The Ancient Greeks

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: The Ancient Greeks
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Thursday, February 15 2007 17:34 Profile Homepage #25 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: quote: How can we be discussing all Ancient Greeks when the experiment you describe is relevant only to the ones who rowed triremes? Rowing is one of the most intense sports there is; even athletes have difficulty with it without a lot of training and excellent upper-body strength. I'd be more impressed if these "muscular people" had already been trained rowers before the experiment began. Most Ancient Greek city-states had a small navy atleast. Some had larger, better navies, while some had smaller navies, but considering where they lived the almost all had a navy. I just checked, and they were experienced rowers that rowed thr trireme. None of which means that every single person in ancient Greece was a rower. At best, the experiment might show that those ancient Greeks who rowed triremes were really strong, but it doesn't say anything about any ancient Greek who didn't row a trireme. quote: History is the closest thing we have to a reliable source from the past. There is always the argument that history may be wrong, but with it being the closest thing we have to fact, that basically destroys the discussion. Biology and physics trump history. If historical records report the seemingly impossible, it's only reasonable to be suspicious of them. [ Thursday, February 15, 2007 17:37: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Thursday, February 15 2007 18:53 Profile Homepage #26 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: History is the closest thing we have to a reliable source from the past. There is always the argument that history may be wrong, but with it being the closest thing we have to fact, that basically destroys the discussion History is based on reliable sources from t he past. If there aren't reliable sources, we don't have reliable history. That doesn't stop historians from hypothesizing, but it does call their hypotheses into question. quote: Also, the recordings of trireme speeds are all roughly the same. That means that unlike the Romans they recorded unexaggerated fact. I can see how agreement makes a case for accuracy, but how does that mean that we understand their measurement of speed accurately? And isn't it equally possible that there was an agreed-upon speed that meant "heroic, manly, and martial rowing" to the historians. quote: In ne of their largest wars the Athenians were crushed by the Spartans. The Athenians mosstly one when the navy became a large factor in the war. Also, I've never seen a middle-school textbook with anything about Ancient Greeks. The Spartans tended to have both a larger and a better army than the Athenians. The Athenians had a larger and more powerful navy. Both were major military and political forces in ancient Greece and both fought frequently. Claiming one was militarily far superior than the other is neither accurate nor useful to this discussion, which is, or was, about how fast the Greeks of your choice could row. —Alorael, who finds it moderately upsetting that you had no ancient civilizations classes in your middle school. If anything says rampaging hordes of barbarians versus a small civilized world, it's middle school. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Thursday, February 15 2007 22:13 Profile #27 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: [QUOTE]History is the closest thing we have to a reliable source from the past. There is always the argument that history may be wrong, but with it being the closest thing we have to fact, that basically destroys the discussion. Unfortunately, that's life. If a premise is doubtful, it does not make sense to pretend it's rock solid just in order to have a discussion that presumes it. If the closest thing we have to a fact is still a long way off it, acknowledge that, and discuss the evidence and its weakness. Or, if you want to have a discussion on some arbitrary premise, why not go whole hog, and ask what life would be like in the internet age of the hobbits? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
upon mars Canned Member # 7704	written Friday, February 16 2007 01:51 Profile #28 People that lived in the past were more intelligent, stronger and efficient than the people of today because they had a short hard life. Predators like eagles that as far i am concerned took our babies one famous example is the tuang child, Dinofelis a famous specialized man eater and the hole savanna predators such as hyenas and in rare cases other hominids ate us. A bull size hyena can be a serious threat to mother giving birth. No wonder we're starting to beat out the pulp out of nature. So man kind as far as i am concerned had to bear all that #@!ç until the first world war in greece there was lions and tigers until the middle ages there is no doubt that people had to be cunning and resilient. Since we exterminated all our natural predators, that we stay all day in our cosy rooms chatting on the net and we can obtain an unlimited and constant source of protein, fats ,vitamins and minerals just by getting up grabbing a cell phone and say "I want a pizza with cheese and vegetable and salami, oh and no anchovies" do you think that the human race need to be extremely intelligent and strong in our days to survive ? Especially when we get up to grab a cell phone ? That just cost me 0,0000000000345 mg of calories, i must replenish my self with an other pizza!!! [ Friday, February 16, 2007 02:14: Message edited by: upon mars ] -------------------- You can jump off a bridge, fire a gun in your mouth, drink poison,or going in to the tiger's pit but you will still end up dead it's a mater of time and how . Posts: 312 \| Registered: Sunday, November 26 2006 08:00
