Military Review

About the warriors of Rome ... in one material

162
Neither the brilliance of our clothes, nor the abundance of gold, silver or precious stones can make enemies respect or love us, but only the fear of our weapons makes them obey us.
Inventiveness will do anything if it is not denied relevant expenses.

It must be remembered that an inexperienced village girl always promises too much and is sure that she knows what she really does not know.
Publius Flavius ​​Vegetius Renat (lat. Publius Flavius ​​Vegetius Renatus; end IV - beginning of the Vth century)


After the publication of a series of materials about weapons and armor of Celtic warriors, according to the logic of things, Rome should go. But writing about Roman armor and weapons is, in general, a thankless task, because whoever did not write about this and, judging by the same comments of visitors to the BO, they are not bad at all about this.

About the warriors of Rome ... in one material

Roman cavalry I. AD Artist Ronald Embleton.

Therefore, the thought was born: first, to tell about the armor and weapons of Rome, again exclusively in the historiographic context, and secondly, to show it all through the work of famous English artists, museum exhibits. That is, the most clearly and concisely - in one material.

First of all, we emphasize that the warriors of Rome at different times had different weapons. In the early “heroic era,” it differed little from Celtic, Samnite, Etruscan, and Greek, since the Romans themselves at that time were “outlaws” - “outlaw people”, outcasts, thieves and murderers. Rome was a gathering of criminals, a "thieves obshchak", hence the whole Roman discipline, and "Roman law." At that time, the Romans had no culture and could not have it by definition. Therefore, they all borrowed everything from everyone, and even called chain mail “the Gallic shirt,” as indicated by such an English historian as R. Robinson [1].

Then there was the era of the Republic, then the Empire, then the empire split and collapsed. At each of historical pieces of this dramatic story of armor and weapons were quite different!


Three-disc Samnite shell from the tomb in Xsur-es-Sad, in Tunisia. Now located in the Museum of the City of Bardo, Tunisia.


Samnite armor. Della Chevitta Museum, Rome.

In the era of the Republic, various armor was used, ranging from a square plate on the chest to chain mail, as well as plate armor. It is noted that some of the plates of the Roman shells were surprisingly very small in size: 1 cm long and 0,7 cm wide, although in general they ranged from 1 to 5 cm, which indicates the very high skill of their manufacturers [2]. The presence of the enemies of Rome - Dacians, shells of leaf-like scales made of iron, notes Peter Wilcox [3].


Roman dagger infantryman and his chainmail. Modern reconstruction.

R. Robinson repeatedly notes that in the Roman army chainmail, called “Lorica hamata” (although the term “Lorica” itself comes from the word “skin”), has become very widespread. Other British researchers cite numerous descriptions of ancient Roman armor made of several types of rings: one-piece, stamped, overlapped or end-to-end, and they note that in the era of the empire such rings were replaced by much stronger riveters.


Praetorians I century BC. Artist Richard Hook.

There were even experts who calculated the labor costs of working time needed to put them on a whole legion. In particular, such a study was conducted by Michael Thomas, who, on the basis of experimental data, concluded that it would take 6 of the year to manufacture only one chain of welded and riveted rings with a diameter of 1,3 mm. Thus, 6000 29 000 man-hours of working time were required for a whole legion of 000 people (I century AD). Kolchugi legionery until the 1st century AD were very heavy and weighed 12-15 kg, which is why, perhaps, they were later abandoned [4].

The equestrian chain mail, like that of the Celts, had an armor similar to a pelerine, and weighed sixteen pounds. Mantle was attached to the chest by the rider with the help of two S-shaped hooks, and, apparently, was a separate piece in this type of armor. At the hips, the chain mail of the horsemen had cuts to make it easier to ride.


Roman legionary in Britain. Artist Ronald Embleton.

At the same time, on the column of Emperor Trajan, horsemen are depicted and in simpler chain mail with teeth on the shoulders and along the hem. It is noted that such a chain mail weighed about 9 kg. At the same time, they were worn not only by horsemen, but also by Roman archers of the era of the Trajan campaign in Dacia, who had ankle-length tunics, oriental spherical conical helmets and chain mail with scalloped sleeves and hem [5].


Relief from the column of Trajan: Roman infantrymen in scalloped chain mail.


Relief from Trajan’s column: Roman commanding staff

Helmets also used various. First of all, it is a Montefortinsky type helmet, which also had naschechnikas, which were hung on hinges to it, and later replaced it with a helmet of Italian type. Later helmets of legionaries with developed naschelniki and nazatylnik (the so-called "Galsky" or imperial type of helmet) eventually replaced the helmet of a conical shape - spgelhelm (of four segments attached to the frame).


"Helmet with a ram." Discovered in southern Italy. Approximate dating 525-500 BC. er The helmet is unique in that it is made of one (!) Solid piece of bronze. It is believed that its strange shape and low weight indicate that it is a ceremonial product. That's what the Romans were learning! Art Museum of St. Louis, USA.

During the military expansion in the Middle East, the Romans became acquainted with another type of helmet - “Persian” or “ridge”, which was forged from two halves, which were connected to each other on rivets using a patch metal strip with a small crest, which played the role of a stiffener. A pair of headphones that went over to the cheek pads protected the face from the side, the back of the head was covered by another metal plate, which was fixed movably. Inside, all these parts are trimmed with leather. Such helmets in the late III - early IV centuries. were widespread in the cavalry, and in the infantry, first of all, apparently because they were easier to produce large parties [6].


Roman riders and foot soldiers in 400 comb-hats, AD Artist Angus McBride.

As for, for example, Syrian archers from the same column of Troyan, they wear the same helmets as the Romans themselves, whom they helped as allies. According to R. Robinson, the only difference was that their helmets were thinner than the Roman ones, and always stood out from separate segments. In fact, they are almost identical to the helmets (spangenhelm) of the barbarians, used throughout Europe in the IV - XII centuries. [7]


Syrian archer in a conical helmet and plate armor. Modern reconstruction.

Bronze and silver-plated cavalry helmets with masks that completely cover the face, the English-speaking authors see, mainly, as belonging to equestrian competitions "hippika gymnasium", although they could have a combat mission.


Parade of the cavalry of the clibanaria in Rome, 357. Artist Krista Hook.

Simon MacDuwal, who researched the “Table of Merits” (Notitia Dignitatum), noted that by the 5th c. AD the value of the armor of the Roman army decreased due to its barbarization [8]. The main means of protection for the warrior was the large oval shield of the auxiliary parts — the auxiliaries [9] and the Spangelhelm helmet (of four segments on the frame), which later became typical of the early Middle Ages. Shields of soldiers of one unit had the same painting, periodically renewed and serving to recognize one’s own and others.

Almost all English-speaking historians point out that the reason why the gladius sword with a blade for the injection spread in the Roman army was exclusively a tactic, since the legionnaires acted in close formation where there was no place for the longsword. At the same time, the Roman riders were armed with a longer sword, Spata, which eventually completely replaced the gladius.

The reason for this is seen by them in the changing nature of warfare. So, if before the legionnaires fought mostly against the same infantry, then at the end of II - the beginning of III. AD, when the gladius gradually gave way to the spat, they more and more often had to confront the barbarians with long swords, and not only in the ranks, but also in single combat. The role of cavalry has increased, which is why the more specialized weapon replaces the more universal one, not to mention the fact that mercenaries-barbarians with their weapons come to the service or Roman gunsmiths specifically produce for them what was their "hand".


Fig. A Shepsa

Armament was usually supplied to the soldiers at that time at the expense of the state, so that even in the difficult period for Rome of the end of the 4th - the beginning of the 5th century AD the empire had 35 "enterprises", which produced all kinds of weapons and military equipment, from shells to catapults. However, the rapid decline in production in the empire very soon led to the fact that already somewhere in 425, a large part of the army began to be equipped with its own salary.


The tips of the Roman darts plumbata with lead weighting.

And it is hardly surprising that many warriors sought to buy cheaper weapons and, consequently, easier, and in every way avoided buying expensive protective armor. Both light and heavily armed infantrymen now dressed in almost the same way, and those who had armor put them on only in decisive battles, and in campaigns they carried them behind them in carts [10].


Magnificent and frankly tasteless helmet of the Roman rider from the tinned bronze of the era of the decline of the empire. Tylenhofen. Around 174 AD

But the chased Lorica of the Roman emperors, which were in use at the time of the legendary Romulus and Remus, re-became fashionable in the Renaissance. And helmets with visor and helmets for gladiatorial battles with wide brim (typical "cap de fer" of medieval infantrymen and horsemen) - all this was created and tested in this era, just like long knight spears and swords!


Roman legionnaires in battle with the Dacians. Illustration by Mac Bryde from Martin Vindow’s book Imperial Rome in Wars, published in Hong Kong.

Note that British historians explored each era of the Roman army separately [11], not only in time but also geographically, which was reflected in the series of enemies Enemies of Rome - 1,2,3,4,5 [12] Of course, it is impossible not to name the book by Peter Connolly quite affordable for Russians [13]. There are numerous works written on the basis of the work of English reenactors [14], and the “most illustrated” and most illustrative work is written by the editor-in-chief of the Osprey Publishing House Martin Windrow and is called: Windrow, M. Imperial Rome at war . Hong Kong, Concord Publications Co, 1996., However, it concerns only the imperial era of Rome. Well, the conclusion will be the following: the Romans in the field of armaments and in many other areas proved to be very skillful ... imitators, borrowing the best from the peoples around them and putting it "on stream".


Modern English reenactors from the Erminsky "street guard"

As for the death of the great empire, it did not happen because of the slave uprisings and the attacks of the barbarians - all this is not the cause, but the result of internal ills. The main reason is lead poisoning and impaired fertile function. The Romans brushed lead ridges, drank wine from lead jugs (it seemed so tasty to them!), And water to them also flowed through lead pipes. In the backbone of the Roman era that has come down to us, the lead empire is 10-15 times the norm. And how much was it then in soft tissues? So they died, leaving no heirs, and eventually Rome became simply no one to protect!


1. Robinson, R. Armor of the Peoples of the East. History of defensive weapons // Translated from English. S. Fedorova. M., ZAO Centrpoligraf, 2006. C. 19.
2. Macdowall, S. Late Roman infantryman. 236-565 AD. L .: Osprey (Warrior series No. 9), 1994. Pp 152-153.
3. Wilcox, P. Rome's enemies I - Germans and Dacians. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 129), 1991. P. 35.
4. Tomas, M. Roman armor // Military Modeling. 1999 / Vol. 29. No.5. P. 35.
5. Robinson, HR The armor of Roman legions. Ermine Street guard. 1976. P. 25.
6. Macdowall, S. Late Roman cavalryman 236-565 AD. L.: Ospey (Warrior series # 15), 1995.РP. 4, 53. Il. E.
7. Robinson, R. Armor of the Peoples of the East. History of defensive weapons // Translated from English. S. Fedorova. M., ZAO Centrpoligraf, 2006. C. 90.
8. See Macdowall, S. Late Roman infantryman 236-565 AD. L .: Osprey (Warrior series No. 9), 1994.
9. Sumner, G. Roman Auxiliaries reconstructed // Military illustrated. L .: 1995. No.81. PP.21-24.
10. Macdowall, S. Late Roman infantryman 236-565 AD. L .: Osprey (Warrior series No. 9), 1994.P.52.
11. Sekunda, N., Northwood S. Ealy Roman's armies. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 283), 1995; Simkins, M. The Roman army from Hadrian to Constantine. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 93), 1998; Simkins, M. The Roman army from Caesar to Trajan. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 46), 1995; Simkins M. Warriors of Rome. L .: Blandford, 1992.
12. Wilcox, P. Rome`s enemies 2 - Gallic and British Celts. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 158), 1994; Wilcox, P. Rome's enemies 3 - Parthians and Sassanid Persians. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 175), 1993; Trevino R. Rome's enemies 4 - Spanish armies. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 180), 1993; Nicolle D., Rome's enemies 5 - The desert frontier. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 243), 1991.
13. Connolly, P. Greece and Rome. Encyclopedia of military history / Translation from English. S. Lopukhova, A. Khromova. M .: Eksmo-Press, 2000.
14. Zienkevicz, D. Roman Legion. National Museum of Wales and the Ermine Street guard. Melays and Co Ltd., 1995; Tomas, M. Roman armor // Military Modeling. 1999 / Vol. 29. No.5. Sumner, G. Roman Auxiliaries reconstructed // Military illustrated. L .: 1995. No.81; Robinson, HR The armor of Roman legions. Ermine Street guard. 1976; Trauner, H. Roman Auxiliary // Military Modeling, L .: 1999. Vol. 29. No.4.
Author:
162 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nix1986
    Nix1986 3 February 2016 06: 27
    19
    Lead is a very primitive cause of the fall of the empire. There were a lot of reasons, and the granting of citizenship to everyone (i.e. there was no incentive for joining auxiliary cohorts for many), and one of the main losses in civil wars, the Romans chopped each other more than enemies and rejection of heavy armor from the beginning 3c, spraying on commits and other units of about 1000 people (against about 5 thousand for the imperial legion) is closer to the end of 3c. And others. But in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this is the lack of senior personnel, the legates and tribunes were just riders and senators who considered their service as a short-term duty before promotion in civilian posts, and many battles were won on the shoulders of the centurions and the fact that the Roman legionary was the best soldier of the era.
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 4 February 2016 04: 48
      +2
      We see a lot of all this, unfortunately, in our country as well, and in Europe it is so easy by leaps and bounds.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 February 2016 05: 47
        0
        there were several factors brought together, the main one - their hereditary elite degenerated from a complex of power
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 4 February 2016 18: 25
      +1
      But in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this is the lack of senior personnel officers, the legates and tribunes were simply riders and senators who considered their service as a short-term duty before promotion in civilian positions,


      Great Britain, the one that ruled the seas and over which the sun did not set, had a similar (if not even worse, from our bell tower) principle of formation of the officer corps. A nobleman bought an officer’s patent - here’s the birth commander! Well, if he has Eaton behind him. But there could be only arrogance, ambition and contempt for savages. And it worked. Until the twentieth century.

      And the causes of the collapse of the Empires are always very many and they are very complex. Each commentator sticks out the one that he understands.
  2. V.ic
    V.ic 3 February 2016 06: 33
    +2
    Comrades, pay attention to the pictures with the riders. They are without stirrups! Will such a horseman fight a lot?
    1. Glot
      Glot 3 February 2016 06: 52
      +8
      Comrades, pay attention to the pictures with the riders. They are without stirrups! Will such a horseman fight a lot?


      Yes, there were no stirrups. However, they fought. And quite a lot.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 3 February 2016 07: 31
        +2
        Quote: Glot
        However, they fought. And quite a lot.

        When he met real cavalry (for example, the Parthians), they raked in full.
        1. Glot
          Glot 3 February 2016 08: 44
          +8
          When he met real cavalry (for example, the Parthians), they raked in full.


          Yes, the Parthian cavalry successfully opposed Rome. But they did not know the stirrups. smile After all, you were talking about stirrups. smile
          However, Rome quickly adopted Parthian techniques, created cataphracts and more.
          1. kalibr
            3 February 2016 09: 00
            +5
            Yes, a whole regiment of cataphracts stood in England and they are very proud of it!
            1. Deniska999
              Deniska999 3 February 2016 09: 19
              +3
              Read Notitia Dignitatum. In the East there were up to 10 divisions of cataphratarians and klibanaris with a total number of up to 10 thousand soldiers. In the West, less - 7,5 thousand.
        2. kalibr
          3 February 2016 08: 59
          +2
          Who is it and what is the minus set? He did not write that the Parthians had stirrups ...
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 3 February 2016 09: 34
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            Who is it and what is the minus set? He did not write that the Parthians had stirrups ...


