Jump to content

Sciritae是骑兵还是步兵?


AIEND
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • AIEND changed the title to Sciritae是骑兵还是步兵?
1小时前,0AD玩家说:

从0AD开始-->点击“学习游戏”-->结构树-->斯巴达人-->右键点击“军营”下的“Skiritai Commando”-->职业:步兵-->是步兵

What I mean is whether the Sciritae should have been designed as cavalry rather than infantry units in the game, based on historical reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AIEND said:

What I mean is whether the Sciritae should have been designed as cavalry rather than infantry units in the game, based on historical reality.

For what it's worth, the wikipedia describes them as infantry, including their role on the battlefield and other duties, while citing sources like Thucydides. 

Screenshots of Chinese books don't help me a bit, so I can't really judge how credible their claims are.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

在 2022/11/20 下午 9:31,Gurken Khan 说:

就其价值而言, 维基百科 将他们描述为步兵,包括他们在战场上的角色和其他职责,同时引用了修昔底德等资料。 

中文书籍的截图对我没有一点帮助,所以我无法真正判断他们的说法有多可信。

I've never trusted Wikipedia completely. Unfortunately, although I think the discussion of this book is very detailed, I do not have an English version of this book, and I wish there were people who can speak Chinese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

在 2022/11/21 上午 12:46,wowgetoffyourcellphone 说道:

如果有的话,他们应该是快速的矛兵,类似于高卢狂热者。

Sciritae is often used in the history books as a sentry or scout, and in terms of its status, unlike a light infantry who has no money to equip his armor, I think it is more likely to be a cavalryman.

17 小时前,Carltonus 说:

在 alpha 23 中,斯巴达人拥有冠军步兵剑士和标枪手。 代替移除据称训练他们两者的结构,后者可以是 Skiritai。

If the historical facts are accurate, it would also be nice to join a kind of champion cavalry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 小时前,Genava55 说:

 

I don't understand English, but this video seems to think that Sciritae are perioikoi from the Sciritis region, with both cavalry and heavy and light infantry.
The information I read rejected the noun connection between Sciritae and the Sciritis area, thinking that Sciritae was always a special cavalry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xenophon, "Constitution of the Lacedaimonians" 12: Seeing that the angles of a square are useless, he introduced the circular form of camp, except where there was a secure hill or wall, or a river afforded protection in the rear. [2] He caused sentries to be posted by day facing inwards along the place where the arms were kept, for the object of these is to keep an eye not on the enemy but on their friends. The enemy is watched by cavalry from positions that command the widest outlook. [3] To meet the case of a hostile approach at night, he assigned the duty of acting as sentries outside the lines to the Sciritae. In these days the duty is shared by foreigners, if any happen to be present in the camp. [4] The rule that patrols invariably carry their spears, has the same purpose, undoubtedly, as the exclusion of slaves from the place of arms. Nor is it surprising that sentries who withdraw for necessary purposes only go so far away from one another and from the arms as not to cause inconvenience. Safety is the first object of this rule also. [5]

Thucydides, "History of the Peloponnesian War" 5.71: Before they had actually closed a thought occurred to Agis. All armies, when engaging, are apt to thrust outwards their right wing; and either of the opposing forces tends to outflank his enemy's left with his to outflank his enemy's left with his own right, because every soldier individually fears for his exposed side, which he tries to cover with the shield of his comrade on the right, conceiving that the closer he draws in the better he will be protected. The first man in the front rank of the right wing is originally responsible for the deflection, for he always wants to withdraw from the enemy his own exposed side, and the rest of the army, from a like fear, follow his example. In this battle the line of the Mantineans, who were on the Argive right wing, extended far beyond the Sciritae: [2] and still further, in proportion as the army to which they belonged was the larger, did the Lacedaemonians and Tegeans on the Lacedaemonian right wing extend beyond the Athenian left. [3] Agis was afraid that the Lacedaemonian left wing would be surrounded, and, thinking that the Mantineans outflanked them too far, he signalled to the Sciritae and the old soldiers of Brasidas to make a lateral movement away from his own division of the army, and so cover the line of the Mantineans: to fill up the space thus left vacant he ordered Hipponoidas and Aristocles, two of the polemarchs, to bring up their two divisions from the right wing, thinking that he would still have more troops than he wanted there, and that he would thus strengthen that part of his line which was opposed to the Mantineans.

