You Tube finds

[Gwydion]

Hmmm.

Thought provoking, but not convincing.

Oh I don't know. Depends what you think it is trying to convince you of.

History is continual revision, otherwise we'd still see the world as 17th Century antiquarians did or 8th Century Chroniclers. To me the premise is axiomatic: revision is good. It must however be evidence based, follow the sources, and try and avoid ideology (possible only so far) but it brings new insights into history. (PS I do NOT automatically like, admire or agree with all revisionist history in vogue at the moment, much of it is ideological, not historical).

As for the Hoplite Revolution, it is pushing at an open door with me. Victor Davis Hanson's synthesis always seemed massively tied up with an ideological commitment to the 'west' versus the 'east'. No place to enter into discussion about that here, but as history it felt like there was a huge ideological pachyderm sat in the front row being ignored.

[fsn]

I think they stated they has a case, but didn't really provide a lot of evidence for it, nor really describe it fully.

To assume that Greek warfare did not change in a span of 400 years or so is inane, one only has to read Thucydides or Xenophon to see changes being made because of circumstances.   

[steve_holmes_11]

I don't have time to watch the video, but I'll come down on the side of "History in flux".

During my lifetime I've seen the opening, and re-closing of the Soviet archives.
That short period shed immense light upon the logistics and policies of the "Great Patriotic War".
Gaming improved immeasurably, with Red army players gaining more options than the "olive green wave attack".

The same gap saw an increase in sources for the tail end of the Napoleonic Wars 1812-14.
Once again the Russian contribution became more than simply "olive green horde - with added Cossacks".


Information has blossomed in another area of interest.
The Bronze age collapse.
Here the change has modern roots.
Hebrew merchants and diplomats maintained detailed archives of their correspondence.
There's a prohibition on destroying writing bearing YhWh's name, and it was a popular sign-off.

Back in the 1950's if you wanted an ancient Hebrew scholar, you'd end up with a Rabbi at an Israeli University.
Ask him about history, he'd pull out a sacred text and tell you that's what happened.

In these more enlightened times, whole academic departments have unlocked masses of papyrus scrolls and Mesopotamian clays - pushing knowledge to new found levels.
Now when we wonder why the walls collapsed, we don't necessarily know, but we can be sure it wasn't a guy with a trumpet.


It's also worth asking "what is history".
 * The stuff understood by academics who devoted their lives to researching sources?
 * The stuff in popular books, often by celebrity academics trying to tell the story in accessible fashion.
 * The stuff your Uncle told you about his part in Hitler / Musso / Tojo's downfall.

It's probably all valid, but some more than others.
That goes into a large disorganised pool of Folk Knowledge, which is regurgitated and sometimes manipulated by the unscrupulous.

Then you get the hobbyist obsessives, some excellent historians, others prone to seizing on specifics to arrive at unique conclusions.


How this affects us, an example.
I am looking to replace my old Napoleonic ruleset.
The candidate I'm examining seems a tight, and complete core set of rules.

The associated army lists are far less convincing, harking back to the days of Featherstone, Grant and the Airfix Waterloo boxes.
No guidance on army structure, certain troop types enjoying superpowers (superpowers which will slow the game) and far too much "French columns can't lose (Except against British lines)".

Grant and Featherstone relied heavily on English language sources and regimental histories.
In some accounts every Frenchman was an Old Guard, a Cuirassier or a 12 pounder gunner (Predating the Tiger Tank effect).
In the intervening years, all manner of continental archives have opened up, yielding potential leaps in understanding.

It takes time for that knowledge to feed into the world of the rules writer.

[flamingpig0]

I always wondered if hoplite warfare as giant rugby scrum  had more to do with the public school background of most  classical scholars than actual reality.

Oh I don't know. Depends what you think it is trying to convince you of.

History is continual revision, otherwise we'd still see the world as 17th Century antiquarians did or 8th Century Chroniclers. To me the premise is axiomatic: revision is good. It must however be evidence based, follow the sources, and try and avoid ideology (possible only so far) but it brings new insights into history. (PS I do NOT automatically like, admire or agree with all revisionist history in vogue at the moment, much of it is ideological, not historical).

As for the Hoplite Revolution, it is pushing at an open door with me. Victor Davis Hanson's synthesis always seemed massively tied up with an ideological commitment to the 'west' versus the 'east'. No place to enter into discussion about that here, but as history it felt like there was a huge ideological pachyderm sat in the front row being ignored.

[paulr]

I think they stated they have a case, but didn't really provide a lot of evidence for it, nor really describe it fully.

To assume that Greek warfare did not change in a span of 400 years or so is inane, one only has to read Thucydides or Xenophon to see changes being made because of circumstances.   

Thanks Nobby, you have eloquently stated my position

[Ithoriel]

Unless there is a scroll, clay tablet or inscription somewhere waiting to be found I suspect we will never able able to settle the "othismos debate" entirely but I have more sympathy with the pro-phalanx lobby than the revisionists.

But then I think both Sumerian heavy infantry and Mycenaean heavy infantry fought as phalanxes too.

[Last Hussar]

The "why write it down, everybody knows" approach from history.

We don't know why snails are so prevalent in the margins of medieval documents; being ridden by knights, fighting knights, chasing knights etc. It is believed that the message was so well known that no one bothered  to write it down.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Wait until someone tries decoding emojii's in the future.       

[paulr]

I stumbled across this detailed dramatised look at the operations of part of the RAF's World War II command-and-control in 1944, "The Scope and Purpose of the Filter Room". Well worth a watch if you have any interest in the integration of radar into command-and-control in WWII.

[FierceKitty]

Unless there is a scroll, clay tablet or inscription somewhere waiting to be found I suspect we will never able able to settle the "othismos debate" entirely but I have more sympathy with the pro-phalanx lobby than the revisionists.

But then I think both Sumerian heavy infantry and Mycenaean heavy infantry fought as phalanxes too.

Why? Just because all the evidence and common sense point that way? Boy, are you ever out of touch with current history!

[Last Hussar]

Apologies if this has already been posted, I've only just seen it.

[fsn]

Based in the Exchange Building Liverpool - that's where I work. Now Walker House and Horton House.

Drachinfel took a look at the command centre under the building.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Awesome though

[flamingpig0]

[fsn]