too, in reading military opinions, such as Lord Montgomery's "A Concise History of Warfare" I recall how Rommel's nemesis clearly tracked the downfall and disuse of the classic greek phalanx in warfare and then the subsequent rise and re-birth/re-valuation of that phalanx militarily when longer polearms came back into their own against heavy calvary in the Rennaissance period with the classic pikemen and swiss & italian units. Interesting how even in the 1960s' he gave clear credit for the Greeks in Western Martial Heritage.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Forget about everything you've read up to this point. Unimportant. I've heard rumors that John Clements wears ladies' underwear.

[Mike Cartier]

Do you believe that it still isn't one? I seem to recall the Western Civ books from the wife's and my own college years recognizing that the "Rennaissance" was thus termed because it was a "rebirth" of classical knowledge...not a new synthesis of it (albeit many new ideas did blossom)...but rather the rebirth of knowledge given foundations clearly and firmly planted in the Greek culture. I also recall how the Roman empire was listed as borrowing very heavily from the Greeks.

i had thought so myself but since this article was posted i have run into supposedly learned people who require proof that
a) The classical age through the Greeks and Romans had a huge formative effect on western culture and

b) Western culture exists as more than an American fantasy.

I was stunned to say the least that people learning history in college could be so ignorant of western history. Its all the more amazing that they are so upset about the article when they clearly have zero knowledge of classical history.

Funny thing is when i talk to soldiers and educated officers in the military they clearly see the dirtect relationship from the classical age to now.

[s_taillebois]

M. Heslop,
The point is that Persian society was influential for much longer than many have held. Greek culture, didn't have an exclusivity on critical thinking or rationality. Many of the philosophical ideas in classical Greece, were not the sole province of the Greek culture...these societies were not in a cultural vacuum. There have been some very convincing papers written about the idea that Platonic thought may have been influenced by Indian concepts. The circa 5CBC+ was a period of intellectual and theological ferment throughout much of Eurasia.
Additionally, late Hellenistic Greek culture was quite debauched, and could be argued to have left little of real value to the western heritage.
As noted, Persian dualism, along with Greek philosophical traditions did have a substantial influence on early Christianity. And that. clearly was a seminal influence on western civilization.
Concerning the Byzantines, perhaps they are unjustly percieved as being unduly influenced by oriental thought...but clearly this was a Christian society which transmitted (and preserved) the values of Early Roman Christianity, to the Italians, and Balkans. And until the schism, was a influence on the development of the Latin church...even if by contrasting theologies. Additionally, the long fight of the Byzantines, against the expansion of Islam, was one of the factors that may have ensured that the European's were not ultimately absorbed into Islam. Additionally, much of the early Renn. was partially the result of the learning brought by Byzantine refugees, to Italy, after the fall of Constantanople in 1453.
The concept that one society, is the pivot of an entire cultures development, is a nice concept insofar as it fulfills the need for heros. But the interplay of social influences, tends to diffuse the whole concept. For example, Judeo-Christianity...an ancient middle eastern religion, influenced by failed Egyptian monotheism, Persian dualism, Greek philosophical thought, Roman state pragmatism, Hiberno-Saxon mysticism, the Byzantines, contrasting influences of Islam, and the Humanistic movement of the Renn...at what point can this be narrowly defined as being the product of one philosophical tradition?
Concerning the Turks, well they did eventually win, agaisnt both the Crusaders and the Byzantines. Baibars largely finished the power of Outremer...and it was the Turks who finally finished Rome 'verse two' in 1453.
About Richard 2nd, the idiocy he was gay, more modern identity politics than probable truth. Just because he wasn't that fond of Berengia, and more fond of war and scheming...didn't mean he was enmeshed in behavior that the Romanesque church would have considered a mortal sin...
Concerning 'so called academics', perhaps an unnecessarily confrontational phrasing. There are several on this forum, who are academics, and as such, should not necessarily be labeled in a derogatory manner.
Any more than ARMA could be considered play pretend because most of us (thank God) will never use the arts and weapons we study, within the original context.
And gentry, since courtesy is often the art of withholding comment when the discourse becomes too heated, methinks I'll withdraw from this fascinating, albeit vexing thread.

