Why did Xerxes failed at invading Greek city states?
Is it his decision on tactics fault for losing the war?
Greeks had better infantry.
Chariots, cavalry and elephants are hard to maneuver in the hilly and claustrophobic hills of Greece.
>>1020595
Couldn't they just focus on missile infantry or horse archers in hills?
>>1020584
He never really wanted it and just halfassedly tried to conquer it because he was honorbound by his fathers failure to do so
>>1020595
Greek Hoplites weren't always superior to Persian/Median infantrymen. Also chariots were really NEVER more then a symbolic part of the Persian army despite what modern historical bullshit peddles with the Achaemenid military and the Achaemenids never really used elephants in the invasion of Greece.
I will agree that Persian cavalry was handicapped in Greece. The rocky, hillish, craggy enviroment of Greek lands were generally unsuited for pitch battles or set piece formations of cavalry. Whenever the environment favored Persian horsemen, they tended to defeat Greek forces, like in Asia Minor or North Africa.
>>1021110
Pure speculation
Decision on strategy.
On strategy.
>>1020584
During the invasion of Greece Xerxes supply line was entirely dependent on naval power. The Greeks, mostly Athens, through excellent maneuvering smashed the Persian navy and forced them to turn around or face starvation in Greece.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis
>>1021110
"He lost because he didnt really feel like winning"
I hope this is bait
>>1021212
A source that isn't wikipedia would be nice.
>>1021254
> The Athenians had some silver mines in a part of Attica, called Laurium, the whole products and revenue of which used to be distributed among them. Themistocles had the courage to propose to the people, that they should abolish these distributions, and employ that money in building vessels with three benches of oars, in order to make war upon the people of Aegina, against whom he endeavored to inflame their ancient jealousy. No people are ever willing to sacrifice their private interests to the general utility of the public: for they seldom have so much generosity or public spirit, as to purchase the welfare or preservation of the state at their own expense. The Athenian people, however, did it upon this occasion: moved by the lively remonstrances of Themistocles, they consented that the money which arose from the product of the mines, should be employed in building a hundred galleys. Upon the arrival of Xerxes they doubled the number, and to that fleet Greece owed its preservation.
Thucydides
>>1021254
Wikipedia is perfectly fine.
>t. history major who got his degree thanks to it
he did invade athens
>>1021278
You can usually tell what needs more looking into and what can be taken as truth from wikipedia, only autists get wound up over using it.
>t. Another history major who ignored assigned reading and just wiki'd shit and got the degree easily.
>>1021254
Then scroll to the bottom of the wiki page and look for the citations. Wikipedia cites real sources and most historians at my University have actually come to like the website, albeit cautiously.
I haven't read up on the persian wars in a long, long time so correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe another, more minor cause was the massive use of mercenaries in the persian army, which of course weren't 100% loyal and prepared to die in battle like the Spartans for example were.
>>1021401
Discipline was almost certainly a factor. The Spartans literally spent their entire formative years learning to fight and remain loyal to one another.
It's why they were so gay for eachother.
>>1021335
Mein neger.
>tfw I'd just look up books on the topic, write the essay based on wikipedia, and then put the books in the bibliography without even bothering to check them out of the library
>>1021270
>Thucydides
Into the garbage it goes.
>History major
Enjoy working at Starbucks.
>>1021411
>The Spartans literally spent their entire formative years learning to fight and remain loyal to one another.
That isn't particularly unique in the ancient world even in that era of time. Also they got wrecked by literal homos from Thebes before and after despite that training and military obsessed inclination they have.
>>1021254
>falling for the high school "Wikipedia is bad" meme
Gotta be 18 to post here friendo
>>1021437
Why bother posting such an ass-blasted response?
You're trying to save face but really you just look like an idiot.
>>1020584
Herodotus says the Persians were on par with the Greeks, but the rest of the Archaemenid army-the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Lydians, etc.-were quite poor as fighters go, and prone to rout. The majority of the invasion force were made up of these elements, so its easy to see why the Greeks successfully defended their land.
>>1021441
The Spartans were unique in that their entire male population went through the Agoge.
>>1021477
There's no "trying to save" face here. Project harder, mate.
>>1021478
Phoenicians and Egyptians were used solely to give the Achaemenids their navy and operated only as sailors. Also correct me if I'm wrong here but weren't Lydians a Greek/Hellenistic people themselves?