            I put it, there were no stirrups say? Do the experiment, sit on a chair, bend your legs, hold a pair of pillows in your hands, at least try to wave them in the air in different ways, bending over for blows and to parry the blows, sitting on the ass without leg support is impossible. A cavalryman can only fight effectively when he stands in the saddle i.e. without striving to fight it is IMPOSSIBLE ...
            1. Glot
              Glot 3 February 2016 09: 52
              +8
              Do the experiment, sit on a chair, bend your legs, pick up a couple of pillows in your hands, at least try to wave them in the air in different ways, bending over for blows and to parry the blows, sitting on the ass without leg support is impossible. A cavalryman can only fight effectively when he stands in the saddle i.e. without striving to fight it is IMPOSSIBLE ...


              The entire Ancient World used horses for a certain period without stirrups. Even you, I think, if you could, you could teach you to do without stirrups. Enough of stupidity then post every day. Not tired of displaying your ignorance?
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 11: 43
                +2
                Quote: Glot
                Even you, I think, if you wish, you could teach

                You asked a very interesting question. lol
            2. AK64
              AK64 3 February 2016 09: 56
              +2
              Well, why?
              The most ancient way is throwing darts at a gallop: horse speed adds to the speed of a dart. This is not the main tactics of the Roman cavalry.
              Then archery: it is quite possible without saddles and stirrups.
              Even a spear strike --- but you only need to tie the spear to the horse (usually to the neck) (often with a chain) --- then it accepts the lap to give back, and you just direct the spear

              Felling from the saddle is already Türks. But they already have normal herds and stirrups.
              Yes, and it’s precisely the saber they invented for the cavalry cutting
              1. Sweles
                Sweles 3 February 2016 11: 50
                -4
                Quote: AK64
                The most ancient way is throwing darts at a gallop: horse speed adds to the speed of a dart. This is not the main tactics of the Roman cavalry.
                Then archery: it is quite possible without saddles and stirrups.


                yeah, delusion is firmly rooted. I can say so on a horse you can’t even ride without stirrups, the fatigue of a rider and a horse increases significantly compared to stirrups, so the existence of any riders chopping, stabbing, shooting is possible only if there are stirrups. Any rider most of his stay on a horse is worth it, and not sitting, and as for the handling of weapons, it is only with stirrups ...
                1. AK64
                  AK64 3 February 2016 13: 33
                  +7
                  yeah, delusion is firmly rooted.

                  But what a "delusion" when there are no stirrups or saddles on any sculpture or any bas-relief. Nor were they found during excavations.
                  So what is this "delusion"?

                  I can say so on a horse, you can’t even ride without stirrups, the fatigue of a rider and a horse rises significantly compared to stirrups,

                  Fatigue rises, but you CAN ride. And they went.
                  Moreover, you sort of sit down, do you understand? How do we say the English saddle differs from the Circassian understand? Well, so the English modern saddle than it is for a horse is better than a banal borshoy skin? Yes, nothing - the load on the back is the same. (And therefore, you should not sit on a horse for more than 2 hours under the English saddle)

                  therefore, the existence of any riders chopping, stabbing, shooting is possible only with the presence of stirrups.

                  Once again: only the Türks entered the cabin from the saddle. They also brought stirrups to Europe. And horse shooting goes back to the Scythians at least. (but rather earlier.) And they have not only just stirrups, but saddles have not been found.
                  They find gold jewelry - but do not find iron or bronze stirrups.

                  Any rider most of his stay on a horse is worth it, and not sitting, and as for the handling of weapons, it is only with stirrups ...

                  As far as I know, Standing is the surest way to tire a horse.
                  1. Sweles
                    Sweles 3 February 2016 14: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    But what a "delusion" when there are no stirrups or saddles on any sculpture or any bas-relief. Nor were they found during excavations.
                    So what is this "delusion"?


                    it is difficult to depict stirrups on bas-reliefs, and referencing bas-reliefs is much worse than the opinion of specialists-Cossacks, horse-riders, see Cossack charters, and here the opinion is unequivocal, to ride without stirrups is like a bicycle without pedals ...

                    Quote: AK64
                    Moreover, you sort of sit down, do you understand? How do we say the English saddle differs from the Circassian understand? Well, the English modern saddle than it is for a horse is better than a banal borshoy skin


                    in the first Circassians does not happen, these are inventions of tishniks, there were CIRCUS-Cherkasy.
                    As for your "English saddle", where do Angles here? Have they ever had outstanding cavalry? Why mention them? just?
                    Quote: AK64
                    Once again: only Türks entered the cabin from the saddle

                    there are many Turkophs, which Turks are Yakuts, Kazakhs?

                    Quote: AK64
                    They also brought stirrups to Europe.

                    yeah ?? link to this circumstance ??

                    Quote: AK64
                    And they have not only stirrups, but saddles have not been found.

                    "stirrups not found", "saddles not found", but what do you think that stirrups and saddles will certainly remain in the burial grounds? Saddles - leather, and stirrups - iron all this decays in 50-100 years
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 3 February 2016 16: 30
                      +4
                      Sorry, but my comment was considered "too long". And he was gone.

                      I won’t repeat, sorry.
                      I strongly recommend reading the book by LN Gumilev "Türks", it will answer many of your questions, and in itself is very interesting - literally like a detective story.
                      1. Sweles
                        Sweles 3 February 2016 18: 10
                        -1
                        Quote: AK64
                        I strongly recommend reading the book by LN Gumilev "Türks", it will answer many of your questions, and in itself is very interesting - literally like a detective story.


                        don’t argue like that on the forums, highlight the quote and it and we will discuss it, but throwing yourself with whole works is not done ...
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 3 February 2016 18: 45
                        +2
                        don’t argue like that on the forums, highlight the quote and it and we will discuss it, but throwing yourself with whole works is not done ...


                        / with wild surprise /
                        But am I arguing with you?
                        How can I argue with you if you don't even know what kind of Turks you are talking about ?! What kind of "dispute" can there be, and about what?

                        No, you rather than break stools on the forums, it is better to read this book. Moreover, if you are a Cossack, then such books are simply obligatory for you to read: there is a very direct relation, up to and including the term "Cossack".
                      3. Sweles
                        Sweles 3 February 2016 18: 58
                        -4
                        Quote: AK64
                        But am I arguing with you?
                        How can I argue with you if you don't even know what kind of Turks you are talking about ?! What kind of "dispute" can there be, and about what?


                        Well, tell me once you know everything, Turkic-murky ...

                        as for Gumilyov, he began to read "ancient Russia and the great steppe", but when he read that the Khazars were born in the Volga delta and lived there for 200 years, he gave up reading, people do not live in swamps, even the Khazars ...
                      4. AK64
                        AK64 3 February 2016 19: 06
                        +3
                        but I read that the Khazars were born in the Volga delta and lived there for about 200 years, I quit reading, people don’t live in the swamps, even the Khazars ...

                        Well, you give ...

                        Where do you think Egypt originated? The Nile Delta, all the same swamp, and with crocodiles, sir. And around the desert.

                        And to take Mesopotamia, Messopotamia: there, all the lower course is a continuous swamp. So they built a civilization.

                        But in the case of the Khazars, Gumilyov is possibly wrong: there is an opinion that they have already forcedly retreated to the Volga, most likely under the pressure of the Arabs. The Arabs then plopped into Dagestan, and the Khazars fought with them.

                        And the Türks ... The Türks are the tiny Altai people (but tall guys) who one day conquered half the world.
                        And those that you have listed are just "Turkic-speaking"
                      5. Aljavad
                        Aljavad 4 February 2016 18: 39
                        0

                        as for Gumilyov, he began to read "ancient Russia and the great steppe", but when he read that the Khazars were born in the Volga delta and lived there for 200 years, he gave up reading, people do not live in swamps, even the Khazars ...


                        laughing And the grassroots Cossacks just inhabited the Don Delta. And still live there.
                        Delta is not a swamp!
                  2. Aljavad
                    Aljavad 4 February 2016 18: 36
                    +2
                    don’t argue like that on the forums, highlight the quote and it and we will discuss it, but throwing yourself with whole works is not done ...


                    Go to the forum for dummies. And you mean classics - you are welcome to us. To discuss quotes.
              2. andrew42
                andrew42 3 February 2016 17: 48
                +1
                I will support you. Here, many believe that stirrups were invented exclusively by the Turks, that is, not earlier than the beginning of the 6th century. It’s so simple with them: in the Altai, in the 5th century, an "inventor" was born and abruptly invented the stirrups, on which Istemi-khan slipped to the Volga in 555. Meanwhile, Ammianus Marcellinus, who still pathologically hates the Huns, writes that they "seem to have grown to their low horses ... they trade and eat while sitting on a horse," and so on. This indirectly confirms the presence of stirrups even among the "wild" (according to the Romans) Huns. I wonder who this proved the absence of stirrups among the same Parthians? What, Arshak crawled his ass on the horse's back? - Yes, not in zhist! :)) By the way, stirrups do not have to be cast from metal. Wood and leather are enough. And how funny they talk about shooting from a horse! To shoot at a gallop half-turned or turning back (and the late Scythians, and the Sarmatians, and the Parthians were famous for this), the presence of a support for the legs is a must! Otherwise, you will simply fall off the horse, because your hands are busy.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 3 February 2016 18: 12
                  +1
                  I will support you. Here, many believe that stirrups were invented exclusively by the Turks, that is, not earlier than the beginning of the 6th century. It’s so simple with them: in the Altai in the 5th century an "inventor" was born and abruptly invented the stirrups, on which Istemi-khan slipped to the Volga in 555.

                  You do not read well, it is said "the Turks brought stirrups to Europe." But it does NOT say "the Turks invented the stirrups."

                  The first known image of a stirrup on a Chinese terracotta figurine. But there it is (1) round (that is, inconvenient for riding), (2) one, and on the left (there are two sides on the figurine, this is not a bas-relief), and, most important, (3) the rider sits without using stirrups.
                  Accordingly, the assumption: this is a stirrup-"step" to make it easier for the Chinese aristocrats to get on a horse.

                  Nevertheless, this sculpture, as it were, shows the evolution of the stirrup: not a single invention "one fine day", but some kind of evolution.

                  PS: By the way, do you have any problems with the Turks? Something you run into them like that ... Someone once invented any thing in this world, and almost certainly it was not you. So Why are the Turks worse than others? Why can't they?

                  ZZY: the Turkic title was kogan. Not a Khan. Kogan.

                  I will comment on the rest, if you do not mind, a little later
                2. Sweles
                  Sweles 3 February 2016 18: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: andrew42
                  And how amusingly they talk about horse shooting! To shoot at a half-turn gallop or turning back (and the late Scythians, Sarmatians, and Parthians were famous for this) the presence of leg support is a must! Otherwise, you will collapse corny with a horse, for your hands are busy.


                  I still missed an important point. A heavily armed horseman CANNOT climb a horse. Armor, weapons, all this can weigh more than twenty kilograms, that the rider will jump near the horse, without stirrups, absurdity ...
                3. AK64
                  AK64 3 February 2016 18: 39
                  -1
                  still missed an important point. A heavily armed horseman CANNOT climb a horse. Armor, weapons, all this can weigh more than twenty kilograms, that the rider will jump near the horse, without stirrups, absurdity ...


                  And you’re right: because the cataphracts appeared only in Parthia, in the middle of the 1st century, Jo PX!
                  And it’s absolutely non-fact that they mounted a horse themselves - there were very few of them, even in Parthia, and each of them had a staff of squires and transport horses.
                  Do not you think that they made marches in armor? Someone somewhere had to transport the armor, help it up and then the net on the horse.

                  Novgorodians in the 15th century, in the war with Moscow, weren’t riding a horse themselves — they could not get in when they fell without help! But this does not mean that such armor was not
              3. AK64
                AK64 3 February 2016 18: 59
                +1
                Meanwhile, Ammianus Marcellinus, who still pathologically hates the Huns, writes that they "seem to have grown to their low horses ... they trade and eat while sitting on a horse," and so on. This indirectly confirms the presence of stirrups even among the "wild" (according to the Romans) Huns.

                Sorry, but Jordan wrote it. This one, too, however, fiercely hated the Huns. But at the same time, Jordan himself did not even see those Huns, since he was born and lived a couple of centuries after the events about which composed. However, this is Jordan.

                But this is not about authorship, it is about stirrups.
                Here the Türks arrived on stirrups (by the way, why are the Huns better than the Türks? Why cannot the Türks invent the stirrups?)
                And note - all of Europe and the Middle East IMMEDIATELY adopted the stirrups. They have become ubiquitous. But after the Huns the stirrups are still nowhere to be found.

                Further, a tight fit does not depend on stirrups. Quite the opposite: an inept rider with stirrups will ride in the saddle, like a kidiot (exhausting a horse).
                Stirrups are needed to stand up for a saber strike, they are needed to rest against a spear strike (but you can’t wait for strong emphasis, and therefore you need to beat with your hand and not with the horse)

                The density of landing does not depend on stirrups.


                I wonder who proved the absence of stirrups from the same Parthians?

                The lack of stirrups in their bastard - the Romans. Lack of excavation. The lack of images.
                And most importantly: the Turks had sabers that the Parthians did not have. And the Turks chopped sabers from the saddle. Without stirrups, this is very difficult to do. Felling by the Parthians as a phenomenon was not mentioned by anyone.

                What, Arshak crawled his ass on horseback? - Yes, not a damn! :))

                According to the leopard skin, the case is well known.

                And how amusingly they talk about horse shooting! To shoot at a half-turn gallop or turning back (and the late Scythians, Sarmatians, and Parthians were famous for this) the presence of leg support is a must! Otherwise, you will collapse corny with a horse, for your hands are busy.