[Mike Cartier]

The point is that Persian society was influential for much longer than many have held.

Good for them but that hardly makes classical Greece and Rome not major formative influences on Western Civilization. something thats been clearly understood for at least a thousand years.

Many of the philosophical ideas in classical Greece, were not the sole province of the Greek culture...these societies were not in a cultural vacuum

No of course they weren't , however they did gather these ideas and use it as the basis of their culture. They were however very revolutionary in philosophy, which is why today any study of philosophy begins with an extensive study of Greek and Roman philosophy.

Additionally, late Hellenistic Greek culture was quite debauched, and could be argued to have left little of real value to the western heritage.

This must be some new criteria for civilization i have not seen before, if we are to deem irrelevant any cultures with debauchery then there will be noone left, including our own debauched modern culture.

The concept that one society, is the pivot of an entire cultures development, is a nice concept insofar as it fulfills the need for heros. But the interplay of social influences, tends to diffuse the whole concept. For example, Judeo-Christianity...an ancient middle eastern religion, influenced by failed Egyptian monotheism, Persian dualism, Greek philosophical thought, Roman state pragmatism, Hiberno-Saxon mysticism, the Byzantines, contrasting influences of Islam, and the Humanistic movement of the Renn...at what point can this be narrowly defined as being the product of one philosophical tradition?

Well noone said one society, Greece AND Rome covers about 2000 years or so, more than enough time to be the clearly formative force in western cutlure.
The fact remains that there is little we do today that was not first done and then codified by the classical Greeks and Romans. From medicine to military to literature. Maybe a better question for you is how does this NOT make Greece and Rome the primary formative influences? Why was classical education so important throught Europe for so many centuries if they were not important influences?

Its true there are not vaccuums , however this fact does not make all cutlures merely a soup thats from one bowl. This is a bad way to look at how cultures interacted in the classical age. They all influenced each other, but each emphasised different aspects.

[s_taillebois]

No doubt, but the qaundry here, is the degree of influence the classical world had on European cultures. Clearly an important influence, but other philosophies also molded European culture in transformational manners. Although, at times these took on subtle or unexpected forms.
For example Acheamenian/Persian dualism had a distinct influence on Manichean philosophies. And Manichean concepts eventually filtered through to the French Christian's at Albi. Accordingly, the actions of Simon De Montfort, and what happened at Beziers in 1209, were a result of cultural mnemonics which developed well prior, and in very different cultures, from that of one specific lineage, or time. And certain Albigensian theological ideas lingered, albeit subliminated, in European culture until resurfacing during the reformation. And since many of the concepts forming our perceptions, had their origins in the reformation era...it's difficult to claim complete specificity of philosophical origins.
Concerning the oft stated concept that classical thought was a constant wellspring of rationality...what happened to Anaxagoras of Clazomenea...somewhat negates that contention.
And gentry, fascinating as this may be, mayhaps it is becoming somewhat obtuse, and heated...for a discussion on a forum about the art of fencing? Hence, will all courtesy, I will withdraw...

[Mike Cartier]

Clearly an important influence, but other philosophies also molded European culture in transformational manners. Although, at times these took on subtle or unexpected forms.

of course and thats one of the strengths of western culture, we take and use knowledge from anywhere. But all these other sublte influences do not add up to what the classical world means to the west. Its the bedrock on which our civilization was built.

Noone is saying other cultures don't influence the west, but the fact that these other cultures do have some influence does not negate or eradicate the enormous influence of the the classical age on our culture.

For example there is a new theory of the origin of martial arts being bandied about which places the origin of martial arts on Pankration in Greece and not in the East as has been supposed all along. I do not subscribe to this theoiry myself but if it were true it would not negate the extensive martial arts of the east in any way. Simply finding some greek martial influence on asia would not suddently make Asian martial arts not Asian would it?

