Ancient Wars

Naught people !

If you are talking about the Spartans at Thermopylai, they had 300 hoplites (heavy infantry), 2,100 light infantry, and there were about 7,000 from other Greek cities.

The Saprtan 300 heavy infantry were the personal bodyguard of King Leonidas. The rest of the Spartan army was kept at home to protect against the threat of an amphibious attack by the Persian navy.

Each other, Irish, Picts, Romans, Germans.

King Pyrrhos of Epirus won the battles, but the Romans wore his military strenth down and won the war.

Aeneas.

From the sea .

Depends on which war. `In one of the Roman Civil Wars the armies of Mark Anthony and Octavian crushed the armies of Brutus and Cassius at the Battle of Phillipi, with Mark Anthony's army being the more successful. In war against the Parthians, Mark Anthony's army was less than successful, but the Parthians were one of those few peoples whom the Romans tried many times to conquer and never did. Mark Anthony then allied with Cleopatra against Octavian, but their army watched helplessly from the shore while their navy was easily defeated at the Battle of Actium, after Cleopatra and Mark Anthony had fled from the battle. It is sometimes speculated that they they would have had a better chance of defeating Octavian on land rather than at sea. In short, Mark Anthony won a few and lost a few. He was certainly not the best military leader that Rome produced, but neither was he the worst.

As they were defeated and enslaved, nothing.

The Greeks allowed the center to give way thus exposing the Persian flanks to a concerted Greek assault causing the collapse of Persian forces who then sought to escape by sea - the Greeks then slaughtered the Persian forces attempting to escape . Look to the related link below which has an excellent representation of what occurred at the seminal battle of Marathon .

Thucydides.

Athenian expansionism and the Peloponnesian League's resistance to it.

At Thermopylai there was a pass to defend, at Salamis there was a narrow strait. Both negated the superiority of the Persian forces.

The Achaeans .

Ibn Batuta

Hector .

A Persian Empire fleet comprised mainly of Phoenician, Asian-Greek and Egyptian contingents, and a coalitian fleet from the southern Greek cities.

The Greek alliance fleet failed to defeat the Persian fleet in the nearby strait of Axxxxx, which was the reason to block the Thermopylai pass - to force the sea battle.

Spears, swords, bows.

The Persians, each side suffered a few thousand casualties.

Underfunded, always outnumbered and with a largely unorganized band of mercenaries (Belisarius had few Cataphracts), and on top of it all charged with defending an empire attacked in four directions, Belisarius was charged not only with fighting a four front war, but Justinian told him, he had to recapture the lands of the western Roman Empire. You ever heard the military axiom "never fight a two front war?" Belisarius fought a 4 front one, in his time, the Byzantine empire was nearing death. To the north, were the Slavs and the Ostrogoths, the hostile, more warlike Slavs, to the south the Egyptians were rebelling and mounting assaults of their own against Anatolia, to the east were the Persians, and to the west, were the Visigoths and various Germanic tribes including the Vandals. Belisarius defeated all of them; a feat of tactical genius, that has yet to be matched.

Belisarius is important, although he is given little credit in western history texts, because the Byzantine empire formed a barrier between the empires of the middle east, and Europe. In fact it was not the first time in history, Greece acted as Europe's shield; any army wanting Europe, had to go through Greece first, this was also true in Belisarius' time. As a general rule with western racism, the Greeks are white when it comes to talking about ancient times, but all of a sudden they are not white, when it comes to talking about western achievements. Greek whiteness, is dependent on the arrogant convenience of a given western historian. Genetically though it has been found, the ancient Greeks are in fact cousins to the semites, although, pure Greeks are rare these days. Most full blooded Greeks live only on the islands, mainlander Greeks tend to be Slavic, or of Greek descent but with Slavic admixture. Belisarius himself, was an olive skinned Greek, a member of what the Nazis considered "inferior peoples." The reason Belisarius rarely gets a mention is because many of the warriors him, his Cataphracts, and army of largely volunteers massacred, were all blonde. Hitler's mighty "Aryan" soldiers. The history, is in fact true; Belisarius, who had dark hair, dark eyes, and Olive skin, massacred, one Germanic tribe after the next, a fact conveniently left out by Nazi "history" texts. It is also conveniently left out of American and British history texts. Belisarius was Greek; that is a historical fact.