                I see what kind of cavalryman you are, I see ...
                The rider’s stirrups do not hold. When shooting, they are important in order to absorb the horse’s movement and thereby increase accuracy - but that’s all. You have stirrups, you do not have stirrups - in the saddle you better not stick.
                Stirrups are needed when you need to stand up to strike, or to reach out, operating on the stirrup., And not at all in order to "merge with the bay"

                The oldest image of stapes (one!)
        3. The comment was deleted.
    2. miru mir
      miru mir 3 February 2016 10: 01
      +3
      Before the invention, stirrups fought without them. smile Yes, and a chair, it’s not quite right to compare with a horse’s back hi
    3. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 11: 42
      0
      Quote: Sveles
      I put it

      It's me in shock wassat
      When I rode a horse for the first time, I was "overwhelmed" that the saddle around the horse would "crank" and in general I do not know why such an idea occurred to me, apparently the saddle was shaking violently, but the first thing I did was intuitively took my legs out of the stirrups went without them.
      Yes, of course the horse walked more than it rode, but I was on it for the first time and for some reason did not fall fellow
      And in general it, forward to the native circus, watch how they jump on a horse fellow
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 11: 53
        -4
        Quote: Mr. PIP
        It's me in shock
        When I rode a horse for the first time, I was "overwhelmed" that the saddle around the horse would "crank" and in general I do not know why such an idea occurred to me, apparently the saddle was shaking violently, but the first thing I did was intuitively took my legs out of the stirrups went without them.
        Yes, of course the horse walked more than it rode, but I was on it for the first time and for some reason did not fall
        And in general it, forward to the native circus, watch how they jump on a horse


        well peep, he is in africa peep and in the circus the same thing ...
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 12: 28
          0
          Quote: Sveles
          and in the circus the same thing

          Yes, and here it’s not bad lol
    4. kalibr
      3 February 2016 12: 55
      +4
      You are, excuse me, a strange person, either ignorant or very stubborn, but rather both. And this is very sad! There are no finds of stirrups in Rome, no images of them, no, no, no ... Spurs (spur) on one leg are found. Horseshoes - find! But stirrups - no! Soft stirrups? And they are not on the images of horsemen, although there are a lot of images themselves, there are descriptions of them ... there is, is, is. And there are Haniwa figurines with stirrups and descriptions of how they were used. EVERYTHING IS. And this all shows that, yes, it was bad to fight without stirrups, bad. But ... they fought! And Gauls, and Celts, and Picts, and Romans, and Numidians, and even cataphracts. And the most interesting thing is that I just did the experiment. At the Penza hippodrome he put a girl on a blanket with a "spear" in his hand and ... "stabbed". And it turned out that everything is OK, except for one thing: the horse is afraid of the "stick" at the right eye! And "feeds" to the left! That is, you cannot sit on the first horse you come across with a spear. And without stirrups, she rode perfectly!
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 00
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        But the stirrups - no! Soft stirrups? And they are not on the images of the riders, although there are a lot of images themselves, there are descriptions of them ... yes, yes, there are.


        you calm down, a stirrup, as a simple device can also be made of wood, therefore the preservation of such material over the centuries is unambiguous and you should not refer to burial grounds, even iron stirrups, the same thing — corrosion of metal and after 100 years — no iron. So references to absence in burials are not valid due to the laws of nature ...

        Quote: kalibr
        And the most interesting thing is that I just did the experiment. At the Penza hippodrome he put a girl on a blanket with a "spear" in his hand and ... "stabbed"

        do not be ridiculous, please, this "experiment" of yours speaks only about one thing - about your not too developed imagination, such reconstructions do not speak about anything because war is one thing, but a girl on horseback is completely different ...
        1. AK64
          AK64 3 February 2016 16: 39
          0
          therefore, the preservation of such material over the centuries is unequivocal and it is not worth referring to burial grounds, and even iron stirrups, the same thing — corrosion of metal and after 100 years — no iron. .

          Nevertheless, the Hun saddles are known.
          And indeed, the number of wooden products in the mounds and tombs is by no means small.
          Iron products are even Scythian. Preservation is far from ideal - but it is clear that this is a sword!

          Stirrups are often bronze, and bronze remains much better than iron.

          Turkic stirrups (6th – 7th century!) Are fully recognized as exactly stirrups.

          do not be ridiculous, please, this "experiment" of yours speaks only about one thing - about your not too developed imagination, such reconstructions do not speak about anything because war is one thing, but a girl on horseback is completely different ...

          Foty must be demanded from him.
          And then all sorts of garbage, such as "cavalry attack of the Roman Cossacks", he spreads, but what is important so only words-words-words.

          Here let it lay out.
          A better video in general.
          1. kalibr
            4 February 2016 07: 54
            0
            Yes, you’re right, many burials have come down to us, including in Russia, where there are a lot of wooden products, leather, and iron ones. Also bronze.
            Now, if you continue to me, then I will say that this experiment was carried out back in 1989, when there were problems with the video and with the photo. And then it's not God knows what, to put a person who knows how to ride on a blanket of a carpet without a saddle. This is exactly what the testability rule of any experiment requires. This can be repeated anywhere. And "bullshit" is a drawing by Ronald Ambleton. Like any drawing on a historical theme, it can contain inaccurate moments. But apart from your complaints, there were no complaints about Ron, and it is unlikely that experts would not make them. With criticism of works in the same England, things are very good.
        2. kalibr
          3 February 2016 16: 59
          +4
          Are you illiterate or blind? They find iron spurs of Greco-Roman times, they find iron horseshoes. But ... NEVER found stirrups next to them. Further ... why did I upload the photo from the column of Trajan. There is clearly visible and the landing of the riders and the position of their legs. That's all about it, if a person d ... then in Russia it is forever!
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 February 2016 17: 52
            -1
            Are you illiterate or blind? They find iron spurs of Greco-Roman times, they find iron horseshoes. But ... NEVER found stirrups next to them. Further ... why did I upload the photo from the column of Trajan. There is clearly visible and the landing of the riders and the position of their legs. That's all about it, if a person d ... then in Russia it is forever!


            A foty, note, clamped

            I laid out some Roman Cossacks with recessions (who cares, they are naked?), And he clamped our domestic girl for the people.

            In general, we do not believe him until the video is laid out. I am so shield


            PS: by the way, I looked closely at these "Roman Cossacks" on the splash screen.
            So in the first place it turned out that they were not Cossacks, but bakers — all in black jackets, and all had the same clothes (should I see the same gang?)

            And secondly .... Secondly, at the very back .... leather stirrups on the knee!

            What time! Stirrups, Carl. Under the knee, Karl!

            Canolly post - this is not for you to scratch the navel.
      2. Arbogast
        Arbogast 3 February 2016 19: 38
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        There are no finds of stirrups in Rome, no images of them, no, no, no ... Spurs (spurs) are found on one leg. Horseshoes - find! But the stirrups - no!
        I think it would be appropriate to bring COMMENTS to the book by V.D. IVANOV "ORIGINAL RUSSIA" .VOLUME 2
        Contrary to the difference in the anatomical structure of the Hellenes and the Romans, they carried the yoke, almost without changing it, from the shoulders and underbelly of the bull to the horse's neck. Unsuitable harness strangled the horse. Therefore, paired and quad quad teams appeared. Even in a shy harness, horses could quickly carry a light wagon with a chariot and master along perfectly smooth imperial roads. But heavy loads moved on oxen.
    5. kashtak
      kashtak 3 February 2016 20: 48
      +1
      Quote: Sveles
      sitting on the ass without leg support is impossible

      there were no stirrups. there were emphasis on the saddle number four like. such saddles were called military.
    6. The comment was deleted.
  • Deniska999
    Deniska999 3 February 2016 09: 21
    +4
    Quote: V.ic
    When he met real cavalry (for example, the Parthians), they raked in full.

    Parthian campaign of Trajan, Lucius Vera, Septimius Severus (2 campaigns), Caracalla. All ended with the victory of the Romans. 5 victories over a century. In my opinion, not bad. Do not find?
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 3 February 2016 10: 53
      +4
      Quote: Deniska999
      5 victories over a century. In my opinion, not bad.

      Just the opponents were weak. There were even a couple of wars against the Dacians, but there weren’t very many of them.
      Quote: Deniska999
      Do not find?

      ... the head of Mark Licinius Crassus? No, I didn’t find it.
      1. Deniska999
        Deniska999 3 February 2016 12: 35
        +1
        Quote: V.ic
        Quote: Deniska999
        5 victories over a century. In my opinion, not bad.

        Just the opponents were weak. There were even a couple of wars against the Dacians, but there weren’t very many of them.
        Quote: Deniska999
        Do not find?

        ... the head of Mark Licinius Crassus? No, I didn’t find it.

        You are talking about a single defeat. But I repeat: over the course of a century, the Romans conducted 5 successful campaigns against Parthia. Is this not an indication that the Roman army could fight and defeat the cavalry?
  • palm
    palm 4 February 2016 22: 45
    0
    and saddles also had no picture left
  • Sweles
    Sweles 3 February 2016 08: 54
    +1
    Quote: V.ic
    Comrades, pay attention to the pictures with the riders. They are without stirrups! Will such a horseman fight a lot?


    sitting on the ass without leg support with a sword, with a shield, and even fighting, spinning is impossible. Even the Romans didn’t wear trousers with skirts, but the cavalryman sitting with his bare ass on the horse touches the horse, and horse sweat is an exceptionally caustic thing, what will happen to the cavalryman’s ass? At the Shpakovskoko reconstruction, they began to put the cavell in their pants, right? It turns out that you put on your pants in battle, and then removed your pants? For some reason, none of the antique has ever written such a thing ...
    1. Slobber
      Slobber 3 February 2016 09: 01
      +1
      It turns out that you put on your pants in battle, and then removed your pants? For some reason, none of the antique has ever written such a thing ...

      In blanket, marked by the color of the unit, they, so stupid, did not put under the saddle.
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 09: 24
        -10 qualifying.
        Quote: razgildyay
        In blanket, marked by the color of the unit, they, so stupid, did not put under the saddle.


        it may have been your Jewish cavalrymen riding on horse blankets, but generally it is for keeping a horse, and not for replacing a saddle or pants ...
        1. Glot
          Glot 3 February 2016 09: 44
          +5
          it may have been your Jewish cavalrymen riding on horse blankets, but generally it is for keeping a horse, and not for replacing a saddle or pants ...


          Would you better book correct revered, you look maybe stupid would be written less here.
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 February 2016 09: 53
            -2
            Would you better book correct revered


            Right - these are those where it is written that since everything is in Latin on French coins, then the subjects of the French kings were all Latins, that is, pah-pah, the Romans?

            Well, in general, right: we need the right story. We don’t need the wrong story.
            And therefore, we will urgently concretize ancient Ascalon and will compose fairy tales about "Hellenic civilization"

            Yes, and Shlinan - Shlieman your FSE ..
            1. Glot
              Glot 3 February 2016 10: 25
              +4
              The correct ones are those where it is written that since everything is in Latin on French coins, then the subjects of the French kings were all Latins, that is, pah-pah, the Romans?


              I don’t know about French coins, but if we began to make coins with a legend in English or Latin in Russia, it would be at least strange.
              In yesterday’s conversation, I told you everything, there’s nothing to add. Well, perhaps in the end. In Russia in the Middle Ages, legends on coins were minted in Russian. Although occasionally, in the beginning there were Arabic duplicate Russians, and Tatar and imitations under them were unreadable and sometimes Latin letters. But this is the initial period of formation. And why ? Because the vast majority of the population was Russian-speaking. But on coins ON all legends are in Latin. Why do you guess it yourself? smile

              And therefore, we will urgently concretize ancient Ascalon and will compose fairy tales about "Hellenic civilization"


              Do not concrete anything. And Hellenistic civilization was, although you can also call it - the Hellenistic Period, if you want. And this period gave mankind a huge impetus and a great reserve for the future, leaving a big mark both in the development of Europe and Asia and parts of the African continent.
              Want to challenge it? Want to say that this period was not?
              You can try it. But thank you, not me. Bored of arguing about the obvious ... And the topic is not the same.

              Yes, and Shlinan - Shlieman your FSE ..


              Schliemann is a dreamer, in which the crook even, never once an archaeologist and professional historian BUT, excavations on Hissarlyk is his merit.
              Maybe later someone would get there, even inevitably but, he did it. What is her? smile
              1. AK64
                AK64 3 February 2016 10: 42
                -1
                I don’t know about French coins

                And you go and find out. Is someone or something bothering you? What on the web is the language of blah blah blah, you look and would learn something useful.
                And after all I to you, stupid, directly and politely hinted by asking a question about "in what century."
                Well, politeness with donkeys is inappropriate, they do not understand politeness

                but, if we now began to produce coins with a legend in English or Latin in Russia, it would be at least strange.

                You are amazingly stupid and stubborn.
                Coins, speak?
                So if you take medieval European parchments, then they are ALL, almost without exception, written in what language ???? AND?

                Here's something, stupid. Latin is there. So according to your "logic" does this mean that in medieval Europe lived entirely the Romans? AND?

                (And if there is an exception, parchment written in French or German, then you need to check its authenticity for a long time.)

                Well, and about the "Hellenistic influence" in the same place write down: "influence", that means, "Hellenistic", but here the parchments are for some reason entirely in Latin. And why would it be like that, huh?

                What coins ....
                1. Glot
                  Glot 3 February 2016 11: 10
                  +2
                  .......... What are the coins ....


                  Merging aside you are good. laughing And the words about "donkey", "stupid" are unnecessary confirmation that there is nothing to say in response. laughing
                  In general, my dear adios. laughing
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 3 February 2016 13: 39
                    -3
                    It’s just you who’s pouring out: failing to answer where you were told, and even, as we can see, and not understanding the answer, they ran in other places to tell the truth that “AK64 could not, I couldn’t ... left ... but he couldn't. "

                    So what about the letters? Did the Romans live in medieval Europe?
                    Why are all charters and parchments in Latin? AND?

                    Go oversleep.
                    1. Glot
                      Glot 3 February 2016 14: 42
                      +2
                      So what about the letters? Did the Romans live in medieval Europe?
                      Why are all charters and parchments in Latin? AND?


                      And what is wrong with the letters? Ah, Latin ... So it was common in Europe. Did you not know? Sorry, sorry ...
                      Maybe you should go to sleep? laughing
                    2. AK64
                      AK64 3 February 2016 14: 46
                      -3
                      He brought in an emergency, let him scream there, next to the pip
                    3. Mr. Pip
                      Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 17: 20
                      +1
                      Quote: Glot
                      Ah, Latin ... So it was common in Europe. Did you not know? Sorry, sorry ...
                      Maybe you should go to sleep?

                      Why in Europe?
                      All signs (markings) - signs - brands in the world are duplicated IN LATIN in almost any country in the world - it is recognized as the "alphabet of international communication" and there are 100500 historical reasons for this, but even we understand it and I could write this comment in Latin because on our alphabet is also based on Latin - what is not clear here AK69 to me personally "also" is not clear request
        2. Sweles
          Sweles 3 February 2016 10: 03
          -1
          Quote: Glot
          You’d better read the right books, you look, maybe you’d write less nonsense here.


          and what kind of books are the right books? Here is the "drill regulations of the Cossack service" is this the correct book? so there it is not said about the blanket at all, there is a saddlecloth, there is a saddlecloth, but this is completely different, and what kind of "correct" books are you talking about?
          1. Glot
            Glot 3 February 2016 10: 30
            10
            Here is the "drill regulations of the Cossack service" is this the correct book? so there it is not said about the blanket at all, there is a saddlecloth, there is a saddlecloth, but this is completely different, and what kind of "correct" books are you talking about?


            Tell me, do you see the difference between the Roman cataphract and the Cossack of the 20th century?
            Lord, when does this stream of delirium stop then ... laughing
            Or you can even compare the tactics of using the infantry regiment of the 18th century and the tank company of the 21st, and there having found the difference on the basis of this, build a version about the impossibility of using infantry in the 18th century and, accordingly, the absence of it in the army at that time in principle. laughing
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 3 February 2016 10: 55
              -6
              Quote: Glot
              Tell me, do you see the difference between the Roman cataphract and the Cossack of the 20th century?


              and what "difference" did you see? Maybe the horses were different, such as "obedient African elephants", which were, and then swam-disappeared? "Or the peaks were the Cossacks, and the Romans were different? Or were the saddles different?
              Yes, you just start to look closely at the problem and it turns out that the traders have nothing to answer only one stubbornness - "there was nothing and that's it."
              The conclusion is simple and GENERAL - SITTING-DO NOT FIGHT ...
              1. Glot
                Glot 3 February 2016 11: 14
                +5
                The conclusion is simple and GENERAL - SITTING-DO NOT FIGHT ...