I don't think this discussion has become heated at all, on the contrary this discussion has been cordial and not filled with malice like some discussions on some other forums i might mention. I think its entirely on topic as well, knowledge of our common western culture is essential to understanding western martial arts. Which is why that article exists.

[s_taillebois]

True, in jurisprudence and some aspects of religion, the classical world was an important influence. In much of the period this forum studies, the church was a major influence. And whether it was the Latin Church or the Byzantine, that was Christianity meshed through a Roman cultural system.
However. overemphasis on the classical influence, would tend to minimize the martial cultures of Europe which developed prior to, or after the decline of Roman military status. The Legions, and Hoplites had a very different (state focused) martial culture, as oppossed to the various northern Celts.
For example, in the Fenian cycle/Finn Mac Cumaill, there is some mention of the martial (and courage test) the Finian's had to pass prior to being accepted into the fiana. One was to be buried waist deep, being given a shield and stick, and having the fiana throw javalins at the intiate. Any got through, or any flinching, that person was unworthy. Granted Finn Mac Cumiall was a legendary figure...but (like Beowulf) much of the goings on in the cycle were likely based on actual practices. And the approximate date of the Finian cycle is usually assumed to be about the 3rd CAD, and was in Ireland. So cycles like this one, probably serve well as indicators of European traditions which may developed prior to and continued well after the introduction of Latin martial traditions, or Christianity.
And these groups, even in the more classically influenced areas like England, kept cultural influence for a very long time. The last Celtic King in Britian held out until the Crusade era...and in parts of Ireland and Scotland, somewhat longer.
All that said, perhaps one of our associates who has access to the larger museum collections, or research libraries...could research the cultural influences/symbols in the weapons studied in this forum. Could be an interesting way to trace the lingering effects of the classical world, and the influences that were specifically European in origin, or were European reinterpretations. For example, quillions do seem to have changed more than practical needs would seem to have dictated.
Heated, in the sense that the discourse has, at times, been less than genteel about certain honorable callings...including academics.

[Mike Cartier]

well I am very much in favor of exploring and understanding Celtic culture. I think you are right that it is understated and it not correct to obsess on the classical.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

s_taillebois

"M. Heslop,
The point is that Persian society was influential for much longer than many have held. Greek culture, didn't have an exclusivity on critical thinking or rationality. Many of the philosophical ideas in classical Greece, were not the sole province of the Greek culture...these societies were not in a cultural vacuum."

I never posited any such thing. Of course ancient Greece had outside influences. Philosophy and rationality were found outside Greece, as they are to day. The point is that Greek Philosphers such as Socrates and Plato, amongst others, took these "concepts," if you will, to new heights. It was only in Greece that an appreciable effort was made to implent reason and critical thinking into government, and everyday life. It is this legacy that modern-day Occidental cultures inherit. Nor were the Persians in cultural vacuum. Ponder that.

"There have been some very convincing papers written about the idea that Platonic thought may have been influenced by Indian concepts. The circa 5CBC+ was a period of intellectual and theological ferment throughout much of Eurasia."

And, I suppose that you have emperical proof of this? Some kind of paper trail? Or is it merely speculation? More revisionist nonsense.

"Additionally, late Hellenistic Greek culture was quite debauched, and could be argued to have left little of real value to the western heritage."

And Persian culture wasn't debauched? You can argue all you like about Hellenistic culture having little or no value or impact upon the West. I know you're wrong. Marcus Aurelius knew you're wrong. Machiavelli knew you're wrong. Half this forum knows you're wrong. And so what if they became debauched? So did the Romans. That doesn't negate, or mitigate their influence!

"As noted, Persian dualism, along with Greek philosophical traditions did have a substantial influence on early Christianity. And that. clearly was a seminal influence on western civilization."

