Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
But shooter and strategy are not among them.
I once read an article of the warfare of the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea, who lived relatively unaffected tribal life until the middle of the last century. There the wars were more ritualistic. They marched, threatened, threw javelins, and made minor attacks, but all were careful not to hurt themselves. There were minor injuries, but very rarely were people killed for going too far.
This may have changed with the division of labor in the military and professionalization and more effective weapons in antiquity, where rulers usually operated in a relatively safe area. That's my logic.
Therefore, one had to distinguish between prehistoric and ancient warfare. Especially when you think of the many descriptions and finds of Roman armies and the generals of Caesar and Alexander the Great.
imagine my shook
No ♥♥♥♥, Sherlock (your teacher, not you). As others have already stated: these are games, they're fictional, and, of course, they're not historically accurate. Your history teacher really enjoys his logical fallacies: this time it's a truism.
In one post I read about Oliver Stone's Alexander. I really like this one despite quite a few inaccuracies such as the Pharos or the depiction of the Persian army, but at least Stone tried to be accurate.
I would really like to know what your teacher said in detail. It's always difficult to judge solely on reported speech. "Ancient warfare" is a very vague description. Mesopotamian or Assyrian armies were extremely professional, so were the Egyptians and later the Greeks and Romans. Sure, Gauls and Germanic tribes weren't that organized, but especially the latters made up for that with their furor teutonicus, which was feared by the Romans, especially after the Cimbri and Teutons had invaded Italy.
However, that brings me to another issue: the distinction between Celts and Germanic tribes goes back to Julius Caesar. He had waged an illegal war against the Celts, becoming incredibly rich in the process. As he returned, he had to face the senate and his political opponents. His career could have well ended there. Thus, instead of reporting that he hadn't been able to defeat all of the Northern tribes, he claimed that he had defeated all the Celts and that the river Rhine was the natural border between Celts and Germanic tribes. It didn't matter that he also reported about Celts and Germanic tribes frequently crossing the Rhine on horseback which made his claim rather obsolete, for example. Roman historiography wasn't about telling the truth, whatever this may be, but it served a rather pragmatic, propagandistic purpose.
Again, no ♥♥♥♥, Sherlock (not directed against you, but against your teacher). I read about such behaviour in the German Peasant Revolt, for example. However, you have to take into account that the peasants were highly disorganized, which was also denoted in the term Haufen usually used to describe them. Their armies were slaughtered by professionals who had previously fought in the ongoing Italian Wars. In some instances, peasants feinted to be dead and waited for nightfall in order to escape. However, many were caught and executed before the were able to flee. This example isn't from antiquity, but from the Renaissance, but it clearly elucidates the subject matter.
More professional armies had their own way of treating cowardice: take the Roman decimation, for example. Simply to generalize and say that this was the norm is a bit too simplistic.
When you're teaching, you have to be highly self-aware. The teaching situation is usually strictly hierarchial, with the teacher constantly babbling and the pupils or students writing down everything right after the horse's mouth. Here in Germany, for example, you can become a teacher with a 4.3 grade in your first Staatsexamen - that means a lot of deficits you have to cover up later as teacher. Of course, you cannot ask your teacher to show you his certificates and tell you his grades, but a little bit of transparency wouldn't hurt.
i saw that episode on the history channel. i believe it had something to do with aliens too. really good stuff. They also had bigfoot secretly take out enemy troops.
lol.. a teacher says video games don't portray how real wars actually were (facts).. and you come up with. teacher is a crazy marxist, hates people having fun, wants to rewrite history, has delusions that they were in ancient wars, and they are from some random place you don't like for whatever reasons.
i mean.. it makes sense to me...
welcome to steam OT...