The core of the Achaemeneid army was forced by Persians, Medes, and Scythians co opted into service.
>>1021529
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>1020584
discipline and armor
>>1021542
They were a Greek people, but Lydia was conquered by Cyrus, and King Croesus was made his advisor. They were still under Persian rule when Xerxes attacked Greece.
>Phoenicians and Egyptians were used solely... navy
In Herodotus Histories, Trans. Tom Holland, Book 9.32, Herodotus says Mardonius (Persian general) made the Egyptian marines disembark and fight at the battle of Plataea. Looks like I was wrong about the Phoenicians, as they aren't listed in the line up.
He also lists about 50,000 Greeks fighting for the Persians.
I also have a question. How did Macedonia, an irrelevant kingdom among irrelevant kingdoms, conquer Persia?
>>1021667
>How did Persia conquer Media?
>How did Arabia conquer Persia?
>How did the Ottomans conquer the Byzantines?
>How did the Han conquer the Qin?
>How did the Mughals conquer India?
>>1021622
Extremely doubtful the Persians had anywhere near that actual number of Greek/Ionian Greek auxiliaries in their forces.
>>1021701
Yeah, Herodotus numbers are pretty wacky. He lists 4 million as the invasion force (that includes the supply train as well), and 350,000 at the battle of Plataea against 110,000 Greeks.
>>1021732
I know he exaggerates I just meant in this specific case the fact that it was only a decade or two earlier that under Darius the Great the Persians put down a like 6-7 year long Ionian Revolt and apparently decimated several colonies of their populations that finding that many Greeks in their forces kind of goes beyond belief in anyway.
Though I do agree with another anon who said the levies, whoever or whatever the races they were, formed awful troops and the invasion of Greece would've gone more smoothly if it was just revolved around Persian, Median, and Scythian troops.
>>1021622
>Herodotus
TOP KEK
>>1021689
>Implying Persia was ever irrelevant
>>1022288
It was just a small tributary state of the Median Empire.
No civilization except Rome conquered the land unsuitable for its mentality and too foreign to their native landscape. Most would barely know how to live and rule in countries so different, they'd usually just prefer some sort of vassal-state instead.
Rome was special, they were inclusive and not having religion per se probably helped. Our definition of 'Roman' is wrong anyway, at that time it meant something like 'civilized' more than anything, a lot of people within the Empire didn't even care for anything past the local government and the perks of so organized society. It was literally a brand and the only way to make things work then, thats why it lasted for so long.
Dumb question: How did persians called Persepolis?
>>1022337
Parša (read Parsha)
>>1020584
Mr Xerxes I'm the council of Athens.
You don't get to bring chariots.
>>1022336
Absolute horseshit. When the Romans conquered most of Britain and the entirety of Gaul, they destroyed ancient shrine sites and told the occupied Gaulic and Celtic peoples they had to become like them. Hence why there are so many Roman style temples in France and England.
Romans were very insistent on pushing their civilization on others and made use of this by expanding settled ex-soldiers and officers in Colonias in newly annexed lands.
>>1022358
>>1022376
Takhte Jamshid is the modern Persian name for Persepolis. Parsa was just the region where the Achaemenid tribe of Iran called their nation. We aren't exactly sure what the native ancient name for Persepolis was.
>>1022423
While that is true, they also adopted various gods from Ilyria, Hispania, Egypt, Gaul sometimes mixing them with Roman deities, sometimes with each others, sometimes legions would straight out adopt them in provinces. As much later, their 'religion' was strategic and political tool.
They would often claim territory, intimidate locals to resettle elsewhere, enslave them or kill them destroying their settlements and building their own on top of those or on satisfying strategic points. Following this procedure, either a legionary camp or a town would be build and always following the same pattern, which includes Roman temples.
After that, Romans would be brought there to settle after being granted land. Farmers, merchants, whores and so on. They would trade and mix with the ex-local population and that would always achieve: 1) Romanization of less advanced locals which would make them want to be like Romans out of necessity, respect, fear or whatever, especially considering the fact that Romans would claim the best land, naturally 2) integrating locals into Roman society primarly through military service, enslavement, producing the next generation of half-Romans etc. 3) Locals giving something back in terms of culture, usually new gods, among other things
>implying Romans pushed the personal beliefs of everyone
>implying paying your respects to the gods went any further than paying your respects to the state through necessary rituals concerning old traditions
>implying that should concern anyone but the high ranking Romans only, certainly not some peasant in Hispania
>>1022423
>Roman style temples
I mean, you literally have the Roman style temples for the most absurd gods in all provinces, its just the style
>>1020584
Man, it must suck of Hollywood to turn you into a gay evil black guy
>>1022514
>implying
Their motto was literally "be like us or we will enslave and wipe you out." That exists even today as "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
>>1022557
You should elaborate a bit more on this, because Ive presented arguments that are valid and proven. This major oversimplification of romanization that you claim just isn't the truth.