                From what ? You’re sitting sitting booty in a chair and knocking on the clave is pretty good.
                Are you in your pants, there are stirrups, a pillow? laughing laughing

                And now, a couple of simple and direct questions.
                First:
                - In your opinion, that since it’s impossible to fight without stirrups, did they have them?
                Second:
                - Since you don’t have stirrups, then there is no cavalry?

                You specify your thought. What do you want to say.
                1. Sweles
                  Sweles 3 February 2016 11: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Glot
                  In your opinion, it turns out that since it’s impossible to fight without stirrups, did they have them?


                  yes, how did you guess?

                  Quote: Glot
                  Since you do not have stirrups, then there is no cavalry?


                  yes again.
                  Stirrups are the same inseparable element of the cavalry, like a saddle, horseshoes and sabers, which chop and not prick, so the fragile bronze Roman swords for cavalry are also bullshit, like a cavalryman without stirrups ...
                  1. Glot
                    Glot 3 February 2016 11: 50
                    0

                    Stirrups are the same inseparable element of the cavalry, like a saddle, horseshoes and sabers, which chop and not prick, so the fragile bronze Roman swords for cavalry are also bullshit, like a cavalryman without stirrups ...


                    So do you have evidence that the Roman (Greek, Persian, etc.) cavalry in the ancient period had stirrups?
                    Sound out the sources from which it follows.
                    Since let's say they are not known. On the contrary, it is known that they were not.
                  2. Sweles
                    Sweles 3 February 2016 11: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: Glot
                    So do you have evidence that the Roman (Greek, Persian, etc.) cavalry in the ancient period had stirrups?
                    Sound out the sources from which it follows.
                    Since let's say they are not known. On the contrary, it is known that they were not.


                    I proceed from practical considerations, as well as referring to Cossack charters, as is known, Cossacks — the best horsemen — warriors of all countries, times and peoples. But what do you proceed from, traditional historians denying the obvious?
                  3. Glot
                    Glot 3 February 2016 12: 11
                    0
                    I proceed from practical considerations, as well as referring to Cossack charters, as is known, Cossacks — the best horsemen — warriors of all countries, times and peoples. But what do you proceed from, traditional historians denying the obvious?


                    You should not bring your considerations to the extant source base, especially replacing it with them.
                    Without mentioning anything else, a rather large mass of images of the cavalry of the past where there are no images of stirrups reached us.
                    The conclusions are based on this.
                    I asked you to bring sources, it turned out that there are no sources of your version, but there are only thoughts ... Alas, this is not good.
                    By the way, the same Indians did not initially use saddles and stirrups, respectively, and nothing. Or will you refute this too?
                    Progress is moving forward. At first, something is missing, then it appears, is being improved. This is normal.
                  4. Sweles
                    Sweles 3 February 2016 14: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Glot
                    Without mentioning anything else, a rather large mass of images of the cavalry of the past where there are no images of stirrups reached us.
                    The conclusions are based on this.


                    we know, we know the same Trayanova column with its bas-reliefs, but is it worth it to base your conclusions on such slurred material? It’s hard to see, and it’s probably not easy to portray a stirrup in the horse’s profile, so why persist?

                    Quote: Glot
                    By the way, the same Indians did not initially use saddles and stirrups, respectively, and nothing. Or will you refute this too?


                    Do not tell, have you seen enough Westernof?
                  5. Glot
                    Glot 3 February 2016 14: 45
                    0
                    we know, we know the same Trayanova column with its bas-reliefs, but is it worth it to base your conclusions on such slurred material? It’s hard to see, and it’s probably not easy to portray a stirrup in the horse’s profile, so why persist?


                    And what does Trayanova’s column have to do with it? Do you know other monuments of antiquity? It seems that no, five minutes ago they first learned about her from the post below. Horror, what a dense.
                    What then to talk about ... laughing

                    Do not tell, have you seen enough Westernof?


                    What does it have to do with it?
                    If you do not know the fact that the Indians in America did not immediately begin to use a saddle with stirrups, then this speaks only of your weak knowledge and nothing more. That's the whole "historian". Doesn't know elementary things ...
                  6. Nagaibak
                    Nagaibak 3 February 2016 18: 46
                    +1
                    [quote = Glot "Doesn't know elementary things ..."
                    Indians are also Tartarian elves. But, another modification or breed. In the light of new unconventional theories, they are a fragment of the Golden Horde.))) Apparently one of those who sailed to Japan and sailed to America. There they bred to disgrace and only the conquistadors pruned them. Although if you analyze Spain, America did not conquer, but other elves conquered it, led by Jan Жižka. As you can see, it’s also pretty good about elves. I think everyone can open their story, despite the fact that the Romanovs destroyed all the archives around the world.
                  7. Arbogast
                    Arbogast 3 February 2016 19: 43
                    -2
                    Quote: Nagaibak
                    Apparently one of those who sailed to Japan and sailed to America.
                    The funny thing is, but it could be. Infa slipped that could flow away from the Japanese island. Not the Mongols, but in general ..
                  8. Nagaibak
                    Nagaibak 3 February 2016 21: 03
                    +4
                    Arbogast "The funny thing is, but it could have been. Infa slipped that the current could carry away from the Japanese islands. Not the Mongols, but in general .."
                    Oh, how I guessed, there was nothing left))) .. write the murray, scrape the data from the ceiling and publish the opus by shutting down a fomen with his accomplice.))) And all the dudes with proud nicknames like Veles, svarozhami, hordes, rossi and russians and others like them will put me pluses.)))
    2. AK64
      AK64 3 February 2016 13: 42
      +2
      Stirrups are the same inseparable element of cavalry as a saddle, horseshoes and sabers that chop and not prick

      So I already told you that sabers are only Türks, the 5th century, not earlier.
  • Sweles
    Sweles 3 February 2016 11: 35
    -5
    Quote: Glot
    From what ? You’re sitting sitting booty in a chair and knocking on the clave is pretty good.
    Are you in your pants, there are stirrups, a pillow?


    as usual nonsense, you are not a serious person, as indeed all traditions are a common way of saying who has nothing to say ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • DimanC
    DimanC 3 February 2016 11: 40
    +4
    Yes, somehow fought without stirrups. And the Persians, and (especially) the Macedonians. Just without stirrups, the techniques were very different.
    By the way, and horses in those days were stunted, smaller than today's
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 11: 52
    +4
    Quote: Sveles
    and what "difference" did you see?

    I explain.
    The process that is inseparable from time to time in any culture is the intellectual and educational growth of this very culture, any culture develops if it does not degrade and does not die afterwards - there is never stagnation!
    Therefore, the charters and tactics and strategies in different eras have always been and will be different hi
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 February 2016 12: 03
      +1
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      I explain.
      The process that is inseparable from time to time in any culture is the intellectual and educational growth of this very culture, any culture develops if it does not degrade and does not die afterwards - there is never stagnation!
      Therefore, the charters and tactics and strategies in different eras have always been and will be different


      not accepted, this is not an "explanation" but a chatter, a couple of horse people, even then, even now, did not differ in anything practically. Instead of talking, can you find real differences in weapons and tactics?
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 12: 31
        +3
        Quote: Sveles
        can you find real differences in weapons and tactics?

        Comparing historical epochs with a difference of 2000 years ?! laughing
      2. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 3 February 2016 13: 51
        +5
        Though the count on the head amuse !!!!
        And, yes, the horses are different! A little more ponies. Archaeologists confirm! Well, yes they are not a decree of course ...
      3. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 03
        -1
        Quote: Nexus 6
        And, yes, the horses are different! A little more ponies.


        and large rocks, as they appeared, fell from the sky?
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 3 February 2016 15: 20
        +1
        "and large rocks, how did they appear, fell from the sky?"
        Well, this is already beyond! Trolling Detected belay
      6. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 25
        0
        Quote: Nexus 6
        and how did large rocks appear from the sky? "
        Well, this is already beyond! Trolling Detected


        what's the whole answer? not much...
      7. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 3 February 2016 15: 33
        +1
        http://fictionbook.ru/author/yuriyi_harchuk/ippoterapiya_i_konevodstvo_loshadi_i

        _poni / read_online.html? page = 2

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F
      8. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 44
        0
        Quote: Nexus 6
        http://fictionbook.ru/author/yuriyi_harchuk/ippoterapiya_i_konevodstvo_loshadi_i


        _poni / read_online.html? page = 2

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F


        no need to fill up with stupid links, where it says that the Romans rode a pony?
    2. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 3 February 2016 15: 34
      +3
      Quote: Sveles
      what's the whole answer? not much..

      If you are satisfied with my answer, I’ll say from memory that large horses capable of carrying a knight fully armed appeared in Europe after the Avar invasion.
    3. andrew42
      andrew42 3 February 2016 17: 52
      +1
      Really, the "Percherons" were delivered?
    4. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 5 February 2016 09: 41
      -1
      Quote: andrew42
      Really, the "Percherons" were delivered?

      I read a book about the chivalry of Europe a long time ago, but it was remembered that a horse capable of wearing a rider in full armor appeared just after the Avar invasion of Europe.
  • Sweles
    Sweles 3 February 2016 17: 54
    -2
    Quote: Pomoryanin
    If you are satisfied with my answer, I’ll say from memory that large horses capable of carrying a knight fully armed appeared in Europe after the Avar invasion.


    link let's ...
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 5 February 2016 09: 39
    -1
    Quote: Sveles
    link let's ...

    This is to the prosecutor. And Google is almighty to help you.
  • Sweles
    Sweles 5 February 2016 10: 27
    0
    Quote: Pomoryanin
    This is to the prosecutor. And Google is almighty to help you.


    Chatterbox...
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 5 February 2016 10: 29
    -1
    Quote: Sveles
    Chatterbox...

    Sad sack.
  • AK64
    AK64 3 February 2016 16: 43
    +2
    and large rocks, as they appeared, fell from the sky?

    Breeding, Sir.
    By this method, not only horses, but even large tomatoes appeared.
    Natural ones with a berry size were
  • Sweles
    Sweles 3 February 2016 17: 53
    -2
    Quote: AK64
    Breeding, Sir.
    By this method, not only horses, but even large tomatoes appeared.
    Natural ones with a berry size were

    First you find the Old Roman horses were about the size of a pony, then we'll talk about selection ...
  • AK64
    AK64 3 February 2016 19: 14
    +1
    And where would the big ones come from?
    There are no big ones in nature!
    So if the Romans had big horses, then someone (and no matter who it was) brought them out.

    Tarpan:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD
  • Sweles
    Sweles 3 February 2016 19: 38
    -2
    Quote: AK64
    There are no big ones in nature!


    Przhevalsky’s horse is not very small up to 1.5m at the withers and there are much more ponies, a photo from Belarus, these horses were released there, for comparison with a domestic horse it can be seen that the savage is not at all small ...
  • AK64
    AK64 3 February 2016 21: 48
    +2
    It's just that you and your interlocutor understand differently what pony. Ponies are not toy ponies at all. Initially, a pony is a Scottish horse, optimized for the mountains: a little short-legged and with a powerful body.

    The ancestors of European horses were most likely tarpans. by the way, they are a bit taller, just a little, of the horses of the Pre-Havalsky, but still small.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AK64
    AK64 3 February 2016 13: 54
    +2
    Quote: Mr PIP

    I explain.
    The process that is inseparable from time to time in any culture is the intellectual and educational growth of this very culture, any culture develops if it does not degrade and does not die afterwards - there is never stagnation!
    Therefore, the charters and tactics and strategies in different eras have always been and will be different

    What a fool ...

    not accepted, this is not an "explanation" but a chatter, a couple of horse people, even then, even now, did not differ in anything practically. Instead of talking, can you find real differences in weapons and tactics?

    Yes, a lot of differences. A lot of!
    Saber was not up to the Türks (5th century). Here is the first difference in tactics.
    It is not known from the descriptions of the cavalry cabin before the Turks. Arms of a horseman - darts hl manner.
    (UPPER picture, where the brave Romans are jumping waving spaths - the top of idiocy)

    That is why the cavalry among the Romans was not any important kind of troops. All cavalry als are auxiliary, and often they were exposed by allies.

    The spear strike and the spear of the rider are the Sarmatians, Sassanian Iran, And actually not earlier. Well, there is an opinion that the same Sarmatians of Korya tied to the necks of the horses - that is, the horse accepted the return, not the rider.

    So there are many differences in tactics.
  • Deniska999
    Deniska999 3 February 2016 18: 16
    +3
    Quote: AK64
    That is why the cavalry among the Romans was not any important kind of troops. All cavalry als are auxiliary, and often they were exposed by allies.

    In the eastern provinces there were many horse units.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Glot
    Glot 3 February 2016 09: 47
    +3
    sitting on the ass without leg support with a sword, with a shield, and even fighting, spinning is impossible. Even the Romans didn’t wear trousers with skirts, but the cavalryman sitting with his bare ass on the horse touches the horse, and horse sweat is an exceptionally caustic thing, what will happen to the cavalryman’s ass? At the Shpakovskoko reconstruction, they began to put the cavell in their pants, right? It turns out that you put on your pants in battle, and then removed your pants? For some reason, none of the antique has ever written such a thing ...


    However, they also rode and fought without stirrups.
    And you can’t, and even with stirrups, and people who never knew them, and learned this, could.
    Who told you that bare ass? It depends on what kind of troops, and in what conditions it was used, it was equipped in different ways. And the pants as well.
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 February 2016 10: 11
      -5
      Quote: Glot
      However, they also rode and fought without stirrups.


      and who said that, well, except for you, of course?
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 3 February 2016 11: 41
        +4
        Quite an interesting book is The Great Battles of Antiquity. It is also mentioned there.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 3 February 2016 16: 00
          0
          Quote: DimanC
          Quite an interesting book is The Great Battles of Antiquity. It is also mentioned there.


          is that crazy? let's be more precise, however, I already looked there are links to tacitus and Herodotus, let's continue where do these authors mention the stirrups?
          1. kalibr
            4 February 2016 08: 01
            +1
            One cannot mention that which is not!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • kashtak
    kashtak 4 February 2016 09: 19
    +1
    Quote: Sveles
    Even the Romans didn’t wear trousers with skirts, but the cavalryman sitting with his bare ass on the horse touches the horse, and horse sweat is an extremely caustic thing,

    Sorry, but why write such nonsense? Do you know what marriages are? it's like shorts or short pants. Do not believe Yandex to help you.
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 4 February 2016 09: 31
      0
      Quote: kashtak
      Sorry, but why write such nonsense? Do you know what marriages are? it's like shorts or short pants. Do not believe Yandex to help you.


      and who from the ancients mentions your "marriages"?
      1. kashtak
        kashtak 4 February 2016 10: 55
        +1
        which of the ancients mentions? well offhand, they are mentioned in a letter from a mailbox which was found next to one of the fortifications of Adrian's shaft. this is far from the only mention, but you need accuracy and names? they are in the images. Trajan’s column is not the only one. look for information on the Roman military uniform.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 4 February 2016 11: 21
          -1
          Quote: kashtak
          which of the ancients mentions? well offhand, they are mentioned in a letter from a mailbox which was found next to one of the fortifications of Adrian's shaft. this is far from the only mention, but you need accuracy and names? they are in the images. Trajan’s column is not the only one. look for information on the Roman military uniform.


          are you saying that you kind of answered my question? Show your pants in real life or a quote from your "letter", otherwise it looks like a gag ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. kashtak
            kashtak 4 February 2016 14: 46
            +2
            Quote: Sveles
            looks like a gag ...

            what for? maybe you are a professor, but I'm not a student. I already wrote, do not believe Yandex to help you. and I’ll add more gag. when the Roman troops left the Apennine Peninsula, the Romans quickly took over also long pants. about which many then authors are very indignant and call barbarism. the same applies to caligu not on the bare foot. but you won’t go against nature.
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 4 February 2016 15: 03
              -3
              Quote: kashtak
              and why?


              and then, as you do, only idle talkers and talkers do this ...
              1. kashtak
                kashtak 5 February 2016 12: 29
                +1
                maybe I'm a chatterbox because I can't, as a lawyer, name the volume and the line with the mention. as if it proves something. but I chatter what I know for sure and do not write rubbish like "the Romans did not wear pants, they did with skirts" what kind of clothes do the Romans have that can be called that? beguiled with the Scots? I do not play with questions without statements on the principle of buy a brick. and all the more I do not offend opponents.
              2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Aljavad
    Aljavad 4 February 2016 18: 28
    +1
    V.ic (4) RU Yesterday, 06:33 AM New
    Comrades, pay attention to the pictures with the riders. They are without stirrups! Will such a horseman fight a lot?