Persian dualism, as evidenced in Zoroastrian belief, influenced JUDIASM. Now, Christianity is obviously an off-shoot, or perhaps it can be seen as an attempt at a reformation of, Judaism. Christianity was, of course, a tremendous influence on the development of the West. But what alsao influenced Christianity? Native European paganism, for one. Half of Christianity's religious festivals can be traced back to pagan times, surviving to day with a "Christian" overlay. Again, these are all clearly verifiable, evidenced, solid facts. I'm afraid, professor, your argument is for nought, or at least highly arguable.

"Concerning the Byzantines, perhaps they are unjustly percieved as being unduly influenced by oriental thought...but clearly this was a Christian society which transmitted (and preserved) the values of Early Roman Christianity, to the Italians, and Balkans. And until the schism, was a influence on the development of the Latin church...even if by contrasting theologies. Additionally, the long fight of the Byzantines, against the expansion of Islam, was one of the factors that may have ensured that the Europeans were not ultimately absorbed into Islam."

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Although I rather think it was the Holy Roman Empire, not Byzantium, that spared western Europe from the oppressive yoke of Islam. The Turks laid siege to Vienna twice: in 1529, and again in 1623. Vienna is one of the key cities in Western Christendom. Its fall would have been disastrous. Both attempts were routed by the Holy Roman emperors, the Polaks, and the Austrians themselves. And, unfortunately, many Eastern Europeans were ultimately absorbed into Islam.

"Additionally, much of the early Renn. was partially the result of the learning brought by Byzantine refugees, to Italy, after the fall of Constantanople in 1453."

I've already pointed this out in a previous post, refuting another poster's assertion that it was all Arab influence that brought said learning to Western Europe.

"The concept that one society, is the pivot of an entire cultures development, is a nice concept insofar as it fulfills the need for heros."

The West has heros aplenty, thanks.

"But the interplay of social influences, tends to diffuse the whole concept. For example, Judeo-Christianity...an ancient middle eastern religion, influenced by failed Egyptian monotheism, Persian dualism, Greek philosophical thought, Roman state pragmatism, Hiberno-Saxon mysticism, the Byzantines, contrasting influences of Islam, and the Humanistic movement of the Renn...at what point can this be narrowly defined as being the product of one philosophical tradition?"

It can't. Not in the sense of religion, at any rate. In the sense of government, however, it can quite easily. Where, exactly, did I say Christianity could be?

"Concerning the Turks, well they did eventually win, agaisnt both the Crusaders and the Byzantines. Baibars largely finished the power of Outremer...and it was the Turks who finally finished Rome 'verse two' in 1453."

In the two arenas which you cited, indeed they did win...or did they? Did the Crusaders hold onto the Latin Kingdom? Ultimately, no. Did they force the armies of Islam to look inward, rather than outward? Yes, they did. Did they delay further expansion by Islam into the West. Indeed they did. Furthermore, the "Sick Man of Europe," (The Ottoman Empire) could never quite keep up with itsw more westerly neighbours. So, did they really win? In the long scheme? Not really. Again, for nought.

"About Richard 2nd, the idiocy he was gay, more modern identity politics than probable truth. Just because he wasn't that fond of Berengia, and more fond of war and scheming...didn't mean he was enmeshed in behavior that the Romanesque church would have considered a mortal sin..."

I was labouring under the impression that Coeur De Lion was in fact Richard the 1st, as opposed to Richard the 2nd, (you know, the guy who had all that trouble with Wat Tyler, a couple hundred years or so after Richard I), but then...I'm not the one with the degree.

"And gentry, since courtesy is often the art of withholding comment when the discourse becomes too heated,"

Funny, I've always called it moral cowardice. A knight would have thought much the same, I feel, since chivalry demanded that an adherant stand up for what was true.

"...methinks I'll withdraw from this fascinating, albeit vexing thread."

Ah, Bennedick's "jade's trick," eh? So be it.