>>1021212
This battle was undoubtedly one of the most metal events of antiquity
>persians thrown into the water and beaten to death with oars, like tuna fish
>>1022542
>Hollywood
read a book please
specifically 300
>>1022645
Are you an idiot?
>>1022582
The fact that Roman Britain required a constant large garrison of several legions despite the now disputed claims of it being relatively "pacified" is proof enough that the tribals in Britain did not want to be like Romans.
>>1022915
Unlike the Gauls who gladly assimilated after Vercingetorix. Even Iberia wasn't fully conquered until 20 BC and they still had to have legions stationed there afterwards.
>>1021437
>Doesn't accept THE primary source for anything that happened in that era
wew lad
>>1022930
That doesn't remotely dispute the fact that modern British historians are now revising claims with archaelogical evidence from sites at London and central England that show that the Romans maintained multiple war level strengthen legions within Hadrian's wall in Southern England that the tribals refused to be pacified and constantly revolted more often then in Hispania.
Dig sites and other evidence like burial site of six dead Celtic men who were decapitated execution style dating back to the 2nd century which is omitted by Tacticus is now putting the torch to the Roman narrative of how the Romans were treated in the Isles and the situation with their invasion.
>>1022935
>based information on the Persian Wars from second and third hand accounts
>reliable
wew lad
>>1022951
It's certainly more reliable than anything else you can pull out of your ass.
>>1022930
Yep, constant flare ups of revolts and uprisings well into Octavian's period even after he became Augustus. I think Agrippa himself had to be sent there to personally handle the situation.
>>1022582
I think what he's getting at is that a lot of more recent historical finds at notable archaeological sites in England is revealing that Roman Britain even after Boudica's failed revolt was not exactly a "peaceful province".
Some theories are that the unusually large number of legions and Roman soldiers situated well away from Hadrian's Wall implies that Rome's control of Britain was a lot more teneous and weaker then thought. Other academics are still postulating claims like Professor Guy that the legions there were stationed within multiple sub-provinces to avoid future fiascos like the Gallic Empire under Posthumus, to avoid other governors from accumulating too much money and power.
>>1022964
>you can pull out of your ass
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Thucydides is well known for being biased in his writings and the fact his entire knowledge comes well after both invasions happened well before he was even born makes him a very suspicious source of information.
At least Herodotus fucking traveled across parts of Asia and what was then the known world before writing about it.
>>1022964
Don't worry. There's about 10,000 or so tablets unearthed at Persepolis and not even 1% of them have been fully translated so far. Eventually at least a fraction of them will contain information on the Persian side of the Greco-Persian Wars and I'm sure that'll cause all kinds of hilarious butthurt for the anti-Persianfags.
>>1023008
>There's about 10,000 or so tablets unearthed at Persepolis and not even 1% of them have been fully translated so far. Eventually at least a fraction of them will contain information on the Persian side of the Greco-Persian Wars and I'm sure that'll cause all kinds of hilarious butthurt for the anti-Persianfags.
No doubt. But I'm not an anti-Persianfag so I don't know why you even bring that up, because as long as those tablets aren't dug up, scoffing at Thucydides as a primary source is retarded and childish.
>>1023034
>Thucydides
>primary source
That's entire what's being scoffed.
>>1023037
>Living and writing about events that happened in your lifetime
>Not a primary source for philological and historical criticism
Stop talking, you're embarrassing yourself.
>>1023047
>In your life time
He wasn't alive during the Persian Wars, you moron.
>>1022336
>Romans had not religion
absolute nonsense
do you secular morons actually think this?
zero understanding of Roman society
>>1023047
Thucydides was born over 20 years after the second Persian Invasion of Greece. I get what the other anon is saying that Thucydides and even Herodotus are both extremely biased and more or less unscrupulous sources when it comes to information about the Persians.