@AIEND During the battle of Mantinea (418 BC), it seems the Sciritae were fighting as a battle line. Thus, as infantrymen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chinese textbooks are the one infallible authority on any question of historical truth. /s

Snark aside, there is a kernel of truth here that any absolute statement about the gear and tactics of an ancient military unit that operated over hundreds of years is likely to have counter examples. In early times these were people acting as military emissaries of a distinct ethnic group , and later an evolving military company shaped by the traditions of those forbearers as well as the organizational and operational requirements of their own circumstances. They were not inanimate weapons systems, like a particular model of rifle or tank. They could and would change their gear and tactics to keep up with changing times and situations.

That said, in a game like this there needs to be some some sort of typical representation for a special unit like this that is functionally distinct from other units. We can quibble about their precise representation, but I think the choice to draw them as elite medium-to-light-ish melee infantry is representative of their most celebrated exploits. (As attested in the accounts above.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 horas atrás, ChronA disse:

Chinese textbooks are the one infallible authority on any question of historical truth. /s

Congrats on screwing up your comment right on the first line! It sounds xenophobic, but in the West it's just taken as irony.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lopess said:

Congrats on screwing up your comment right on the first line! It sounds xenophobic, but in the West it's just taken as irony.

Ton message n'est pas plus intelligent. D'abord tu as fait une remarque péjorative inappropriée, ensuite tu le provoques avec le ton que tu emploies et les accusations que tu lui portes.

Edited by Genava55
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lopess said:

Congrats on screwing up your comment right on the first line! It sounds xenophobic, but in the West it's just taken as irony.

History is very "tricky" science.

There is always a bit of propaganda involved in, I believe every in nation history. But despite that, the biggest problem for such far history are Sources. Many books/libraries are destroyed, sometimes scientists don't agree if they should take national "poetry" as valid source, some nations even didn't have book at all until quite recently, etc. 

Also another problem is "selectivity". Some "scientists" (intentionally or not) ignored sources that doesn't fit their government ideology or goals. 

Some scientist have valid sources and write what they read indeed, but they miss Context. To understand entire context across different epochs, you need big bran and big knowledge. 

Etc. 

So we should not believe there is "central authority" for History. There is no simple truth. There are many layers of truth. 

So yeah, I agree it's poor when someone is ironic and believe his perspective or his sources are the only valid.

Edited by BeTe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/11/2022 at 4:34 AM, BeTe said:

History is very "tricky" science.

There is always a bit of propaganda involved in, I believe every in nation history.

Exactly, the West (past, present, academic, and lay) absolutely has its own closet overflowing with skeletons where misrepresenting historical evidence is concerned. But that can't mean everybody gets a free pass to keep doing the same. It means we all need to be more critical about how we source and interpret our history. ^_^

I admit I used this opportunity to rib AIEND for their country's instrumentalist attitude to these matters, and that disrespect deserves some calling out. However, I can't apologize for trying to point out a cognitive bias in others when it contributes to erroneous reasoning. Where the situation reversed, I would appreciate someone else pointing out a potential cause of my mistakes even if it temporarily hurt my ego. I think that is the only realistic way to deal with these things, and anyone who can't take the heat of having their biases examined should be ready to occasionally take a break from the kitchen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think there's any propaganda per se here regarding the equipment and role of the Skiritai. To what end? Just different interpretations.

I agree, I don't see why propaganda would be involved in this case.

I don't even think it's about different interpretation. If I caught it properly here, I see the author who started post, says they weren't infantry but cavalry. Video shared after, says that their role actually changed during history ( I didn't listen it carefully TBH). So it could mean that claim is true, but in same time it's not. :D We can say it's missing wider context which is common mistake in historians and regular people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with regarding them as cavalry is that there is not explicit reference to my knowledge of them serving to that capacity.  Sparta was notoriously incapable when it came to fielding an effectual cavalry force, and although Agesilaus II did at one point succeed on that front, it was only temporary.  At the moment, there are cavalry represented by Perioikoi, but even that seems to be a major stretch.  To be able to employ horsemen in in warfare, one usually was landed nobility, and it is highly unlikely that vassals were able to do so.  This can be supported by the fact that most of Sparta's cavalry came from league members rather than Laconia proper.  If Skiritae were cavalry, we would expect historians like Xenophon, an experienced cavalry commander, to have mentioned it.  Simply speaking, if there were Skiritae that were cavalry, it would be a small contingent representing some aristocratic caste since not all people could afford to use horses that way; the historians refer to Skiritae collectively as scouts, not a mere fraction.  

On that front, Skiritae infantry armed to fight on the frontlines and used for recon are not an exception.  The Silver Shields seem to have served a similar function in Alexander's campaigns.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...