I'd like to state, however, that there are many academics that I greatly admire. Dr. Anglo, for one. Perhaps you sare correct that I have been too harsh on that front.

-B.

[s_taillebois]

M. Helsop,
Persian dualism was influential in concepts important to the Manichean 'heresy'. The Persian religion, remained intact in it's home ground until the Arab incursions.
About the cross influencing of Indian and Greek ideas, yes it has been in reputable academic papers. And they were trading, so ideas get around. Additionally Ashoka had sent missionaries to the west, so the salient concepts would have been discussed.
Late Hellenistic culture was to the end of it's influence, and so was unable to resist takeover by the Roman's. And in some historical interpretations, usually the late period of a culture does tend to be somewhat depraved. Loss of their core morals is one reason they are vulnerable to being overthrown (and that incidentally is an idea from a medieval Moslim historian)
Concerning Byzantine influence on the Italian Renn...A. Minutias (sp) (one of the first printers of easily accessible books) relied on Byzantine exiles for translations. Plus they had brought books with them when they had fled to Italy.
Concerning the number of Richard's, a miskey.
Concerning the concept of rational government, once again what happened to Anaxagori's demonstrates that classical civilizations, like all, had their flaws. Additionally, there were other systems which did have equally 'rational' traits in their governmental systems...Ashoka's attempt to rule by 'moral persuasion' would be an example, as would the Acheamenians attempt to use propaganda to convince, rather than coerce. In that sense, the ceremonies at Persopolis and Susa, were a anamolous pattern in the ancient/classical world. And in China, adherents of Confucious did manage to keep governmental systems efficiently working over a large area and time.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

s_taillebois:
"Persian dualism was influential in concepts important to the Manichean 'heresy'. The Persian religion, remained intact in it's home ground until the Arab incursions."

I assume you're making reference to Saint Augistine here. While Saint Augustine had a major role in the rise of Christendom, and was a Manichean adherant prior to converting to Christianity, he later codmemned his previous faith quite roundly, and fervently suppressed its teachings.

To assert that his former faith in some way shaped Christendom directly, even subtly, is somewhat of a leap. The scant evidence that exists for this assertion is equally open to debate, and is a bit of a longshot.

Furthermore, any influence it may have had would have been marginal at best. Whereas, as Mike Cartier correctly pointed out: "[Classical culture is] the bedrock on which our civilization was built." It's contribution is both obvious and enormous, dwarfing any of these marginal, minor influences which you cite.

Moreover, NO ONE HAS CLAIMED that it was Greek culture alone from which Occidental Civilisation "descends," if you will. Merely that ancient Greece is the primary foundation. You seem to ignore this whenever it is pointed out, which tempts me to speculate that you're simply playing "Devil's Advocate."

You claim that it's dangerous, or skewed, to "over-emphasize" one culture's contribution to the West, citing influences that had minimial impact, if any. I counter with this: it is dangerous, and far more skewed and slanted, to under-emphasize the obvious, well-documented, overwhelming evidence of Hellenistic culture's centrality to the Western Ideal. To attempt to subvert this historical truth with the relativly inconsequential references you have cited, is futile. Historical truth has a tendancy to resist sublimation into a modern, poltically-motivated veiw that is only accepted by a minority. The evidence you cite is not convincing, and it is flimsy.

"About the cross influencing of Indian and Greek ideas, yes it has been in reputable academic papers. And they were trading, so ideas get around. Additionally Ashoka had sent missionaries to the west, so the salient concepts would have been discussed."

Okay, there is clearly more evidence supporting this than the previous point. However, once again, this influence would have been marginal at best. Further, any lingering influence it may have had would have largely erroded with the Roman epoch, and the introduction, and eventual rise of Christianity. The values of Classical Greece, on the other hand, had time to become ingrained.

"Late Hellenistic culture was to the end of it's influence, and so was unable to resist takeover by the Roman's. And in some historical interpretations, usually the late period of a culture does tend to be somewhat depraved."
And? Rome was, in every sense, Hellenistic culture's successor. The depravity you keep bringing up is somewhat puzzling. Why is it of such importance?