Bojan Infiltrator Member # 5754	written Friday, February 16 2007 03:50 Profile #29 quote: Unfortunately, that's life. If a premise is doubtful, it does not make sense to pretend it's rock solid just in order to have a discussion that presumes it. If the closest thing we have to a fact is still a long way off it, acknowledge that, and discuss the evidence and its weakness. The Ancient Greek records are fairly consistent in their speeds, which points towards fairly accurate data. That means that it is very likely that the Greeks did actually row faster than us, and in turn shows that the Greeks were likely stronger than us. Their strength likely didn't all come from labor, but most likely it came from a slightly different body than us, allowing for more muscle. Another peice of evidence is the gods they worshipped. They were all incredibly muscular. This may have been from vanity, or it may have been from the way their bodies were. The same goes for their legends. The people in them are all incredibly strong. Once agan it could be from vanity or from their bodies. Posts: 626 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, February 16 2007 04:29 Profile Homepage #30 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: The Ancient Greek records are fairly consistent in their speeds, which points towards fairly accurate data. That means that it is very likely that the Greeks did actually row faster than us, and in turn shows that the Greeks were likely stronger than us. Their strength likely didn't all come from labor, but most likely it came from a slightly different body than us, allowing for more muscle. That's quite a number of leaps of logic being made in just one paragraph. quote: Another peice of evidence is the gods they worshipped. They were all incredibly muscular. This may have been from vanity, or it may have been from the way their bodies were. The same goes for their legends. The people in them are all incredibly strong. Once agan it could be from vanity or from their bodies. If Renaissance artists all depicted God with a long white beard, does that mean everyone living during the Renaissance had a long white beard? [ Friday, February 16, 2007 04:31: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
moonear Infiltrator Member # 5410	written Friday, February 16 2007 05:42 Profile #31 Sot, individually, you have tried to poke holes in the evidence that does exist for triremes, but you have not looked at how individual pieces of evidence reinforce each other. For instance, you called into question equipment lists, and the boat houses. Well, the equipment lists were found in the boat houses, reinforcing the use of the houses for triremes. You suggest that they may have been atypical or outmoded, but there is no evidence to sugggest that is true (no bays built for larger triremes where the housing was built of wood and disappeared for instance). Rather, when the evidence points in one direction it is not logical to assume something else entirely. Conjecture without evidence easy to make. Perhaps they made artificial harbours out to sea to house extremely large boats and these structures were made out of wood. There doesn't seem to be evidence to indicate this wasn't possible. quote: If a premise is doubtful, it does not make sense to pretend it's rock solid just in order to have a discussion that presumes it. If the closest thing we have to a fact is still a long way off it, acknowledge that, and discuss the evidence and its weakness. What evidence exists to make the premise doubtful as to what a trireme looks like? What evidence indicates the facts are a long way off? What evidence exists for a greatly different type of ship? [ Friday, February 16, 2007 05:47: Message edited by: moonear ] -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Friday, February 16 2007 06:35 Profile Homepage #32 -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Bojan Infiltrator Member # 5754	written Friday, February 16 2007 08:54 Profile #33 quote: None of which means that every single person in ancient Greece was a rower. At best, the experiment might show that those ancient Greeks who rowed triremes were really strong, but it doesn't say anything about any ancient Greek who didn't row a trireme. Rowing a ship for a living may make you slightly stronger than the average Joe, but considering all the labor the average Joes did, it wouldn't give you too much of a muscle boost. quote: And isn't it equally possible that