Both relay on second and third hand accounts of major events, and neither were born during Darius and Xerxes' invasions of Greece. But some things are clearly fabrication. Herodotus regales a story of us about Cyrus the Great sparing Croesus life after defeating the Lydian army because a storm magically "sprouted" out of thin air when Cyrus was about to have him burned alive as a sign from Apollo to spare and pardon the Lydian ruler.
Given that a) we already know that Cyrus did not subjugate his enemies, former or current, to executions or Assyrian styled punishments, and that b) Croesus disappears after the Babylonian Chronicles state that Croesus was killed in combat.
History is all about disseminating fact from bullshit.
>>1023085
Don't forget the crap about how Herodotus claims that Darius when ascending to the throne after Cambyses death was only able to "retake" Babylonia by a loyal Persian soldier mutiliating his face and pretending to be a traitor who supposedly after being put in charge of the rebel army opened the gates of Babylon.
Now if anyone is familiar with Homer, they know this fucking directly parallels and is a copy-pasted version of Odysseus doing the same in Homer's epic. Coincidence? Thought so.
>>1023008
Is that true? What do I have to major in to help translate them? Or is learning Old Persian and Cuneiform enough to get such a job?
>>1023071
>one anon is wrong about religion in Rome
>therefore secular people are ignorant about Rome
do you religious morons actually think this?
zero understanding about human society
>>1023562
Not sure about the exact number but at least 1000+ tablets detailing stuff about building projects, tax records, administrative works, court issues, edicts, and what not are presumed to be on those tablets.
Though I'm pretty sure to translate you'd need to know both Old Persian and Aramic. And possibly Elamite as well. But yeah the gist of it there's a shit ton of records and information on those tablets so who knows what other gems they have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_Administrative_Archives
>>1023577
>the hypocrisy in your post
>>1023745
Are you an idiot?
>>1022680
I think you might be the pleb here. The movie 300 is entierly based on the comicbook by Frank Miller who imagined it as fanfic of the 1962 movie The 300 Spartans. The author never claimed it was based much on historical research and he admited that he was pulling most of it out of his ass.
>>1025066
So you really are an idiot.
Read the original post that started this (who's not even me, by the way).
>Man, it must suck of Hollywood to turn you into a gay evil black guy
Clearly, this anon knows Xerxes's depiction in 300 is inaccurate.
And then you (or some other faggot, because he doesn't even capitalize his sentences while you at least do) come(s) with this response:
>>Hollywood
>read a book please
>specifically 300
For what purpose? The only thing that this response is implying is what that anon already knows: that 300 is inaccurate.
Everybody here already knows that. Even normalfag plebs with no interest in history have a high chance of knowing that. You (both) just want to feel superior for knowing soooo much better than the plebs who take Hollywood adaptations at face value. Man, you're so smart and not at all pathetic.
>>1021254
How old are you kid
>>1025200
If you mean no centralized religion, then sure.
But no ancient civilization was really devoid of religion and we know about the Roman pantheon and their religious thought.
because he was an 8 foot tall transexual with a funny accent
>>1025214
Retard
>>1025225
And paganism everywhere
>>1025275
I'm guessing 12, then.
>>1025300
Paganism is religion m8.
Not to mention they had a widespread Sol Invictus cult right before Christianity took hold.
>>1025317
I'm guessing you are really retarded.
>>1025351
I'm not the anon who admonished you, child.
Go scream to mommy that Internet strangers are being mean to you.
Wasn't Persia sort of a paper tiger anyway?
After the war, Spartans marched into Anatolia and conquered some territories.
And some time later, Alexander wrecked Persian shit
>>1025394
Please stop trying to deflect from the fact you made a stupid comment, keyboard warrior kun.
>>1025415
No it wasn't. The Persians wrecked the Spartans in the Corthinian War and destroyed their entire naval fleet. By the end of the wars between the Spartans and Athenians, both sides constantly appealed to the Persians to act as mediators.
So that is completely incorrect.
>And some time later, Alexander wrecked Persian shit.
Alexander nearly died multiple times fighting the Persians. One young Persian noblemen was going to kill Alexander until one of his generals managed to chop the Persian's arm off from behind.
>>1025394
>I'm not the anon who admonished you
Making a stupid one-liner statement about someone's age for asking for a better source then Wikipedia certainly paints you as being the same poster.
