Gibbon on Roman war machines

>>2756166
>Gibbon
>right about anything

File: Goujian Sword.jpg (60KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x768px

>>2756166
Daily reminder swords, spears, bows & arrows, clubs, and maces are all machines.

Obviously we must go back to the valorous days of biting, scratching, gouging, kicking and punching each other.
>Gibbon
No wonder.

File: INFANT~1.jpg (537KB, 1321x900px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1321x900px

Well, no, he's operating on a false premise to start with.
>as personal valour and military skill declined with the Roman empire.
This didn't happen. In fact you could argue it's the opposite of the truth, given that small-scale skirmishes were a lot more common, "personal valour" became more important. I personally wouldn't make that argument but you could. Gibbon is wrong in any case, though.

>>2756219
First of all, you're wrong, they are not machines, they don't have any mechanical parts. Secondly, the point is that machines allow you to kill enemies without getting up close to them, without getting in danger. Bows are somewhat like that, but their range is much shorter than that of machines, and they're weaker, they don't penetrate armor. Everyone has bows, but only Romans can build complex machines that make killing enemies easier and much safer.

>>2756234
Thanks, this is a good reply.

>>2756256
>Someone never went through fucking elementary and learned of simple machines.
Wedge and levers, idjit.

A bow and an arrow is DEFINITELY a machine.

>>2756256
A bow is certainly a machine; it has multiple parts and applies mechanical force.

>>2756166
Increased fortification and more frequent use of ballista´s attest to Gibbon´s statement. There is more from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Roman_army:
>In addition, there was a huge reduction in the number of tombstones, altars and other dedications by Roman servicemen. Official stamps of military units on building materials (e.g. tiles) are much rarer.

So ye, Gibbon was right, but I am sure it is more amusing to shitpost on one of the best-known historians.

File: 1492413535617.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>muh chines
Is Gibbon Unabomber's ancestor?

>>2756311
>Increased fortification
Gee i wonder what for.
>bitch about Germanics flooding Rome
>b-but Romans used FORTS! HOW DARE THEY do that, fucking COWARDS! This is why Rome fell
Gibbon was literally autistic

File: Germanic Warrior 236-568 AD-43.jpg (408KB, 1200x1586px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1200x1586px

>>2756311
He literally is fucking wrong. For one thing what
>>>2756234 has said. For another, Rome's ideas of martial honor was fast changing, largely due to loads of foreign influence.

You have huge numbers of late Roman soldiers ACTUALLY ANSWERING calls to singular combat. Something their Republican/Imperial counterparts never did.

Pic fucking related, this was during the Byzantine reconquest of Italy. A warrior from the Ostrogoth army named Valaris rode out and offered a challenge for single combat to the Byzantine Army. His shit was answered by an Armenian-born cataphract who rode out. They supposedly killed each other on the first charge, impaling one another on each other's lances.

>>2756256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

Rome's success was never about being braver than their enemies, it was about being innovative and adaptable.