there was an agreed-upon speed that meant "heroic, manly, and martial rowing" to the historians. This could be, but I don't think that all ships would row heroically. Only the "favored" ships would be recorded with the heroic speed. quote: Alorael, who finds it moderately upsetting that you had no ancient civilizations classes in your middle school. If anything says rampaging hordes of barbarians versus a small civilized world, it's middle school. Yes, it was very annoying. I've liked history since before middle-school, and the farthest in the past I went was to the Viking era. quote: That's quite a number of leaps of logic being made in just one paragraph. Logic being the key word. Logical explanation is used a lot with history. It must be since we weren't there. quote: If Renaissance artists all depicted God with a long white beard, does that mean everyone living during the Renaissance had a long white beard? No it doesn't. The Ancient Greek legends are all tales of battle, strength and heroic act. Their gods are all deadly warriors, with great courage and strength. This points towards either vanity towards strong, brave warriors, or them actually being close to that. It could be either, or it could be something else. The Battle of Thermopalye also points towards great strength and stamina. Roughly 6000 Greeks held off up to 2 000 000 Persians for three days. They had to have great stamina to keep fighting for that long. The Persians didn't need great stamina becase most of the that actually fought the Greeks died. Posts: 626 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Friday, February 16 2007 10:22 Profile #34 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: [QUOTE]The Battle of Thermopalye also points towards great strength and stamina. Roughly 6000 Greeks held off up to 2 000 000 Persians for three days. They had to have great stamina to keep fighting for that long. The Persians didn't need great stamina becase most of the that actually fought the Greeks died. I have to give Kyrek credit for holding off up to 2 million opponents in this argument. But you still can't build a solid mountain of evidence by piling up sand. In this case, our evidence for how many Persians were present at Thermopylae, how many Greeks, and just what they did, remains weak. The gist of the legend is probably true, but we have nowhere near a precise enough idea of what happened to use this battle as evidence for incredible ancient stamina. For all we know -- in fact, this would be the best guess -- most of the three-days' battle consisted of standing around waiting for something to happen. I do grant the point that congruence of many small pieces of evidence can build a much greater collective strength. And by careful collection of evidence, even ancient history can arrive at some probable facts. But you have to be awfully careful not to cherry pick your small pieces of evidence; and you have to be awfully careful that their apparent congruence is not simply an artifact of interpretation that is based on a presupposed theory. I have read perhaps a dozen or two general-reader-type books on various bits of ancient history. And I have also read a couple of much more technical treatises. And it was quite an eye-opener, the way the general-reader books confidently laid down the law, but the really expert books were mostly about the enormous range of conflicting conclusions drawn from the meagre evidence, and the tentative and approximate nature of the best available guesses at the time of writing. My coffee table book would tell me that Trajan's Rome had a population of two million; my academic tome devoted a chapter to weighing the rival claims for figures ranging from 250,000 to 4 million. So my impression is that real ancient historians are not at all confident in their conclusions, except within quite broad limits. Even with that caveat of broad limits, ancient history is still fascinating stuff. I don't doubt that the ancient Greeks rowed their triremes very well. What I doubt very much is that we know their triremes' typical speed to within a small enough margin of uncertainty that we can say, with any confidence, that they rowed them faster than we could today. We're talking a 30% discrepancy folks. Given the ancient technologies for measuring time and distance, I wouldn't trust any ancient measurement of speed or duration to within such a margin. And this is where it's not a symmetric situation, in which I need to advance evidence for my skepticism. Nobody said the search for truth had to be a fair game. Thousands of ancient ships once existed; we have a fragment of one. Thousands of ancient sailors sailed; we have half a dozen manuscripts that describe their doings, preserved in copies made centuries afterwards. It's like trying to reconstruct a Brontosaurus from a handful of teeth and vertebrae. The skeptic has a grossly unfair, built-in advantage. If you want to overcome that advantage, you have to do more than just form a best guess. You have to present substantial evidence for how accurate your guess is likely to be, to the point of being able to put quantitative limits on how much it could plausibly be wrong by. In physics one works at least as hard to assess one's accuracy quantitatively, as to determine one's best value for a figure. It's no fault of historians that they can't get their error bars as small as ours, but they have the same obligation to give serious thought to just how big they are. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Friday, February 16 2007 10:49 Profile Homepage #35 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: The Ancient Greek records are fairly consistent in their speeds, which points towards fairly accurate data. That means that it is very likely that the Greeks did actually row faster than us, and in turn shows that the Greeks were likely stronger than us. Their strength likely didn't all come from labor, but most likely it came from a slightly different body than us, allowing for more muscle. The records were consistent. If it wasn't because there was an accepted standard of how fast ships were rowed based on no measurement in particular, which is something I don't know, then it means the Greeks were precise in their accounts. They may have measured with a systemic error that threw them off by 5 knots. We may not understand the units they used. Greek rowers were definitely strong because rowers are strong. Stronger than us? Only if they rowed faster, which I still don't find entirely convincing. Different bodies are even more questionable. Where did those bodies go? They either came from nutrition and labor, which we have today, or from genetics, which didn't disappear in a few thousand years. I haven't heard anything about Greek skeletons that suggest great physiological differences, either. It's the biology that makes me most suspicious of claims that the Greeks were absolutely superior. There's just no reason I can think of for it to be true, and I have more faith in biology than in history and archaeology. quote: Another peice of evidence is the gods they worshipped. They were all incredibly muscular. This may have been from vanity, or it may have been from the way their bodies were. The same goes for their legends. The people in them are all incredibly strong. Once agan it could be from vanity or from their bodies. We know that Greek culture emphasized impressive physiques. That made it to Rome and eventually to Europe, too. It wasn't from vanity, it was from culture, but legends are legendary. You'll notice that Homer makes a big deal out of how much those Achaeans and Trojans could do that men of his day couldn't, weak as men were then (and now). I'd call it narrative inflation. —Alorael, who also has it on good authority that early Danes were capable of literally tearing monsters apart and slaying dragons. That is not good evidence of amazingly powerful Danes or, for that matter, Danish dragons. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Bojan Infiltrator Member # 5754	written Friday, February 16 2007 13:32 Profile #36 quote: I have to give Kyrek credit for holding off up to 2 million opponents in this argument. I have been puzzling over this for awhile and still can't figure out if this is sarcasm or not. The lack of a voice over the internet really destroys sarcasm and its ilk. Up to 2 000 000 means that this is not a completely certain, but guesses range from 200 000 to 2 000 000. quote: For all we know -- in fact, this would be the best guess -- most of the three-days' battle consisted of standing around waiting for something to happen. Some of it may have been standing around, but a lot of it must have been fighting since the Persian king defiled the Spartan commader's body because of the number of troops lost. quote: They may have measured with a systemic error that threw them off by 5 knots. 5 knots is highly unlikely. That would be 2 or 3 knots slower than us, which is unlikely for master sailors. quote: Different bodies are even more questionable. Where did those bodies go? They either came from nutrition and labor, which we have today, or from genetics, which didn't disappear in a few thousand years. I haven't heard anything about Greek skeletons that suggest great physiological differences, either. These bodies mixed in with Roman and Macedonian bodies after the Ancient Greeks were conquered. As time passed, the genetic differnce disappeared. Also, it's not the skeletons that were different, it's the muscle. quote: Alorael, who also has it on good authority that early Danes were capable of literally tearing monsters apart and slaying dragons. That is not good evidence of amazingly powerful Danes or, for that matter, Danish dragons. I'm not saying that Heracles killed the Nemean Lion, and that Bellepharon killed the Hydra. I'm saying that the people were actually stronger tha us, and because of their great strength they made their heros even stronger than them. Posts: 626 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Friday, February 16 2007 14:01 Profile #37 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: quote: I have to give Kyrek credit for holding off up to 2 million opponents in this argument. I have been puzzling over this for awhile and still can't figure out if this is sarcasm or not. This was supposed to be genuine respect for your efforts to maintain your position against superior numbers. quote: Some of it may have been standing around, but a lot of it must have been fighting since the Persian king defiled the Spartan commader's body because of the number of troops lost. The accounts of Leonidas's body being mutilated are plausible, but not completely solid, because atrocity stories in wartime are often exaggerated as propaganda. Since we have no memoirs from Xerxes, though, we have no idea why such a mutilation may have occurred. It could have been out of disgust at how easy it had been to mow down the legendary Spartans with archery. We are told that Leonidas had been awfully rude to Xerxes. Maybe Xerxes was just being a xerk. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Bojan Infiltrator Member # 5754	written Friday, February 16 2007 17:27 Profile #38 Ok, thank you then. I wasn't entirely sure which it was, although my guess was that it wasn't sarcasm, and wanted to make sure. quote: The accounts of Leonidas's body being mutilated are plausible, but not completely solid, because atrocity stories in wartime are often exaggerated as propaganda. Since we have no memoirs from Xerxes, though, we have no idea why such a mutilation may have occurred. It could have been out of disgust at how easy it had been to mow down the legendary Spartans with archery. We are told that Leonidas had been awfully rude to Xerxes. Maybe Xerxes was just being a xerk. Xerxes was known for fits of rage. He was supposed to have suffered one when he had the boby mutilated. This was not the only one recorded, and makes the mutilation more likely. Also, the Persians usually treated the dead with respect, and did not defile their corpses. The Spartans were not killed by arrows. They were killed by the sheer amount of Persians. Most died fighting with their teeth and nails. Posts: 626 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, February 17 2007 06:18 Profile #39 Once again: how the heck do you know this? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Leftover Sauerkraut Warrior Member # 7638	written Saturday, February 17 2007 07:39 Profile #40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae The wikipedia article seems pretty solid. Also several thousand years ago, their genetics may be slightly different. Back then the weak die. The natural selection, I would think, would tend to make stronger humans. Due to our increased living standards, the weak survive and back then they didn't. -------------------- "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981 "But what ... is it good for?" --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. Posts: 152 \| Registered: Monday, November 6 2006 08:00
moonear Infiltrator Member # 5410	written Saturday, February 17 2007 08:01 Profile #41 quote: The wikipedia article seems pretty solid. I've read other Wiki articles that seem pretty solid, but gloss over or miss entirely debate on a subject, leading the reader to believe its settled fact when the truth is there is still much discussion occurring. I lean to SoT with respect to assumptions on the veracity of claims on history. SoT, my issue was more to my reading of your notes as to not giving any credibility to historians assumptions. Case in point, my readings of Trieres seems to be compelling that they were something like what has been proposed whereas my readings of your posts suggested that we had no clue what they looked like. It could be you'be been playing devil's advocate - or we have a difference of opinion on how convincing the historians arguments are. I agree that the actual design of trieres is not known with certainty, but the proposed designs are workable, have considerable basis in reality and are quite plausible. -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, February 17 2007 08:04 Profile #42 No, it's not solid at all. It has very few footnotes, for its length, and the ones that are present come at the ends of long series of assertions, making it difficult to tell how much of what has been asserted is really vouched for by the cited source. The fact that the article includes virtually no assessment of the accuracy of its many detailed descriptions is already rather damning. According to the notes that are there, the main source is Herodotus. If in fact I give the Wikipedia writer the benefit of assuming that the extensive details presented all come from Herodotus, we are still left with the fact that Herodotus's reliability, at least in matters of such detail, is extremely questionable. Google 'reliability of Herodotus', and you can begin to track an enormous academic debate. And on evolution and such: this was Alorael's point, that a couple of thousand years are simply not long enough for natural selection to have eliminated any superb ancient physique. History is an evolutionary eyeblink. [ Saturday, February 17, 2007 08:15: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, February 17 2007 08:12 Profile #43 In response to moonear, I think we probably don't disagree much. I read ancient history kind of as a Gallup poll: accurate to within such-and-such percentage, 19 times out of 20. There's always a small but non-negligible chance that the historians' picture is grossly wrong. Otherwise, they always have some margin of error. And this margin of error is almost always far larger than we can expect for modern journalism. So there's a point at which it just isn't worth thinking too hard about some historical questions, because the data just won't supply a secure enough premise. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