>>1025415
If the Persians were a paper tiger then the Athenian Army in Egypt wouldn't have been routed after their failed siege, counter siege and largely annihilated attempting to return to Greece. The Greeks then again lost all the gains in Asia Minor involving Ionian Greek settlements and colonies because both sides on Athena and Sparta's alliances feared Persian power regained supremacy.
Persia was definitely not a paper tiger after the initial Persian Wars.
>>1025478
>Probably, but it just made me mad that that anon really thought "retard" was an acceptable reply. I know I made it sound like I was the same person, as if he were an actual underage kid.
Damn.
>Probably, but it just made me mad that that anon really thought "retard" was an acceptable reply, as if he were an actual underage kid. I know I made it sound like I was the same person.
>>1025478
>someone said something that upset me on the internet
>better be a hypocrite and accuse them of being underaged while acting wholly the same way
Ironic.
>>1025492
Some other anon accused him, I just figured he was right after the anon's stupid response.
>>1025505
"He" wasn't.
>>1025512
He very clearly was, that anon (you?) has shown he can't do anything other than scream "Retard!".
>samefag accusation
Whatever. I know which ones were my posts.
>>1025536
>(you?)
Wrong.
>Whatever. I know which ones were my posts.
So do the rest of us, dude. You don't have to worry about that.
>>1025585
>kid
>>1021437
t. Fucking Moron
>>1020584
Morale and superior armor, along with naval strategy. There are quite many texts about this such as Herodotus, Plutarch and also later historians.
>>1025611
>not even a primary eyewitness
>getting this assblasted
t. autistic Turkic-Grecian
>>1020584
Greeks were literally undefeated vs the persians during 500 years. Read xenophon and realize why.
>>1025627
Morale was really only with the shitty auxiliaries. Primary advanced was that Greek Hoplites had a huge range advance with their spears having about another meter on the Persian/Median ones. Also armor was a lot closer, despite what pop fiction might have one think in the West the Persians and Medes used scale armor and were not solely wearing no armor at all but Persian way was getting in close with battle axes and short stabbing swords.
>>1025642
>Greeks were literally undefeated by the persians during 500 years
Why was an Athenian army in Egyp annihilated by the Persians then? Why did the Delian League suffer multiple set backs and failure in Egypt, North Africa, and Asia Minor when attempting to conqueror new land after Cimon's death?
>>1025646
*Primary advantage
>>1025642
>Greeks were literally undefeated vs the persians
t. Golden Dawn
>>1021278
What kind of university do you go to where they don't expect you to cite sources in your essays?
>>1025767
I'm wondering that myself. No matter how well researched any essay or write up at the college I went to was, if the professors found out you used wikipedia in any way, they'd automatically flunk your work.
>>1022542
>black
he isn't black
I don't know. Maybe Greece was to Persia what Scotland was to Rome. A small land mass that's far away and doesn't have any treasure and puts up enough of a fight that subduing them would just be pointless.
>>1026390
Let's not forget Greece was largely piss-poor and seen as ass-backwards compared to the rest of the world at the time. The whole issue about MUH FREEDOM is hugely overblown.
>>1022542
>black
>>1021437
What's wrong with Thucydides? Perfectly fine primary source for the Peloponnesian wars, and I would expect a decent source for the Persian wars
>>1021254
While I wouldn't cite wikipedia in a paper, it provides its sources, making it fine for a nameless discussion on 4chan.
Suck a dick, 4th grade English teacher
>>1026470
>Greece was largely piss-poor and seen as ass-backwards compared to the rest of the world at the time
lol what?
Greece had been a major player on the world stage as far back as the Mycenaeans. Their population and overall economic power was nowhere near Assyria, Babylon, etc. but their technology and culture were equal and often times superior.
>>1028146
Bullshit.
They weren't even remotely as urbanized as the Near East in the 8th or 8th centuries BC when in the 5th century, their money, economic output, riches, and other institutions were also inferior.
>culture often times superior
Bullshit.
>>1028196
*8th or 9th centuries
>>1028196
The 8th Century BC was when they were still recovering from their dark age. Things picked up when they started interacting more with the Near East and Egypt in the next few centuries, and they were definitely back in business when it came to the Greco-Persian wars in the timeframe you were discussing.
>>1028216
They definitely were seen as backwards, barbaric and nowhere the economic, military, political, or other standing with the rest of the Near East.
You are definitely incorrect.
>>1028267
Okay, got any sources?
>>1028267
I can just smell the brainwashing.
