Recent comments in /f/history

MeatballDom OP t1_ix6luoz wrote

Reply to comment by teddylumpskins in An archaeologist's rebuttal against Graham Hancock and Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse by MeatballDom

>When he says things like “they don’t want to accept this because it destroys their narrative.”

It always amuses me when people not working or experienced with academia say stuff like that. Like you say, all it takes is one look in any peer-reviewed journal to see that academia is people constantly trying to prove other academics wrong.

It's literally a requirement for PhDs in History and Archaeology (and some MAs depending on the programme) to create original research that hasn't been done before. Like you say, a huge new discovery of an ancient civilisation would be an academic's dream. I've gotten articles and several conference presentations out of analysing single words from obscure ancient texts. Just one artifact from some mysterious peoples would be career changing, let alone evidence of some massive ancient transglobal society.

585

imperialus81 t1_ix6ls1t wrote

Reply to comment by ThoDanII in what was the population of ancient Mesopotamia? by Omastnar

Good point, but even then if you apply the same logic as I did in my other post regarding food requirements to say the Battle of Kadesh where (once again according to Wikipedia) there were supposedly 20,000 troops on the Egyptian side... Now this was an army operating out of Egyptian territory in modern day Syria so they wouldn't have access to reliable supplies from a friendly (or at least co-operative) population.

20,000 troops equals 40,000lbs of bread, 3000lbs of meat, and 30,000L of drink per day. Plus fodder for the chariot horses and pack animals, plus probably an equal number of non-combatants who were also attached to the army.

Some of that could likely be made up via foraging and looting, but I find it highly unlikely that there would even be enough calories available in the vicinity of an army like that to actually keep them fed.

This speaks to a big problem with Wikipedia as a source. If you actually look at the citations for both the size of the Assyrian army quoted above as well as the size of the Egyptian force at Kadesh you'll see that in both instances they cite a book by Osprey publishing. Osprey is a great publisher in a lot of ways, but they aren't academic. Their primary market is wargamers and modelers. In fact, both books cited were written by a fellow by the name of Mark Healy. Not to disparage Mr. Healy but he has a masters degree in Political Theology. Not History or Near Eastern studies or Archeology or anything related to the field. He's a hobbyist, not an expert.

As a matter of fact, the 20,000 number looks like it is actually citing a website article from ancienthistorylists.com with an article titled "Top 14 decisive ancient battles"

17

Northstar1989 t1_ix6lrbg wrote

Reply to comment by imperialus81 in what was the population of ancient Mesopotamia? by Omastnar

>Now, man cannot live on bread alone. Especially if you want them fit to fight. An oz of red meat has about 75 calories.

You're completely wrong.

Armies on the march DIDN'T eat any substantial amount of meat in ancient times.

Most armies existed on an almost entirely grain-based diet as late as the Roman Empire. Legionaries famously ate a sort of porridge for most meals on campaign, and were punished by being fed lower quality or less desirable grains (such as barley rather than wheat) if they did something wrong.

Meat is a modern luxury. It's not something armies could afford to travel with large quantities of.

Your other assumptions are ridiculously far off too. The total army of a nation would almost never be deployed all in one place (it simply wasn't logistically feasible, as you deduced). So, maybe half the Army would be defending dozens of cities in the homelamd as holding forces, and the other half would be spread into 3 or 4 large fighting forces and one to two dozen smaller skirmishing forces along the border with a foe.

The larger armies would only gather together right before a battle. The Romans even had a maxim for this: "March divided, fight concentrated."

7

teddylumpskins t1_ix6l1a1 wrote

Reply to An archaeologist's rebuttal against Graham Hancock and Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse by MeatballDom

His rants against “mainstream” (whatever that means) academia always irritate me.

I’m not an academic, but I did get an MA in history so I have some understanding of how academia works. Hancock’s “dogmatic” academics are like his boogeymen or something. When he says things like “they don’t want to accept this because it destroys their narrative.” I always chuckle because any historian or academic would KILL for a credible discovery that would literally rewrite the records.

You know who else would love for more ancient discoveries and shit to be made? The textbook industry. Those guys look for literally ANY REASON to print new editions. Credible discoveries would mean a printing press of money for the academic and textbook industry.

He also never actually engages with academics and chalks their stances as nonchalance or close minded. Baffling.

1,827

Luke_zuke t1_ix6kpbo wrote

Reply to An archaeologist's rebuttal against Graham Hancock and Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse by MeatballDom

This stuff is incredibly fun to think about. You can really dive in and find tons of material, and read a lot of actual earth science along the way. But it should be treated with the same regard as Ancient Aliens or any other such info-tainment. It’s designed to draw your interest, not to advance archeology. At worst, it is insidious.

271