moonear Infiltrator Member # 5410	written Saturday, February 17 2007 09:05 Profile #44 Just because I've always wanted to do this Please edit, don't double post ;) -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, February 17 2007 09:20 Profile Homepage #45 Eh, I can't actually speak to this on the basis of a real assessment of the evidence, as I wanted — no real time. But I do think it's worth pointing out that certain things that seem at first glance to be pure speculation — classical pronunciation is my favorite example — can in fact be known pretty darn solidly. We've actually solved the question of how the Greeks and Romans spoke, which seems completely impossible at first. With that in mind, I don't doubt that the Greeks rowed faster than we can easily imitate. After all, they had been rowing triremes for centuries and had handed techniques down by word-of-mouth for that entire time. Rowers rowed their entire lives. They were in better shape than we are, by and large, but our stronger athletes are probably comparable to their manual laborers in strength. Nevertheless, as was pointed out, technique matters much more than raw strength in rowing, and their technique was probably unparalleled. All of this suggests that they could very well have rowed triremes faster than we can, but none of it proves that they were genetically stronger than we are. For comparison, the ancient Greeks had bards who had memorized the entire epic cycle — that is, the Iliad, the Odyssey, and six other epics of comparable magnitude (the Cypria, the Aithiopis, the Little Iliad, the Sack of Ilion, the Returns, and the Telegony) — and probably a handful of other epic poems, too. They had hundreds of thousands of lines of poetry memorized at instant recall. Does this prove that they had better memories than we do? No, it just shows that, when people learn from the time that they can speak to memorize poems and songs, they can learn volumes that seem unfathomable to those of us who don't spend our entire days learning and reciting poetry. There are bards today — a precious few, but some Irish or Eastern European or other bards remain today — who can do the same with their own poetic traditions. Likewise, I don't doubt that the Greeks could row at a pace that seems incredible today, but it wasn't due to genetic differences; it was just a matter of practice and technique. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bojan Infiltrator Member # 5754	written Saturday, February 17 2007 10:14 Profile #46 About the article: I have watched and read that information many, many times. There are numerous sources with that same information. That makes it far more likely that that article is actual information with real backing sources. quote: With that in mind, I don't doubt that the Greeks rowed faster than we can easily imitate. After all, they had been rowing triremes for centuries and had handed techniques down by word-of-mouth for that entire time. Rowers rowed their entire lives. They were in better shape than we are, by and large, but our stronger athletes are probably comparable to their manual laborers in strength. Nevertheless, as was pointed out, technique matters much more than raw strength in rowing, and their technique was probably unparalleled. With little strength, you wouldn't be able to row very well. Also, does technigue make up for the ability to reverse very quickly, a great rowing stamina and the ability to go at 9 knots for a large amount of time? Some of it is technique, but technigue doesn't make up for the speed at which the Greeks could row. The modern oarsmen of the trireme could keep a pace of 9 knots for only seconds. The Greeks would have to keep it for most of the length of a naval battle. The way the 9 knots came up is from ramming. You would have to go incredibly fast to sink a ship by ramming it. 9 knots is a reasonable speed needed. And to answer for the not knowing the Greek naval measurement system, there are recordings of the Greeks traveling large distances in a very short time. Once apparently a Greek ship traveled 340 miles in 24 hours. This is obviously an exaggeration, because that is over 16 knots, but the Greeks probably travelled at 8 or 9 knots in that journey. Posts: 626 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, February 17 2007 10:23 Profile Homepage #47 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: With little strength, you wouldn't be able to row very well. I wouldn't, no, but I'm not much of an athlete. :P Our modern athletes are pretty darn strong, though, and once you have a fair bit of sheer muscle power, perfect technique matters a lot more than slight increases in muscle power. quote: Some of it is technique, but technigue doesn't make up for the speed at which the Greeks could