>>1020584
Sand niggers inherently suck at war.
Even now 2.5k years later they still don't even understand basic concepts such as balistics
>>1028401
>n-nuh uh you go first
Lol so you've got nothing, not surprising. Gonna toss your opinion into the trash once more then.
>>1028395
Ancient Persians wouldn't have looked much different from Greeks back then. This is over two millennia ago before the Turkish invasions and when various Indo-European people are more closely related.
>>1028484
You made the claim early on >>1026470 that Greece was seen as "ass-backwards" by the rest of the world. And all these posts later you haven't cited one primary or even scholarly source for that statement.
If your next reply still doesn't have one, you're just admitting to your own asspulling.
>>1028536
>Thanks for the "debate". Can't say it was remotely interesting at all.
Looks like we finally agree on something.
>>1028540
Oh certainly.
>>1028395
>Sand niggers inherently suck at war.
>>1028267
>definitely
>definitely
What is up with you anon? I want to agree with you, because the Greeks being just kind of hanging there makes more sense to me than them being the absolute geniuses we usually think they were.
But this post of yours doesn't really make sense, especially when you decline to provide sources later.
>>1028781
Burden of proof goes both ways. On one hand you have a Near Eastern civilization that has nearly half the entire world's population at the end of the 5th century under its dominion, and have performed insane logistical feats like building a multi-mile long bridge via pontoons with troop and naval warships across Asia Minor into Europe, Darius' Suez Canal, the Qanat systems, the Persian Royal Road; which spanned nearly 1700 miles through open plains, deserts, mountains, hills, over rivers and lakes,etc...and so on to show off Persian and Near Eastern advancements as well as the courier system and we're given nothing else in turn.
>>1021212
>Battle of Salamis
>>1025924
>if the professors found out you used wikipedia in any way, they'd automatically flunk your work.
that is completely retarded
>>1021667
Decapitation strike at the leadership and a subdued population.
Plus the place was crawling with Greeks anyway so its not like Alex and Co were a strange new sight.
>>1028146
>Greece had been a major player on the world stage as far back as the Mycenaeans. Their population and overall economic power was nowhere near Assyria, Babylon, etc. but their technology and culture were equal and often times superior.
The Barbarians to the Near-East's civilisations
>>1022945
What nonsense mate, there's evidence of local deities still being worshipped and shrines not only maintained but enlarged post invasion.
People naturally adopted Roman culture because it was beneficial
> 6 dead Celts
Wow, fucking nothing. Why would Tacitus even mention something so minor? I really don't see what you are getting at
>>1029999
This. The Greeks have no where near as many contributions to the world as the persians had if you look at the big picture.
>>1030083
>Why would a Roman writer who is fully biased against native Celtics not talk about Roman atrocities?
>>1029702
No it isn't, you millennial fuck.
![z0UjMjx[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TVED2tG.jpg "z0UjMjx[1].jpg")
>>1029289
You don't get to joke about food wars.
>>1030493
That's good for you. But regardless anyone who is found using a publicly modifiable source for information, are going to get booted at the unis or colleges I've gone too.
And I have no problem with that.
What about Artemisia? Was she really a god-like sea captain?
>>1030505
How are you going to "get found out" if you're using it to study?
Using wikipedia for essays can only be useful for tracking sources, but using it to study is perfectly fine. The only thing that can happen is that you get a question wrong in a test.
Lotta asssholes in this thread
The dick waving contests that go on here are insufferable
>>1030547
Many campuses have programs that scan essays and written reports to see how they match with academic articles or those plagiarized from public sites like Wikipedia. Also huge difference going from "studying" to "basing" a project or report off of.
>>1031466
>Many campuses have programs that scan essays and written reports to see how they match with academic articles or those plagiarized from public sites like Wikipedia.
I know, my college did.
> Also huge difference going from "studying" to "basing" a project or report off of.
My point since the beginning.
>>1030092
man you are delusional.its like watching history crash course in /his.That level of ignorance,revisionism and presenting facts as fairytales.
>>1027318
Exactly so.
Well some people just wanna call the father of history aka Herodotus and fuckin Thucydides who maybe,just maybe was the first writer of history who used a scientific method to write his material fuckin hacks.
at least thucydides is the best source for the peloponnesian war 431-404.Cause the fucker fought on it and lived it through.
>>1021437
Incidiary comments and baiting for greekboos or anyone with a brain in function.