"Loss of their core morals is one reason they are vulnerable to being overthrown (and that incidentally is an idea from a medieval Moslim historian)"

Bully for him. He obviously had the capacity for pointing out the obvious, which is more than some have, I suppose.

"Concerning Byzantine influence on the Italian Renn...A. Minutias (sp) (one of the first printers of easily accessible books) relied on Byzantine exiles for translations. Plus they had brought books with them when they had fled to Italy."

Yes, I know. And? They brought with them texts of the ancient Hellenistic world, and the linguistic skills needed to translate and suffuse the West with them. Nothing less, and nothing more. The texts they brought with them, and the language that they were written in, go back far beyond Byzantium. They were merely transmitters. The origin of these things lie in the Greek peninsula and its satellite islands, themselves, in the Classical era. This should not be forgotten, or under-emphasized.

"Concerning the number of Richard's, a miskey."

Shouldn't it have been Richard 2st, then, instead of Richard 2nd? If it was a simple "miss-key?" Well, I suppose I can give you the benefit of the doubt, not that it matters much.

"Concerning the concept of rational government, once again what happened to Anaxagori's demonstrates that classical civilizations, like all, had their flaws."

So? Did I, or anyone else, ever suggest that Hellenistic culture was flawless? That it is the basis for the Western Ideal, and that it was successful in the LONGRUN is the point I, and others, are labouring. So, you're basicly saying that a civilisation has to be flawless, in order to fantasically succeed?

"Additionally, there were other systems which did have equally 'rational' traits in their governmental systems...Ashoka's attempt to rule by 'moral persuasion' would be an example, as would the Acheamenians attempt to use propaganda to convince, rather than coerce. In that sense, the ceremonies at Persopolis and Susa, were a anamolous pattern in the ancient/classical world. And in China, adherents of Confucious did manage to keep governmental systems efficiently working over a large area and time."

That's great. Now, can you tell me which of these individuals, and the instituions they inspired, had as large an impact as Hellenistic Greece? Which of them have survived, in an appreciable way, into the modern era? And which of them had a real effect upon the West? I think you get my drift, here.

I repeat my challenge, in all honour.
-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

s_taillebois:

"However. overemphasis on the classical influence, would tend to minimize the martial cultures of Europe which developed prior to, or after the decline of Roman military status."

Sorry, I skipped over this post...

Well, as I've already stated: Rome was the successor of the Hellenistic world. Rome conquered the Celts, and by degrees, they became "Romanised." The Britons of the days of the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britian were very much Romanised, for example.

The Irish had already been converted to Christianity by Roman missionaries, even though they were never under Roman rule (the Romans apparently thought Ireland was inhabited by monsters. Somewhat funny).

The modern French language itself is a fusion of Germanic Frankish, Gaulish (Celtic), and Latin. But it is the Latin (Roman) influence that stands out the strongest, the Celtic and Germanic influences being "pushed" to the fringes, surviving in place-names and a smattering of phrases and a handful of words. Thus constructed, this "neo-Latin" evolved into the French language, both modern, and its intermediary stages.

I again invoke Charlemagne, his father Peppin, and successors. They are the perfect examples of Romanised "martial cultures of Europe which developed prior to, or after the decline of Roman military status." So is Alfred the Great and Offa of Mercia. Observe the Carolingian Renaissance: the "barbarians" thus become Romanised.

The Romans brought Hellenistic culture to Gaul, Britain, and the other Celtic centres of Europe.This Hellenistic culture then superceded what came before it. The Irish and the Romans then converted the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity, and monks poured into Engla-Land, together with texts, knowledge, and Hellenistic (via Rome) tradition. Thus were the Saxons, in turn, Romanised.