    There were very difficult saddles.
  • D-Master
    D-Master 3 February 2016 06: 42
    10
    Many thanks for such a "succinct" article. It is easy to read, there is a lot of information, everything is very voluminous and understandable. And the conclusion is excellent and very correct: "The Romans, both in the field of weapons and in many other areas, proved to be very skillful ... imitators who borrowed all the best from the peoples around them and put it on stream." This emphasizes the mind of civilization - not discarding the rational, but carefully separating the grain from the chaff and perfecting the best. The evolution of Roman weapons, in particular darts - pilums, is just engineering poetry.
    1. Glot
      Glot 3 February 2016 06: 55
      +4
      This emphasizes the mind of civilization - not discarding the rational, but carefully separating the grain from the chaff and perfecting the best. The evolution of Roman weapons, in particular darts - pilums, is just engineering poetry.


      It's right. Were they stupid and weak, would not exist for such a long period of time, would not subjugate almost the whole world they knew, and would not leave behind such a great legacy.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 3 February 2016 08: 11
    +5
    Thank you, Vyacheslav! Excellent article pictures of a photo .. But here again "sedition" smile write: The main reason is lead poisoning and impaired fertility. ..But I share this opinion ... it really is so .. If at first, "Roman citizenship", the conquered population was very difficult to obtain, during the republic, during the early empire, then the Romans gave this honorary title to left and right .. degenerated because .. the Eastern (Byzantine) empire, and stood for almost a millennium, one people, culture, the coming peoples "processed" .. The Western empire could not resist .. "true Romans" degenerated, it was impossible to digest to whom .. The volume of the comment, unfortunately .. does not allow me to write about this in more detail ..
    1. kalibr
      3 February 2016 08: 57
      +4
      So this "sedition" I have not met anywhere. It's like whitewashing mercury among samurai women. M. Kure wrote about this and others ... Well, you can't attach a footnote to every word, right?
    2. AK64
      AK64 3 February 2016 09: 25
      +3
      But I share this opinion ... it really is ..


      Is that because I share?

      What did the average Roman turn from the time of the republic to the late empire? Republicans are active passionate citizens. And by the 2-3 centuries what? In the army there are only Germans and Gauls, but Syrians, and the Romans are loafers.

      Then the Germans were simply tired of fighting for these freaks, and they realized that you can take everything without all these problems.

      That's the whole reason, and no lead.
      1. kalibr
        3 February 2016 13: 25
        +2
        That is, there is no excess lead in the bones?
        1. AK64
          AK64 3 February 2016 13: 59
          +1
          That is, there is no excess lead in the bones?

          I see logic in vain excluded from the educational courses of humanities.

          Prove now the connection between lead in the bones and the fall of Rome. Communication
          "cucumbers are deadly because all dead people ate cucumbers during their lifetime"

          And, let me remind you: the lead pipeline was not everywhere in Italy. at least 80% of the population did not have access to lead, or only occasionally had it. So why are they, these, exactly, dead?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 18: 23
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          I see logic in vain excluded from the educational courses of humanities.

          What kind of dislike for the humanities? Class feud? By the way, I have to upset your lordship, for example, I studied logic at the Academy - are you ready to logically come to the correct understanding of what I "really" just wrote to you?
          Quote: AK64
          And, let me remind you: the lead pipeline was not everywhere in Italy. at least 80% of the population did not have access to lead, or only occasionally had it.

          Yes, in general, in parallel to the topic under discussion, in any case it’s obvious to me, but it’s for me, in addition to logic, I also studied TGP, the key is 8 yes
  • Voice of the Mind
    Voice of the Mind 3 February 2016 08: 34
    +6
    If you pay attention to the evolution of armor and weapons, it seems that Rome invented almost everything.
    Exceptions are saddles with a high bow, stirrups, full plate armor, a pot-shaped helmet (topfhelm), halberds. Also strange is the lack of a developed melee guard.
    a gladius sword with a blade for an injection, it was exclusively a tactic, since the legionnaires acted in close order, where there was no room for a long sword to swing

    Still more thought out. The Romans believed that a puncture wound with a depth of more than 4 cm in 90% of cases leads to blood poisoning. And the wounded must be fed and taken care of, which weakens the enemy army and ultimately leads to defeat.
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 3 February 2016 11: 34
      +5
      The Greeks, too, did not have long swords in the phalanx, because in a closed formation it is much more convenient to crush with your shoulder (using a shield), and with a sword you can already poke where you can. There are many images on Greek vases when a warrior strikes with a sword from above like a dagger
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 3 February 2016 11: 37
        -6
        Quote: DimanC
        There are many images on Greek vases when a warrior strikes with a sword from above like a dagger


        how can he beat-chop with his bronze sword, because the sword will split?
        1. Glot
          Glot 3 February 2016 12: 05
          +6
          how can he beat-chop with his bronze sword, because the sword will split?


          There were already materials on the BO about bronze weapons. There were given the data of experiments with him, with recreated. Nothing split.
          It is time.
          Two.
          Do not confuse the Bronze Age with the Iron Age. You should not attract bronze weapons to the era of classical Greece, the Republican or Imperial periods of Rome, just to at least somehow try to discredit this or that period, the events given in history to please your versions and preferences. It does not look very convincing.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 3 February 2016 12: 29
            +1
            Quote: Glot
            There were already materials on the BO about bronze weapons. There were given the data of experiments with him, with recreated. Nothing split.


            I’m a student of almost all forums on fuel in historical direction for many years and I can say that in the first place never, nothing is proved. Therefore, it is impossible to say something based on certain facts. The same bronze swords are all different, because the bronze is different.
            Do not distort, there is such a technique - "unfair quotation", and you do not even quote, but you are lying.

            Quote: Glot
            Do not confuse the Bronze Age with the Iron Age. Do not attract bronze weapons to the era of classical Greece, the Republican or Imperial periods of Rome


            there is NO reliable history of the emergence of new civilizational materials, therefore this very "century, bronze, age of iron" is sheer deceit and most likely bronze swords are a complete profanity, bronze weapons could only be decorative, gift, demonstration and for deceased warriors. Because SIGNIFICANT Casserite deposits are found only in England and China, the rest of the placers of tin minerals in Europe are not rich or even absent altogether.
            Iron, however, is a VERY labor-consuming material for production, and there are also the same questions with it, therefore, hypothetical "ancient armies of many thousands" are hallucinations of historians of the 18-19th century.
            The story is different and does not fit into the framework of TI ...
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 3 February 2016 12: 39
              +3
              Quote: Sveles
              Iron is VERY labor-intensive material for production

              As far as I know, digging up "swamp ore" and making iron out of it is not difficult, at least the process is no more difficult than making bronze.
              1. Sweles
                Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 11
                +1
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                As far as I know, digging up "swamp ore" and making iron out of it is not difficult, at least the process is no more difficult than making bronze.


                Well, poorly you imagine the process of melting iron. However, everyone was taught this way, this is a traditional story - misleading. In order to weld iron, say for one knife -0.5 kg, you need to CONTINUOUSly pump air for 12-14 hours and not a cheese-making process, because it will turn out rubbish, not iron, but hot air, and for this you need special furs and reverse valve, fluxes and much more. Therefore, iron in the Middle Ages was VERY expensive. And the Kremlin, according to history, was built by the Germans with stone axes and it's 16 centuries ...
                1. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 3 February 2016 15: 29
                  +1
                  Quote: Sveles
                  Well, poorly you imagine the process of melting iron.

                  Yes, honestly, I can only imagine a blast furnace device according to drawings from the Internet. But I saw the forge-smelter built at the end of the year before last in the Kostroma region in the 80 years of the past. True, it no longer worked, but nonetheless: nothing out of the ordinary that could not be done with the help of technologies three thousand years ago, not.
                  1. Glot
                    Glot 3 February 2016 16: 43
                    +3
                    Yes, honestly, I can only imagine a blast furnace device according to drawings from the Internet. But I saw the forge-smelter built at the end of the year before last in the Kostroma region in the 80 years of the past. True, it no longer worked, but nonetheless: nothing out of the ordinary that could not be done with the help of technologies three thousand years ago, not.


                    Yes, Veles this one will tell you now that iron weapons and iron products appeared no earlier than the 16-17th centuries A.D. laughing
                    So you better not tell him about the forge of three thousand years ago. I won’t believe it. laughing
                    1. Pomeranian
                      Pomeranian 5 February 2016 09: 53
                      -1
                      Quote: Glot
                      Will not believe

                      It is true that it requires all the links, but it seems that it does not know how to type in the search engine the question of interest.
                      1. Sweles
                        Sweles 5 February 2016 10: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Pomoryanin
                        It is true that it requires all the links, but it seems that it does not know how to type in the search engine the question of interest.


                        Instead of learning how to talk with people, you are throwing in unverified information. Whoever threw in the info proves it, otherwise it’s just a hollow ...
                      2. Pomeranian
                        Pomeranian 5 February 2016 10: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Sveles
                        stuffing of unverified information.

                        Are you interested in the topic of horses? Got information worth looking for? Do you need everything prepared on a silver platter or you really do not know how to use Internet search engines? But here I am powerless to help.
                        Quote: Sveles
                        the temple is a cemetery and not a burial ground, dumbhead

                        It is YOU worth learning to communicate with competent, knowledgeable, well-mannered people. The discussion is over. I have the honor.
                      3. Sweles
                        Sweles 5 February 2016 10: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: Pomoryanin
                        It is YOU worth learning to communicate with competent, knowledgeable, well-mannered people. The discussion is over. I have the honor.


                        Well, that doesn’t apply to you, but honor is HONESTY, and you are a liar, so a dishonorable person ...
                      4. Pomeranian
                        Pomeranian 5 February 2016 13: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Sveles
                        Well, that doesn’t apply to you, but honor is HONESTY, and you are a liar, so a dishonorable person ...

                        There is no need to hide the lack of knowledge behind rudeness, I indicated the version for you. Interesting - look and see. No - refute with arguments, preferably in your own words, and not with another "Mao quotation book" from Google. I have the honor.
          2. Glot
            Glot 3 February 2016 16: 37
            +3
            And the Kremlin, according to history, was built by the Germans with stone axes, and it's 16 centuries ...


            WHAT-O-O-Oh ?? !! THIS PI ****** ... laughing laughing
            In my opinion, you are already starting to rave openly. Maybe it's time to call 03?
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 3 February 2016 18: 01
              -1
              Quote: Glot
              In my opinion, you are already starting to rave openly. Maybe it's time to call 03?





              Sveles RU January 23, 2016 09:56 | About the use of stone axes



              In this section, we will use a short, but very interesting note by EV Antonova, published in the collection of the State Museums of the Moscow Kremlin "Materials and Research" for 1973 [28: 1].

              In 1969, among the garbage left by the builders of the Moscow Kremlin, a GERMAN STONE AX (!?) Was unexpectedly found. Moreover, this ax did not lie deep in the ground - as befits the tools of our ancient ancestors - but in the midst of CONSTRUCTION WASTE TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE KREMLIN. That is, BELONGED TO ONE OF THE BUILDERS OF MOSCOW KREMLIN. Moreover, traces of a clearly late, MEDIEVAL use were found on it, see below. The German worker who built the Kremlin threw away his stone ax, because it broke and could no longer serve, Figure 10.34.

              Recall that the construction of the Moscow Kremlin dates back to the end of the 500th century by historians, and in the New Chronology, the second half of the XNUMXth century. That is - the Middle Ages, about XNUMX years ago.

              Analysis of the stone from which the ax was made showed that the ax is GERMAN. It is made of West European rock, absent in Russia, and is a typical example of stone axes found in Saxony and Thuringia, areas of modern Germany.

              And now for the fun part. It turns out that all such axes - and there are a lot of them in Germany - are dated by archaeologists of the most ancient times, the first half of the 4,5nd millennium BC. That is, according to archaeologists, such axes are by no means the axes of medieval Germans (who supposedly used high-quality German hardened steel for a long time, and not the prehistoric stone axes), but the axes of their distant ancestors who lived on the lands of modern Germany 5 - XNUMX thousand years ago.

              But if archaeologists are right, then how could such an ax get into the construction waste of the Moscow Kremlin 500 years ago?
              http://chronologia.org/shahname2/sh10_04.html
              this fragment made by Fomenko and Nosovsky from an article by Antonova shows that in the 16th century German workers came to Muscovy to build the Kremlin with their own tool and this tool was STONE, this indicates the inaccessibility of iron in that era and its high cost. But if Europeans used stone tools in the 16th century, then what about the 11th century?

              darkness, illiteracy ...
              1. AK64
                AK64 3 February 2016 18: 31
                +4
                But if Europeans used stone tools in the 16th century, then what about the 11th century?


                You confuse red and round: if you personally do not have a yacht, this does not mean that there are no yachts at all.

                If simpler: Sweden (where very high-quality and rich ore) in the 17th century produced about 20 kg of iron per capita per year. And they could have produced more, but they quotaized production so as not to drop prices - since iron was exported in a major way.

                This is the largest production in Europe, by the way. But is it a lot or a little? At present, 20 kg per capita is NOTHING simple.
                So in the production of 5kg per capita peasant didn't get anything in general (one knife for life). But the von-baron, taking advantage of his official position, received the share of hundreds of peasants, that is, 200 kilograms per year. And he built armor from this not only for himself, but also for his team of chain mail.
                (typical medieval calculation: 1 warrior is a warrior, not a baron - for 10 servings of the masculine floor).

                Here is a medieval arithmetic.

                That's why the French peasants and hay harvested with stone sickles, and ate frogs. Or do you think the frogs are tasty for them?
              2. Glot
                Glot 3 February 2016 19: 08
                +3
                But if archaeologists are right, then how could such an ax get into the construction waste of the Moscow Kremlin 500 years ago?
                http://chronologia.org/shahname2/sh10_04.html
                this fragment made by Fomenko and Nosovsky from an article by Antonova shows that in the 16th century German workers came to Muscovy to build the Kremlin with their own tool and this tool was STONE, this indicates the inaccessibility of iron in that era and its high cost. But if Europeans used stone tools in the 16th century, then what about the 11th century?

                darkness, illiteracy ...