row. How can you possibly know this? Have you done the biomechanical calculations? quote: The modern oarsmen of the trireme could keep a pace of 9 knots for only seconds. I reject the idea that the modern imitation was a definitive test of what is possible. Before the 1970's, surely people attempted the Spartathlon and failed, and they must have said that the Phidippides story wasn't possible. Now we know that it is possible (but still not necessarily true), because people succeeded. But the fact that we tried and failed once doesn't mean that it's not possible. That's just a silly idea. [ Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:24: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, February 17 2007 10:29 Profile Homepage #48 quote: Originally written by Kyrek: I have watched and read that information many, many times. There are numerous sources with that same information. That makes it far more likely that that article is actual information with real backing sources. No, it just makes it more likely that the information has become accepted among a certain group of people. There was a thread a few months ago about Luck in Geneforge 4. I kept insisting that it affected item drops, because I had the impression that it did, and because I had done tests in previous games with that result. A number of other respected information-mongers insisted on the same thing, because of their own false impressions, and because we were all backing each other up. And then other members started repeated it because they assumed we knew what we were talking about. But as it turned out, Luck has no effect on item drops in G4. We were all mistaken. Does this sort of thing happen in popular history? Constantly, as SoT mentioned early in this thread. In any debate where you actually care about the objective truth, you need actual evidence. It is not enough (nor is it really anything at all) to say "I've heard this over and over again." quote: And to answer for the not knowing the Greek naval measurement system, there are recordings of the Greeks traveling large distances in a very short time. Once apparently a Greek ship traveled 340 miles in 24 hours. This is obviously an exaggeration, because that is over 16 knots, but the Greeks probably travelled at 8 or 9 knots in that journey. Okay, now this is utterly ridiculous. You assert this "recording" as evidence, then say it is "obviously an exaggeration." Your final conclusion about how they "probably travelled" came entirely from your conception of how they probably travelled and not from the "recording" at all. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Bojan Infiltrator Member # 5754	written Saturday, February 17 2007 15:50 Profile #49 Our modern athletes are about as strong as the average Greek. They labored all day. quote: But the fact that we tried and failed once doesn't mean that it's not possible. That's just a silly idea. I know it's possible. I just don't think anyone will be able to do it until they spend their life training for it, and have had the technique passed down through th generations. The thing is, if they spent their life training for it, they would be a lot stronger than the average person. And the Greeks most likely didn't spend their life training for it. They would also have to practice with weapons, work in fields, and do other things like that. Please note: My next point is not with genetic research or with a great amount of knowledge about how the human body works. It is just with my understanding, which could easily be wrong, of the human body. If you spent your entire life training, then your body would be prepared to have more muscle in it, and would change slightly so that the muscle on your body would stay smaller, but be stronger. This would account for some of what I think the Greek body was like, although not very much of it. The rest would be from having a lot more muscle than the average Greek. The many sources could be because they were part of a select group of people, but it could just as easily be because there is very good reason to believe that. Also, the sources didn't seem to have any connection to each other. quote: Okay, now this is utterly ridiculous. You assert this "recording" as evidence, then say it is "obviously an exaggeration." Your final conclusion about how they "probably travelled" came entirely from your conception of how they probably travelled and not from the "recording" at all. Looking back, that didn't make any sense. That wasn't a very good way putting what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that the Greeks must of been able to reach those speeds because the completely dominated the ocean, and when competing with navies of the Persians, Romans, and various other opponents, they would need a great navy. Every trireme would have to hold 9 knots for a long time in a naval battle. To arrive as reinforcements in a battle, they would have to use great speed over a period of time. To head of landing parties they would also have to use great speeds for longer than a couple of seconds. They would have to reach those speeds to control the sea. Posts: 626 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00