The laws of Ine and of Alfred, as well as others, show a tremendous amount of Roman (and thus Greek) influence. These are the very foundation for modern Western Law, and much of our governance. The most successful socio-political system ever devised. Do you dispute this?

"The Legions, and Hoplites had a very different (state focused) martial culture, as oppossed to the various northern Celts."

Which superceded that of the northern Celts, by conquest and intergration. Does this mean that the pre-Romanised Celts shouldn't be studied? No, of course not. But were their core values replaced by the Romano-Hellentistic ones? Absolutely.

"For example, in the Fenian cycle/Finn Mac Cumaill, there is some mention of the martial (and courage test) the Finian's had to pass prior to being accepted into the fiana. One was to be buried waist deep, being given a shield and stick, and having the fiana throw javalins at the intiate. Any got through, or any flinching, that person was unworthy."

For counter-example, I cite the "courage tests" of the Spartans.

"Granted Finn Mac Cumiall was a legendary figure...but (like Beowulf) much of the goings on in the cycle were likely based on actual practices. And the approximate date of the Finian cycle is usually assumed to be about the 3rd CAD, and was in Ireland. So cycles like this one, probably serve well as indicators of European traditions which may developed prior to and continued well after the introduction of Latin martial traditions, or Christianity."

In isolated pockets, perhaps. But we have seen how well these traditions stood up to the Latin one. England dominated Ireland, with few exceptions. The English fought in the manner set forth by the Hoplites, which I've already delineated.

"And these groups, even in the more classically influenced areas like England, kept cultural influence for a very long time. The last Celtic King in Britian held out until the Crusade era...and in parts of Ireland and Scotland, somewhat longer."

And eventually became Romanised...I, and others, are debating that which had the wherewithal to LAST the test of time. Like Roman and Hellenistic influences, for example.

"All that said, perhaps one of our associates who has access to the larger museum collections, or research libraries...could research the cultural influences/symbols in the weapons studied in this forum. Could be an interesting way to trace the lingering effects of the classical world, and the influences that were specifically European in origin, or were European reinterpretations. For example, quillions do seem to have changed more than practical needs would seem to have dictated."

Cultural, or artistic flourishes. Interesting, certainly. Of slim importance, however, in this context.

"Heated, in the sense that the discourse has, at times, been less than genteel about certain honorable callings...including academics."

So, academics are above censure? Is your position so lofty and exalted, as to bestow impunity to criticism? Well, I won't apologise for doing so, as I consider it a very "Greek" trait to do so, if you know what I mean. And being something of a "true believer," I stick to it.

-B.

[s_taillebois]

Perhaps, however this discourse has increasingly gone beyond the necessities of either civility, or expanding the understanding of the initial ideas presented by M. Clement's...hence there is no special reason to continue.
Perhaps other discussions might be of more value.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Mayhaps.

Anyway, rather than bandy counter-points, lets put it like this:


http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/chigi_phalanx.jpg

The above is a Greek phalanx.

Now:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/wedge.html

Okay, admittedly these guys are re-enactors...but it's all spelled out by Vegetius, and he's historical. And, by the way, Vegetius' manual was read THROUGHOUT the medieval period, influencing how Europeans fought.

Now:

http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Has ... ldWall.jpg

Ah, the formidable Saxon shield wall. When it took an agressive stance, it became the wedge. When the fight was looser, the Saxons paired off: sword-and-shield man in front, two-handed axe-man behind, cutting foes down from behind his partner's shield. This all goes back to the Hoplites.

Compare to this:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/testudo.html

And this:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html

And this:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/orb.html

I think we can see a clear line of descent here, don't you?

And this isn't even making mention of "heavily"-armoured, aggressive cavalry, (as opposed to the hit-and-run horse archers). From which, of course, came the knights.

Retouching upon the paired-off Saxon sword and shield and axe man, compare to this:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/skirmishing.html.

It should be obvious, I feel, even to the casual observer, that the martial tactics and traditions set forth by the ancient Greek hoplites permeates everything of the "Western way of war."

-B.