                Now attention.
                I give the full article by Antonova about this find:

                E.V. ANTONOVA
                FIND OF A STONE FACETED AX IN
                MOSCOW KREMLIN
                In the winter of 1969 during construction work at the Kremlin Theater on
                the territory of the former Ascension Monastery (mine number 1, filling
                subdomain pit, depth 50 cm) a stone was found broken into two parts
                Drilled hammer ax (Fig. 1). It is preserved almost completely, only lost
                a small fragment in the drill. The front end bears signs of being on fire:
                cracks, discoloration of the stone. The blade and pickaxe have traces of the "recent"
                (apparently pores of the Middle Ages) use.
                The length of the ax is 15,5 cm, the width of the drill is 7 cm. From the pickaxe 3 cm thick
                gradually extends to the blade, reaching 4,7 cm. Diameter of the drill 2,2 cm,
                two-sided drilling. Lateral edges are processed by three somewhat concave
                wide facets. Two flat facets form a slightly convex upper
                edge of the ax. The blade is undercut (undercut width about 1 cm).
                Analysis of stone1 showed that it is a gray-green diabase, whose age is 340—
                380 million years. The date implies the impossibility of making an ax from
                diabases included in the glacial deposits of the Central Russian Plain, in view of their
                of great antiquity. According to the candidate of geological and mineralogical sciences P.V. Florensky, diabase age 340—
                380 million years are in Western Europe.
                By definition of the candidate of historical sciences V. S. Titov, an ax is
                a characteristic example of such weapons2 of the Saxon-Thuringian version
                culture of string ceramics. This assumption was supported by scientific
                assistant of the Museum of Prehistory in Halle (Saal) Matthias, who emphasized
                The difference we noticed between the Kremlin ax and typical specimens
                Saxon-Thuringian sample. The latter have narrower facets, the number of which
                rarely limited to three. Distinguish the described ax and more
                shortened in comparison with German proportions of the front part, which is caused by
                possibly secondary grinding of the blade 3
                .
                Ax discovered in redeposited state of cultural
                layer of the first half of the II millennium BC. e. we have no information. Still on
                no deposits of the ancient Dyakovsky deposits were found in the territory of the Kremlin. However
                individual items of the Bronze Age were found before. In 1928, with
                earthworks on the site of the church of Hermogenes at "a fairly large depth was
                found drilled polished hammer ax, typical of Fatyanovo
                culture "
                4
                . O.N. Bader suggested here
                there could exist a burial ground of the Fatyanovo type. Not far from the Kremlin, on
                Sofiyskaya Embankment, as well as on Rusakovskaya Street, were made in the 30s
                finds of stone drilled scaphoid ax and ax type axes5
                .


                Here is a vivid example of how charlatans like Fomenko are engaged in juggling information, and after it, illiterate Swedes carry it further!
                1. Sweles
                  Sweles 3 February 2016 19: 28
                  -2
                  Quote: Glot
                  Here is a vivid example of how charlatans like Fomenko are engaged in juggling information, and after it, illiterate Swedes carry it further!


                  but you are a complete arctic fox fool
                  The date implies the impossibility of making an ax from
                  diabases included in the glacial deposits of the Central Russian Plain, in view of their
                  of great antiquity

                  and what's that?
                  By definition of the candidate of historical sciences V. S. Titov, an ax is
                  a characteristic example of such weapons2 of the Saxon-Thuringian version
                  ceramics culture


                  and what's that?
                  This assumption was supported by scientific
                  assistant of the Museum of Prehistory in Halle (Saal) Matthias, who emphasized
                  The difference we noticed between the Kremlin ax and typical specimens
                  Saxon-Thuringian sample. The latter have narrower facets, the number of which
                  rarely limited to three.

                  the German supported the study and only emphasized that there are differences in the sharpening of the ax, BUT
                  Distinguish the described ax and more
                  shortened in comparison with German proportions of the front part, which is caused by
                  possibly secondary grinding of the blade 3

                  the ax is possibly GRINDED so there are slight differences
                  yeah throat, I look at the book, but I see a fig, screwed up to the fullest ...
                2. Glot
                  Glot 3 February 2016 19: 47
                  0
                  yeah throat, I look at the book, but I see a fig, screwed up to the fullest ...


                  Man, you screwed up, having reread your Fomenko. laughing
                  You have read the FULL version of the article ATTENTIVELY?
                  The ax belongs to the Corded Ware culture. This is III-II millennium BC .. What nafig "German workers of the XVI century" as your charlatan Fomenko says ?! laughing
                  Further to you there in the article it is clearly written about similar, similar finds in the area and about the version.
                  And mind you, scarecrow, no "mountains of garbage from the construction of the Kremlin" are also mentioned.
                  So your fomenko is simply corny caught on fiction and forgery, that's all.
                  Eh ... Pinocchio you are wooden. laughing
                3. Sweles
                  Sweles 3 February 2016 21: 02
                  -1
                  Quote: Glot
                  Man, you screwed up, having reread your Fomenko


                  the fact that the monastery was built on the burial ground of "Fatyanovo culture" is very doubtful, because it is not in the traditions of our culture.
                  That's when the monastery has already been built, then burials are carried out either around the monastery or inside the monastery, therefore there can be NO ANY OLD Tombstones under the monastery, and so there could be a German stone ax that lay at the surface could get there only during the construction of the monastery itself, all the same it will be more logical here than the version with the burial ground, so the charlatan is you with your bender-bader ...
                4. Glot
                  Glot 3 February 2016 21: 23
                  0
                  the fact that the monastery was built on the burial ground of "Fatyanovo culture" is very doubtful, because it is not in the traditions of our culture.


                  Listen friend, there’s nothing to talk about.
                  There is an original article, everything is written there. And there is - a fantasy on the topic, so to speak.
                  It is enough for any sane person to read both that and another and understand that Fomenko is simply lying and juggling.
                  How it got there a stone ax of culture of the III-II millennia BC is not known for certain. You can sketch a dozen versions on the go.
                  But ...
                  Without touching upon the stupid statement of the charlatan Fomenko that "the Kremlin was built by the Germans in the XNUMXth century," on what basis does this swindler assure that all German workers built it with stone tools? Based on this single find? It's not even funny, it's sad. It is sad that there are those who believe these nonsense.
                  This is one, ONE small example of how these crooks and charlatans, taking as a basis any fact, draw from it the devil knows what. And all their opuses consist of such forgeries and fraud.
                  It’s a pity that you don’t understand this. Wake up before it's too late.
                  Or is it too late?
                  Actually that's all. More I do not want to suck this nonsense.
                5. Sweles
                  Sweles 3 February 2016 21: 42
                  -2
                  Quote: Glot
                  Listen friend, there’s nothing to talk about.

                  you are not my friend, the German stone ax could not get to Russia, except during the construction of the monastery ...
                6. kalibr
                  4 February 2016 08: 14
                  0
                  Even Peter the Great ordered to collect different curiosities and weapons not like they are now and to bring them from all over the state to the Kunstkamera. And so the Scythian gold, stone axes from the Volga and much more came to Peter ...
                7. Glot
                  Glot 5 February 2016 11: 51
                  0
                  you are not my friend, the German stone ax could not get to Russia, except during the construction of the monastery ...


                  Friend, I’m for the last time now, I’ll simply and clearly chew everything.
                  Look.
                  Is the accessory of this ax installed? This is a Saxon-Thuringian version of cord ceramics of the XNUMXnd millennium BC .. You will not argue with this, friend?
                  Further, read carefully, in that area there were finds of the Bronze Age period and before that.
                  How this ax got there, it’s not possible to find out for certain. Could get anywhere, even to the extent that it was found during construction and thrown away simply, since in the XIV-XV centuries no one would bother with this.
                  They built, dug, found and threw aside. All.
                  And now the main friend. For you, the task of the logic of thinking.
                  Not touching on Fomenko’s stupid statement that the Kremlin was building the Germans in the XNUMXth century, and even casting aside the blatant lie that the ax was found among the construction waste from the Kremlin’s construction (and Antonova has not a line about it), explain to me on what basis Fomenko concluded that the Germans -Workers in the XNUMXth century were armed with stone tools ?!
                  THE SINGLE FIND OF THE STONE TOPH OF THE II MILLENNIUM BC, AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS ABSOLUTELY UNFORSEED CONCLUSION ABOUT THE STONE WEAPONS OF BUILDERS (GERMANS) OF THE CENTURY XVI !!!
                  This is not even the absence of elementary logic, it is not even attracting a certain version without actual confirmation; it is just nonsense. Frank delirium of a madman!
                  And if for you friend it looks logical and correct, then I am very sorry ...
                8. Sweles
                  Sweles 7 February 2016 11: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Glot
                  Friend, I’m for the last time now, I’ll simply and clearly chew everything.


                  yak tebi sausage that. It's all about approaches, first DATING, it was proved by Candidate of Geophysical Sciences Tyurin and others that the methods with which the current traditions climb to artifacts are DAMAGED and cannot be considered scientific, therefore, "scarred" culture is it would be nice to double-check it taking into account the new calibration curves defended by Tyurin.
                  Further, the ax was found at a depth of 50 cm from the surface, so the ridiculous assumption about "ancient burial grounds" does not sink.
                  And most importantly, OUR PEOPLE DO NOT BUILD ON THE TOMBS.
                  So Fomenko and Nosovsky are right here, besides FN has its own sources of information from yours ...
                9. Glot
                  Glot 8 February 2016 14: 47
                  0
                  yak you sausage then.


                  You ho.hol something, friend? Hmm ... that explains a lot. laughing

                  Now look. The last nail in the cover of Fomenkovsky lies.

                  You say:

                  It's all about the approaches, first DATING, it was proved by Ph.D. Tyurin and others that the methods with which the current traditions climb to the artifacts are DAMAGED and cannot be considered scientific, therefore, the "scarred" culture is a good idea to recheck taking into account new calibration curves defended by Tyurin.


                  Did your charlatan teachers carry out this dating method with this ax?
                  I think no.
                  Who will give the fools an artifact in their hands ?! laughing
                  So ... we omit this paragraph.
                  But regarding dating techniques, I will say that there are plenty of them.

                  Next, you say:

                  Further, the ax was found at a depth of 50 cm from the surface, so the ridiculous assumption about "ancient burial grounds" does not sink.


                  Why not channel? It was him who was found in 1969 at a depth of 50 cm, and at what depth he was originally - a big question.
                  Since I already told you, friend, it could have been raised when those other buildings were being built. A single find. Easy. Without reference by the way to some kind of burial ground. Those who were digging and building there were found, turned the "incomprehensible contraption" in their hands and threw it aside. That's all.
                  So, again, this paragraph can be omitted.

                  Next:

                  And most importantly, OUR PEOPLE DO NOT BUILD ON THE TOMBS.


                  About this you and I, and Pomeranian said.
                  Build, and build.
                  So, again by.

                  And this:

                  In addition, FN has its own sources of information from your ...


                  Pliz comment, what kind of sources are there? And what does "of yours" mean?
                  Sorry, you’re a friend in Russian, somehow unclearly expounding, you don’t understand exactly.

                  In general, wherever you stick, everywhere crap comes out. laughing
                  I am your friend even now I will give a hypothetical example of the construction of the "inferences" of the Fomenoks and Nosovs.
                  Listen to:

                  At an excavation site during WWII, at the position of our soldiers in one of the trenches, an arrowhead was found. The tip was dated to approximately XII-XII centuries A.D.
                  On the basis of this find, the "great and terrible" academician Fomenko made a sensational statement that the soldiers of the Red Army in the initial period of the Second World War fought with bows and arrows. laughing
                  Do you feel how? It looks like the version with the "German builders" ax. laughing
                  Ehhh ... head two ears ... laughing
        2. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 5 February 2016 10: 20
          0
          Quote: Sveles
          the fact that the monastery was built on the burial ground of "Fatyanovo culture" is very doubtful, because it is not in the traditions of our culture.

          That you finger in the sky, but in the top ten. Example? The village of Varzuga, Murmansk region. Next to the beautiful Church of the Assumption (tall structure), there is an inconspicuous wooden church, on the right, see? It stands on an ancient pagan temple, and around (and under the churches) there are various graves that periodically excavated by visiting archaeologists.
        3. Sweles
          Sweles 5 February 2016 10: 32
          +1
          Quote: Pomoryanin
          That you finger in the sky, but in the top ten. Example? The village of Varzuga, Murmansk region. Next to the beautiful Church of the Assumption (tall structure), there is an inconspicuous wooden church, on the right, see? It stands on an ancient pagan temple, and around (and under the churches) there are various graves that periodically excavated by visiting archaeologists.


          the temple is not a cemetery and not a burial ground, dumb-headed, so the Russians NEVER build anything on the burial grounds, and this bader is not Russian, therefore, makes such assumptions, and you don’t even understand the difference fool .
        4. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 5 February 2016 10: 36
          0
          Quote: Sveles
          the pagan temple is a cemetery and not a burial ground, dumb-headed, therefore the Russians NEVER build anything on the burial grounds, and this bader is not Russian, therefore, makes such assumptions ...

          You, most precious, stop the tantrum. The church stands exactly on the roof, and under it there are burials of an earlier period than the construction of the church. Show how to use a search engine? And the tradition of erecting the Temple over any particularly revered grave is precisely in the tradition of the RUSSIAN church. Nosovsky in the stove!
        5. Sweles
          Sweles 5 February 2016 10: 54
          0
          Quote: Pomoryanin
          And the tradition of erecting the Temple over any particularly revered grave is precisely in the tradition of the RUSSIAN church.


          above the grave is not the grave, do not understand the difference, or are you not Russian?
          Show how to use a search engine?

          you answer for the words, not how to use the search engine ...
        6. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 5 February 2016 13: 15
          +1
          Quote: Sveles
          above the grave is not the grave, do not understand the difference, or are you not Russian?

          I do not see a significant difference between "above the grave" and "On the grave" if it is under the foundation and floor of the church.
    2. Glot
      Glot 5 February 2016 11: 55
      0
      therefore, the Russians NEVER build anything on cemeteries


      Hmm ... When we set up a hospital, the cemetery with bulldozers was simply demolished into a ravine and that's it. The ravine was full of skulls and bones lying around ... The cemetery was old, very old. Bones and skulls were already almost falling apart. Demolished, leveled and put the buildings of the new hospital.
      So, they’re not building ... They are building and how. And they built.
    3. Sweles
      Sweles 7 February 2016 11: 06
      -1
      Quote: Glot
      . When we got a hospital,


      and who do you have it? Now the authorities are full of non-Russian relatives who do not remember, who gave the order for this crime?
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 22: 50
    +2
    Quote: AK64
    Here is a medieval arithmetic.
    That's why the French peasants and hay harvested with stone sickles

    Oh my God, my God, one has stone axes at the construction site of the Kremlin in the 16th century, the other has stone knives and sickles for the peasants in the 17th century - this is not "arithmetic", this is a poor "alternative" wassat
    Quote: AK64
    Sweden (where very high quality and rich ore) in the 17th century produced about 20kg of iron per capita per year.