The truth is the Balkan peninsula has acted as a barrier for Europe, since ancient times. They have either halted the advance of eastern armies outright, or, at least slowed them down and weaken them enough for Europeans deeper in Europe to deal with them. For all intents and purpose though, although genetically they are not white, ancient Greeks I mean, culturally they were European. Genetics and culture are not always the same thing; look at Latin America, the mestizo countries, genetically, especially central America, the people are predominantly native American, however culturally, there are stronger mediterranean influences. Some aspects of the asiatic native American culture remain; such as the stronger emphasis on family for example, rather than individualism, however unlike east Asian society, most mestizo latin Americans have low self-worth the society is racked with racism. For example, when a Latino gets angry at another for "claiming to be something he's not," its not about pride, so much as anger that someone is challenging the status quo. The status quo being "we are higher than the native Americans, but lower than white people; stop putting on airs" shooting you down and getting angry, is to make you feel inferior, to limit you, diminish you, and if necessary break you, just for "daring" to have self worth. Some latinos are so racist, they seem blind to the fact that the people they worship so much (whites) have a history of being sadistic killers. In this day and age though you have DNA tests; that promptly shuts them up. To be fair though, there are people with obvious native American ancestry, poor wretches who say "oh, my grandmother was German."

Belisarius is important, because not only did he help preserve Europe which had some value as a culture, but, his existence, shatters the myth of Aryan supremacy. Belisarius was as far from an "Aryan" as any man could be. Back to the whole latin America thing; I was just pointing out, that where there is true self-worth, people should not get offended, if someone claims to be something else. My ultimate message to latin America is, you don't want people wanting to be something else stop being so abusive towards the natives. In my experiences there growing up, the nastiest latinos always had lighter skin; they were the ones I got into most of my fights with. Latin American mothers spoil kids with European features, and in a disgusting, sickening manner; they get full of themselves, and make life difficult for everybody.

Far as semitic people, they just don't enter into the equation; to a prejudiced Latino, there are either blonde people, or native Americans, but you have say, a successful Arab businessman, who may in fact have greater math competence than a white American, the success of such a man just won't register in the brain of a racist Latino. More than just U.S. government sabotage, latin America is messed up for various reasons, European psychological depredations not the least of them.

They were experts at using the chariot. That's pretty much it.

Consider the lines below. What is being said here?

"'Sorrow not, sage! It beseems us better/ friends to avenge than fruitlessly mourn them.'" (XXI, 2 - 3)

Beowulf tells Hrothgar that it is better to avenge Aeschere than to mourn him.

Philip II and his Greek allies defeated the Athenians and their Greek allies on the battlefield of Chaeronea for the hegemony of Greece. Philip had brought peace to a war-torn Greece in 346 BC, by ending the Third Sacred War, and concluding his ten-year conflict with Athens for supremacy in the north Aegean, by making a separate peace. Demosthenes of Athens however, who harbored a grudge against Philip for humiliating him during a visit to the Macedonian court, began warning Athenians that Philip II wanted to take hegemony over Greece from Athens. Demosthenes convinced the Athenian assembly to sanction action against Philip's territories and to ally with Byzantium, which Philip was besieging. These actions were against the terms of their treaty oaths and amounted to a declaration of war. Diodorus provides the only formal account of the battle. He says that "once joined, the battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides, so that for a while the struggle permitted hopes of victory to both."He then recounts that the young Alexander, "his heart set on showing his father his prowess" succeeded in rupturing the Athenian allied line aided by his companions, and eventually put the Athenian allies right wing to flight; meanwhile, Philip advanced in person against the Athenian allied left and also put it to flight. (Diodorus Source: Perseus Tufts)

Stone Age (Greek lithos = stone)