    And you do not confuse state iron with private!
    According to the same B.A. For Kolchin, only the Novgorod scribe books on the Vodskaya Pyatina for 1500 indicate the production of at least 11000 pounds (almost 200 tons) of iron in two hundred with small billets on Luga Bay (do you know WHERE THIS ?!)
    We move on to your 17th century.
    Under Mikhail Fedorovich, metallurgy continued to develop, the first blast furnaces were built near Tula, in particular in 1668 it was ordered to produce from the plants annually:
    20000 pounds of rod and connected iron
    5000 pounds of iron sheets
    20 forged cannons,
    6000 cores
    10000 hand grenades, medium and large grenades
    100 iron mills 1000 tuyeres, 50 igots, 50 stupas, 100000 nails of one-wheeled and two-wheeled, large surf and others, according to the samples of the Pushkarsky order.
    Here fellow
    Plus trade:
    For example, in 1672, 124000 (!!!!!) pounds of iron were imported through Novgorod in Novgorod !!!
    Total:
    For the period 1668-1672 in Russia, at least 250000 pounds or 4 million kg of iron were produced and delivered from Tula-Kashir factories WITHOUT ACCOUNTING of finished products only for STATE NEEDS !!!
    Again, private blast furnaces-forges in Kargopol, Tikhvin, Novgorod, Ustyuzhna, Kashira, Moscow, etc., etc. ... only in Novgorod in the 17th century, at least 20 million kg of iron were "put into circulation" !!!
    What, we want to say that the peasants on the population of Novgorod would not have enough iron for a sickle and knife ?! belay
  • kalibr
    4 February 2016 08: 08
    -3
    Is the inscription Deutsch stamped on the ax? If not, then this proves nothing!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AK64
    AK64 3 February 2016 16: 48
    +1
    I strongly recommend:

    B.A. Kolchin
    Ferrous metallurgy and metalworking in Ancient Russia
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 February 2016 18: 05
      0
      Quote: AK64
      I strongly recommend:

      B.A. Kolchin
      Ferrous metallurgy and metalworking in Ancient Russia


      Yes, he will not read, this is not his specialization, pull out a quote on the findings of iron smelting and stick your nose ...
  • Glot
    Glot 3 February 2016 13: 26
    +2
    I’m a student of almost all forums on fuel in historical direction for many years and I can say that in the first place never, nothing is proved. Therefore, it is impossible to say something based on certain facts. The same bronze swords are all different, because the bronze is different.


    Here Vyacheslav (kalibr) held articles on bronze weapons and ammunition. View publications, do not be lazy.
    They discussed swords and their strength with examples.
    Missed to see ... How so ... laughing

    there is NO reliable history of the emergence of new civilizational materials, therefore this very "century, bronze, age of iron" is sheer deceit and most likely bronze swords are a complete profanity, bronze weapons could only be decorative, gift, demonstration and for deceased warriors


    Again, I am sending you to the above articles.
    Everything is there.

    Iron, however, is a VERY labor-consuming material for production, and there are also the same questions with it, therefore, hypothetical "ancient armies of many thousands" are hallucinations of historians of the 18-19th century.
    The story is different and does not fit into the framework of TI ...


    What is its laboriousness?
    In my opinion, you have hallucinations, my dear.

    And in your opinion there was no iron, and bronze and armies and ... antiquity too?
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 14
      0
      Quote: Glot
      Here Vyacheslav (kalibr) held articles on bronze weapons and ammunition. View publications, do not be lazy.
      They discussed swords and their strength with examples.
      Missed see ... How so


      Yes, you are not a serious person, a so-so person, just hehe ...
      1. Glot
        Glot 3 February 2016 16: 39
        +1
        Yes, you are not a serious person, a so-so person, just hehe ...


        No matter how you think, I sent you to the articles where it all figured out. So much for hee hee.
  • Kombrig
    Kombrig 3 February 2016 12: 48
    +3
    Quote: Sveles
    how can he beat-chop with his bronze sword, because the sword will split?

    Read the technology of metals and alloys, bronze can be different, there is malleable bronze which is more plastic in its properties, although in any case, of course, it is worse than iron (unless you are at the scrap metal collection point))))) laughing
  • Glot
    Glot 3 February 2016 11: 47
    +3
    The Greeks, too, did not have long swords in the phalanx, because in a closed formation it is much more convenient to crush with your shoulder (using a shield), and with a sword you can already poke where you can. There are many images on Greek vases when a warrior strikes with a sword from above like a dagger


    The phalanx was still strong in sarissa. The sword is already when they made their way close.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AK64
    AK64 3 February 2016 14: 07
    +2
    The Greeks also did not have long swords in the phalanx, because


    First of all - because there was no steel. Iron Longsword - Nonsense
  • Nix1986
    Nix1986 3 February 2016 08: 44
    +6
    Quote: V.ic
    Quote: Glot
    However, they fought. And quite a lot.

    When he met real cavalry (for example, the Parthians), they raked in full.

    At least they heard about Trajan’s campaigns ?! Or the defeat of the Alans ?! The Romans had no real commanders. The ridge was the centurions and legionnaire of the era of the empire (1-2 century AD), objectively was the most well-trained, equipped and motivated soldier. I will not say anything about discipline. Yes, of course there were misses in discipline, the same uprising of camps on the German border, but all this bore a political subtext, and did not refer to the loss of discipline before the enemy.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 3 February 2016 10: 46
      +3
      Quote: Nix1986
      Have you heard of Trajan’s campaigns?

      Have you heard about the "stooped" Romans?
      "The Romans suffered a shameful defeat at the city of Sutul. The army surrendered and had to go under the yoke, and the Roman commander Aulus Postumius Albin made peace with Yugurtha on the condition that the Roman troops cleanse Numidia within ten days (beginning of 109) "http://www.roman-glory.com/03-04-02
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 3 February 2016 11: 47
        +6
        The Romans often lost to their enemies at first, but were able to learn from their mistakes and were stubborn, which over time allowed them to squeeze enemies. Rome willingly borrowed enemy weapons and tactics: the Spanish sword gladius, helmet and chain mail from the Gauls, cataphracts from the Parthians, siege weapons from the Greeks.
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 3 February 2016 11: 29
      +3
      There were good generals in Rome. Caesar, Pompey, Sulla. Gaius Marius, Lucullus ... Although, of course, the main work was done by highly professional centurions. There were legends about Roman discipline.
  • guzik007
    guzik007 3 February 2016 08: 46
    +5
    The main reason is lead poisoning and impaired fertility. The Romans combed their hair with lead combs, drank wine from lead jugs (it seemed to them tastier!), The water in their houses also flowed through lead pipes. In the bones of the Romans that have reached us, the era of the lead empire is 10-15 times higher than the norm. And how much was it then in soft tissues? So they died, leaving no heirs, and in time Rome simply had no one to defend!
    -------------------------
    Oh how! How many scientific works were written by R.I. How many copies are broken, but it turns out so simple! Well, extinction! By logic, now there are no direct descendants of those Romans at all.
    The wine smiled from lead jugs. Have you tried to even imagine how much it should weigh? Meanwhile, the huge dumps of beaten ceramics of that era speaks of different preferences. And the dishes, if there was metal, then more tin
    1. kalibr
      3 February 2016 08: 54
      +2
      You know, I have not tried anything and am not going to. And invent too, right? Written - historiographic article. And explained what that means. That is, everything is taken from somewhere and taken from refereed sources recognized in the scientific world.
      1. AK64
        AK64 3 February 2016 10: 01
        +1
        You know, I have not tried anything and am not going to. And invent too, right? Written - historiographic article. And explained what that means. That is, everything is taken from somewhere and taken from refereed sources recognized in the scientific world.


        But Then it turns out that you are a banal crook!

        Because, of the many well-known and published versions of the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, you have cited only one, without even mentioning the existence of many others.
        And you brought the most doubtful.

        In the case of a student essay for this put 2 points, Mr. Rogue.
        1. miru mir
          miru mir 3 February 2016 10: 42
          +4
          Write your article, what's the problem ...
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 February 2016 14: 16
            0
            Write your article, what's the problem ...

            Are you talking to me?
            If to me, then you won’t believe it - but right now I’m doing just that.
            But I doubt what exactly you will be able to read. And even more so to understand.
            However, to console you: the article is not about history. And not in Russian (and not even in Hebrew)

            Well, the "get it first" argument (in the "write yourself" option):
            The fact that there is at the top is not an "article", it does not even pull a note. And given that the author positions himself as an academic historian, he should have understood this. But he does not understand - and it means that his self-positioning .... is wrong.

            Further, if you are interested in About the Roman army, so volumes and volumes and volumes have been written about it. I'm not the age to write essays or pass off translations as "research"
            1. miru mir
              miru mir 3 February 2016 14: 26
              +2
              In my opinion, it’s burning smile I did not write-"get it first", and did not mean anything bad. Why did you decide to stand in a pose and began to consider yourself smarter than me - I won’t know ...
              1. AK64
                AK64 3 February 2016 16: 57
                -2
                You, of course, excuse me if I made a mistake in your case. But here in RuNet, I’m already 20 years old soon, like FIDO vermen ...
                And my experience, who is known to be a "son of mistakes", as well as the experience of other comrades, shows that arguments like "take it yourself and write" are not typical for citizens with high IQ. But they are typical of schoolchildren who use this kind of "argument" more often than others.

                Well, a typical immune response to this argument has already been developed, and not only by me.

                If you are interested in the Roman military system, then there is SO much excellent literature about it, much better quality than these Murzilkas by Mr. Shpakovsky, what else is there to add to me? WHAT FOR?! Read the originals, so much less nonsense.
                You won't see a "Cossack attack" (as in the splash screen) for sure.
                As well as chain mail - "reduced".
                1. miru mir
                  miru mir 3 February 2016 18: 00
                  +2
                  I do not really listen to the problems and snobs. And, unlike you, I don’t put labels on people, guided by just a couple of sentences. And therefore, take my leave. You can not work with the answer.
                  I have the honor.
        2. kalibr
          3 February 2016 13: 29
          +1
          This is a historiographic article! Do you understand the difference between a student essay and an article on historiography? Oh my God, whoever you’ll just meet here ...
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 3 February 2016 15: 17
            -3
            Quote: kalibr
            then a historiographic article! Do you understand the difference between a student essay and an article on historiography? Oh my God, whoever you’ll just meet here ...


            here to be in line with the references and in line with the views of the people - different things ...
            1. kalibr
              4 February 2016 08: 23
              0
              Here you are right for all 100%!
        3. kalibr
          4 February 2016 08: 22
          -1
          A swindler is one who engages in unscrupulous quoting, that is, takes someone else's text unchanged and does not make footnotes. There are footnotes in this text, there is a list of references, so all the requirements for working with the material are met. By the way, any material that goes to print today is checked on the Anti-Plagiarism or Advego systems. For example, I do not accept work with a novelty index less than 87% from my students. In theses, the 75% index is official - there are a lot of citations, but there are also footnotes.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 4 February 2016 09: 02
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            For example, I do not accept work with a novelty index of less than 87% from my students


            what is the "novelty index"?
            1. kalibr
              4 February 2016 18: 17
              0
              There are computer programs that scan your text and find EVERYTHING that is copied in one way or another from other, foreign sources. That is, if somewhere there were phrases similar in form and meaning, then she highlights them in yellow and blue and indicates where you got what from. And it shows in%. This very% is the index of novelty, that is, what is new you yourself wrote. That is, the phrase VOLGA FALLS INTO THE CASPIAN SEA will always be uniquely yellow! Thus, if you take something from somewhere, then you should at least state it in your own words so that you have a high index of novelty. This is called rewriting ("rewriting") and in 80% of cases all journalists do it. If there are quotes, then they lower the novelty index, but they are not counted if there is a link to the source. As for my materials, I do not hand over to the editors of articles below 90% newness. Usually 92-93%.
  • Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 3 February 2016 08: 53
    +3
    The article is certainly interesting, but about lead poisoning as the main reason for the fall of the empire "I am tormented by vague doubts." I got acquainted with this version as a child, it seems, in the magazine "Technology of Youth". But for me, the main reason is that the Romans have already lived their day. According to Lev Gumilev, whom I respect very much, every nation, as a person, has its own age from youth to old age and death.
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 3 February 2016 11: 36
      +3
      Well, then the Russians should have "died" long ago
    2. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 12: 03
      +1
      Quote: Nikolay71
      According to Lev Gumilyov, whom I respect a lot, every nation, as a person, has its own age from youth to old age and death.

      Yes, yes, China or India died there long ago request
      In general, arguing with the "logic" of Gumilyov, he might think that the death of many peoples was violent, and not natural stop
  • Glot
    Glot 3 February 2016 10: 01
    +3
    The reason for the fall of Rome, however, is that they relaxed too much. They lost control, let's say, softened from the fact that they won almost everything they wanted and began to rest on the laurels of the successes of past victories and achievements. In general, they became "wolves without teeth." Then they were "devoured". Since they saw that the "wolf" is not the same. They degenerated in short, that's all.
    But we lived well, brightly, beautifully and for a long time.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 3 February 2016 11: 51
      +1
      Empires are born, live and die. Tah-shta and America will bend and fall. But who will be that pasionary who breaks her spine? Is it not Muslim fanatics ...
  • baudolino
    baudolino 3 February 2016 10: 09
    +4
    Well, they enjoyed a lot of lead in the Middle Ages. And the fact that Europe is degenerating now and cannot defend itself against "Eastern barbarians" cannot be attributed to lead).
    1. AK64
      AK64 3 February 2016 10: 27
      0
      the fact that Europe is degenerating now and cannot defend itself against the "Eastern barbarians" cannot be attributed to lead).


      Now they are writing off for vaccination :)
      Well, that is, there is always a "good reason".

      But in fact, the reason is that in Rome, that in modern Europe is naturally the same. (And torerance and so on. To it are most directly related. That is, not "tolerance", of course, the reason --- it smacks of itself the same consequence, and a sign of decay.)
    2. kalibr
      3 February 2016 13: 31
      -1
      You write off - tetraethyl lead in car exhausts!
      1. AK64
        AK64 3 February 2016 14: 20
        -1
        You write off - tetraethyl lead in car exhausts!


        Truth? But muzhuki do not know ....

        What taiga did you come from? 30 years as no, even in Russia and it seems like 15 years as no. (I write "like" because in Russia I last bought gasoline for 20 years)
        Or do you live in Africa? Since it is just that in Africa, they somehow do not degenerate, despite tetraethyl
        1. kalibr
          3 February 2016 14: 35
          +1
          And you do not write "like", but look in the Internet when they stopped using it. And how it accumulates in the body. And about Africa, where degeneration is in full swing.
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 February 2016 14: 45
            -2
            And you do not write "like", but look in the Internet when they stopped using it.

            Here is the impudent ...
            So, that’s exactly what I looked at: in the year 2000.
            And I wrote "like" because I believe myself, not the Network. I myself was the last time ... a long time ago.

            And how it accumulates in the body.

            Well, tell us, tell us "how does it accumulate in the body"? AND?
            30 years as in Europe do not use, at those who AFTER the birth children already went to school.
            Or will you fantasize that "is inherited"?

            And about Africa, where just degeneration is in full swing.

            Well, tell us, tell us about degeneration in Africa.
            And also about the promotion in Turkey, Siri, India, Pakestan ...

            Let’s give you this: will I offer you an alternative version?
            No, but what? It’s already seen that this one somehow doesn’t work out for you, right?
            Well, I’m also metallic to you: mercury, in!
            What is bad? Good for everyone. And also metal, that is, for people like you and your friends PIP and Grotto (or whatever it is) is great.

            Mercury compounds have been used in vaccines as a stabilizer. (discontinued in Europe and the USA in 2005-06, later in the rest of the world)

            And how the girls in the bazaar will support you in this! Huge support!
            Do not lose
          2. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 18: 13
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            Here is the impudent ...

            No, you are just HAM No.
            Quote: AK64
            And I wrote "like" because I believe myself, not the Network. I myself was the last time ... a long time ago.

            Alcohol? Drugs? Or gasoline exhaust ?! laughing
            Quote: AK64
            tell us "how does it accumulate in the body"? AND?
            30 years as in Europe do not use, at those who AFTER the birth children already went to school.
            Or will you fantasize that "is inherited"?

            1. Not 30, but 15. But a mad dog and seven miles is not a hook.
            2. Over the 15 years of refusal, the use of tetraethyl lead in the USA has reduced the blood lead content by 78% and is still above the maximum allowable content!
            3. We are looking at the growth of cancer.
            4. We look at the statistics and increase in the birth of sick children.
            5. We are looking at the increase in the number of infertile and problematic couples, we are looking at the number of miscarriages!
            4. The fact that tetraethyl lead is still used in aviation, in thermal power plants and in "third countries" we read about the circulation of the atmosphere and the accumulation of pollutants in it, right ?!
            Quote: AK64
            Well, tell us, tell us about degeneration in Africa.

            so tell us orphans how Africa is developing and how good it is ?! good
            Quote: AK64
            and let me offer you an alternative version?

            Don't drive the horses, drunken cabman, the previous "turns" in logic were enough for us! stop
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 3 February 2016 10: 10
    +3
    Good material, plus definitely. Frankly pleased with the selection of illustrations. He smiled about lead jugs, however, not me alone. Appeal to the authorities quoted, I don’t know: they see the cause in lead, someone sees the collapse of the empire in its ruin from trade with China, someone from the destruction of the peasantry, like Wegner. I believe that the problems began at a time when the elite had completely decomposed. Why don’t you comb your hair, if at the top of power ... blows, nothing will save the country.
    The horsemen could do without stirrups: some had a special landing with legs bent at the knees, others had something like saddles with cloth loops, however, you can throw a dart or strike a thrust while "sitting on a stool". They fought somehow.
    Threat. What surprises me is that in Rome before Christianity there were no hospitals or hospitals. Nothing. A cruel world, cruel people ...
    1. kin
      kin 3 February 2016 11: 50
      +2
      What if it’s a complex of reasons?
      As, for example, they used to say in Soviet times: firstly, a group of economic reasons. Secondly, it leads to a change in the social sphere, creating social prerequisites. And those, in turn, give rise to changes in the political and ideological superstructure (for example, bearded women, blue elite). Etc.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 12: 21
        +3
        Quote: kin
        What if it’s a complex of reasons?

        Definitely a complex.
        Anyone who will offer you the only correct theory of everything and everyone, whether it is "Marxism", "passionarity" or "Scientology", is automatically either a fraud or a fool.
        1. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 3 February 2016 12: 49
          +1
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Anyone who will offer you the only correct theory of everything and everyone, whether it is "Marxism", "passionarity" or "Scientology", is automatically either a fraud or a fool.

          There is nothing to add. laughing
      2. AK64
        AK64 3 February 2016 14: 36
        -1
        What if it’s a complex of reasons?


        As Napole He said, "One reason is enough."

        In this case, there is only one reason - and it is she who leads to the whole complex.
        You can see this reason both in Europe, and in the USA.
        [size = 9] And it’s not at all tetraethyl lead [/ size]
      3. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 3 February 2016 16: 41
        +2
        It is believed that the main reason is the depletion of silver mines in Spain. Ruined therefore. Financial collapse.
  • Nix1986
    Nix1986 3 February 2016 11: 25
    +2
    Quote: V.ic
    Quote: Nix1986
    Have you heard of Trajan’s campaigns?

    Have you heard about the "stooped" Romans?
    "The Romans suffered a shameful defeat at the city of Sutul. The army surrendered and had to go under the yoke, and the Roman commander Aulus Postumius Albin made peace with Yugurtha on the condition that the Roman troops cleanse Numidia within ten days (beginning of 109) "http://www.roman-glory.com/03-04-02

    Do you compare the scale of one local uprising and war of Rome with a consolidated Roman enemy like Decebalus or Arminius ?! Where were the victories ?! The overall ratio of wins / losses ?! Arguing like you, one can give an example that a drunken Batav from an allied cohort killed a Roman legionary because he stood up for the landlord and from this we conclude that the Roman army is Mr.. If we analyze the main defeats of the Romans in the Roman era, we can conclude that the main mistakes were made in strategic planning, and not in the lack of tactics and combat qualities. The same defeat of Var was a consequence of his shortsightedness and idleness, although his Segestius and other leaders warned of the rebellious mood of the Germans.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 3 February 2016 15: 18
      +1
      Quote: Nix1986
      the main mistakes were made in strategic planning, and not in the lack of tactics and combat qualities.

      Hannibal checked the Roman tactics and combat qualities for a break, and very successfully. King of Epirus The Romans simply were a more passionate people and with a high degree of centralization in the management of the empire, which allowed them to ultimately win victories.
      1. AK64
        AK64 3 February 2016 17: 56
        0
        Hannibal checked the Roman tactics and combat qualities for a break, and very successfully. King of Epirus The Romans simply were a more passionate people and with a high degree of centralization in the management of the empire, which allowed them to ultimately win victories.


        Most likely, you are right: their mobilization opportunities, and especially in the republican period, were unusually high. Therefore, they experienced very serious defeats, and restored the army from nothing.

        Lost all the battles except the last ....
      2. Nix1986
        Nix1986 3 February 2016 18: 36
        0
        The legions during the time of Ganibal were conscripts and in the last battles the recruitment was already without property qualifications and even prisoners were taken. There is no question of any combat experience of the then legionnaire. The imperial legionnaire was a professional on a contract for 16 years + several years veksilum veteranorum, it is already a well-equipped and motivated professional. Nobody disputes the genius of Ganibal, but it is not accurate to compare the conscript before the reforms of Maria and the imperial legionnaire of the times of Tiberius - Trajan.
  • kin
    kin 3 February 2016 11: 29
    0
    Legionnaire with a belly (photo) laughing
  • Ches
    Ches 3 February 2016 12: 20
    +4
    Quote: Pomoryanin
    Threat. What surprises me is that in Rome before Christianity there were no hospitals or hospitals. Nothing. A cruel world, cruel people ...


    The Romans would also be surprised to find out about this)), because they had hospitals (valetudinarium).
    According to archaeological reconstructions, the Roman Legion Hospital was a typical building with an area of ​​100 by 60 m. The rectangular building had a courtyard. Most of the hospital was occupied by soldiers' chambers, each of which housed 4-6 people. Officers were accommodated in the corner, more spacious rooms. Each hospital was provided with a central heating system. Operating rooms could be in special small rooms in the courtyard. Medicines and medicines were stored in ceramic vessels in special storage rooms. An indispensable attribute of the hospital was the sanctuary of Aesculapius and Gigia.
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 3 February 2016 12: 31
      0
      Quote: Ches
      because they had a hospital (valetudinarium).

      You're right, I probably made a little mistake in terminology, calling the hospital for civilians a hospital. Regarding military medicine, I read that Roman military doctors used opiates as anesthesia. Where did all this go in the Middle Ages?
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 3 February 2016 12: 57
    +1
    Thank you very much! A good continuation of the topic. I look at photos and drawings with pleasure. Unfortunately, I can’t write anymore --- the computer goes bad. Soon I will buy a new one.
    Sincerely.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 3 February 2016 13: 47
    +1
    The article is sensible, but it hurts at a gallop, regarding the causes of death there, of course, the set of reasons from lead to passionarity does not interfere with one another.
    1. AK64
      AK64 3 February 2016 17: 03
      -1
      one does not interfere with the other.


      Napoleon believed that there was one reason.
      Even when there are three or five
    2. AK64
      AK64 3 February 2016 17: 03
      -1
      one does not interfere with the other.


      Napoleon believed that there was one reason.
      Even when there are three or five
    3. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 February 2016 17: 50
      0
      Quote: AK64
      Napoleon believed that there was one reason.
      Even when there are three or five

      Napoleon ended badly.
      However, in order to distinguish a successful person from a swindler who was "lucky", you need a brain! fellow
  • Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 3 February 2016 17: 10
    +2
    So, a remark .. For example, humanity has perished and in a thousand years they will find the Statue of Liberty .. and what will those archaeologists think? .. Worshiped the Sun, was matriarchy? ..)
    1. kin
      kin 3 February 2016 17: 44
      +2
      Hardly. Historians do not judge by a single artifact.
    2. andrew42
      andrew42 3 February 2016 17: 57
      +1
      Well said. And stirrups, by the way, are definitely not found. There will be a verdict: by the 21st century, the population of Europe has lost such equipment as stirrups. and if they find it, they will sell it in the 19th century. Business then!
      1. kalibr
        4 February 2016 08: 36
        0
        And if they find it, they will conduct a metallographic analysis and it turns out that neither the metal structure nor the content of impurities corresponds to the 19 century, but corresponds to the beginning (first quarter) of the 21. Now so!
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 4 February 2016 09: 28
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          And if they find it, they will conduct a metallographic analysis and it turns out that neither the metal structure nor the content of impurities corresponds to the 19 century, but corresponds to the beginning (first quarter) of the 21. Now so!


          A presentation by the candidate of geological and mineralogical sciences A.M. Tyurin, who professionally discusses the radiocarbon dating method, is posted on the chronologyorg. So, to conclude Tyurin, the method is working, it was brought to mind, BUT there is a lot but these are different calibration curves made in different ways, the most approximate to reality is the method of calibration according to the geomagnetic field is better correlated with the HISTORICAL PERIOD, but the calibration curve built according to dendrochronology, just built so that the calculations based on its data work for TIchronology.
          Those. even if you wanted to date some kind of artifact, you can prove any date with completely "scientific" methods. Tyurin conclusions 40min
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 4 February 2016 16: 58
            0
            All these analyzes .. Extrapolate the data for tens of thousands of years .. But who has not watched this for thousands of years? Maybe after 500 years, the half-life is accelerating exponentially? ..)
            1. kalibr
              4 February 2016 18: 21
              0
              This is a metallographic analysis, and here thousands of years ... There is a difference between borsch and a sandwich.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 4 February 2016 19: 18
              0
              "Maybe after 500 years, the half-life is accelerating exponentially?" ////

              No, it’s not accelerating.
              About 30-40 thousand years ago, radio-carbon
              analysis gives a small error of plus or minus tens or a hundred years.
              But for the time of the dinosaurs, other methods are needed.
              The results of radio-carbon analysis were compared with other methods:
              tree rings (up to 5-6 thousand years ago), ice layers in the Antarctic (up to 30 thousand years ago). Everything is the same.
              1. kalibr
                5 February 2016 22: 58
                0
                if this is you for me, then I know it and agree. And if somehow "stubborn", then ... it's useless!
          2. kalibr
            4 February 2016 18: 20
            0
            We are talking about metallographic analysis ...
  • Hey
    Hey 3 February 2016 22: 18
    +3
    Quote: V.ic
    Comrades, pay attention to the pictures with the riders. They are without stirrups! Will such a horseman fight a lot?


    In addition to the above, a buckle as an element of ammunition, including for a saddle, appeared in the Middle Ages. So the Romans could not use saddles. As a rope do not tie, you’ll still be sure to get off the horse.

    And there are thousands of such examples. So, there are continuous tales about this Roman Empire.
    What do we know about her. About war, about poets, about law, about emperors. About that which does not leave material traces. That is, compose what you want, all the same you will not check.
    And not about mathematicians, chemists, doctors. About those whose assets need to be professionally described.
    And when in the midst of this verbiage there are any material moments you understand that the written nonsense.
    For example, with the help of firewood and vinegar, the imperial army made its way on a campaign through the Alps.
    Somewhere the rock for executions disappeared (you see, it has not been preserved) with which the death row prisoners were dumped into the sea. etc. etc.
    1. kalibr
      4 February 2016 08: 34
      0
      Who told you such nonsense about buckles? In order not to waste both your and your time advice: open the book WEAPONS OF THE ROMANS Michel Feugere / Tempus and read and see pictures if the first is difficult. It has great photos and graphics. And that’s all!
    2. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 5 February 2016 09: 59
      0
      Quote: MUD
      the uda disappeared (you see, it wasn’t preserved) a rock for executions with which those sentenced to death were dumped into the sea.

      There it is. Take a look.
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 5 February 2016 10: 34
        -1
        Quote: Pomoryanin
        There it is. Take a look.


        where is the sea?
        1. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 5 February 2016 10: 44
          0
          Quote: Sveles
          where is the sea?

          Someone deceived you, saying that in Rome the criminals were thrown off the Tarpean rock into the sea.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 5 February 2016 13: 12
          0
          "well, where is the tiber"
          After reading, read another book after Nosovsky and the primer.
  • bnk204
    bnk204 4 February 2016 07: 51
    +2
    There was a heated debate about stirrups, and so, I will write my opinion. In school years, I often went to the village with my grandparents, and the boys and I always rode horses, and in winter trained young stallions. You can’t throw saddles on a wild one, and even if you fall, your leg can become stuck, it’s dangerous. Cope without saddles, stirrups. For days I could ride a horse without a saddle, and on a well-trained one you generally sit relaxed, legs hang down, no horse sweat pinched my ass, even though I was in my pants. A man riding a horse, over time, acquires the skill to be able to maintain balance, and it does not matter if there are stirrups or not. Look at the surfer, what he does, and his legs are not glued to the board. Now let's take a fighting horseman from antiquity and the Middle Ages, then people were much physically strong and prepared. They even knew how to control horses without arms, legs, voice, hands are free. There is a saddle, no saddle, there were stirrups or not, not the main thing, but the main thing is that it is very difficult to pull a trained combat rider off a horse. And the fact that there are no stirrups on the sculptures does not mean that the sculptor forgot or was too lazy to portray, it means they fought like that and successfully. And about saddles - invented, so they are needed. I’ll give a rough comparison, it’s like a machine in a car, convenient. Sports cars are also on machines, but the same pilot and mechanics will show good results, and a blonde can master the mechanics within a month.
    1. kalibr
      4 February 2016 18: 26
      0
      Lord, glory to you! There was another sober person who checked everything with his ... ass. So I also think so, Xenophon thought so, the creator of the column of Trajan, the arch of Titus, the bas-relief of Emilia Paul in Delphi ... but ... all stubborn. Are they sick or what?
  • Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 21 February 2017 11: 12
    0
    Uffff, thanks for the colorful illustration.
    The text on the drum didn’t impress me. Why?
    Because - "... But the hammered loriks of the Roman emperors, which were in use during the legendary Romulus and Remus, became fashionable again in the Renaissance. And helmets with visors and helmets for gladiatorial battles with wide brim (typical" chapel de fer "Medieval foot soldiers and horsemen) - all this was created and tested in this era, just like long knightly spears and swords! ..." - doesn’t it seem that it some porridge. clear anachronism with cross-confusion. The times of Romulus and Remus correspond to the late Middle Ages, so what?
    Why DUCKS in the picture - naked? If the text indicates that they had steel armor.
    ....
    In general, once again I am convinced that the emphasis on Roman history does not lead to clarity.
    Vyacheslav Olegovich, well, after all, you have excellent material about the Kelsk culture of armaments, about the Kel system of statehood just in the western and southern regions of Germany.
    It was from there that all this "Roman culture" went, which at first was the RABBIT of renegades.
    Then the renegades became - independent and Svidomo .... Romans. Yes, and won by accident. All. Because Putin and Trump were not at them at that time.
    Such a story would be much more docked. In all respects.
    And Trajan’s column was built, yes. Defeated Dacians. And they themselves painted there. Wonders....