Because I'm bored, I have fallen to the temptation of transfering one of the clasics from my native, norwegian forum to this larger, international forum. (globalization and all that...)
Every forum needs at least one silly debate to keep things cosy. Traditionaly this takes the form of "who would win of a european knight and a samurai?" This is of course a real silly question, and way boring.
This debate relates purely to the butchness factor of the contestants, not combat performance. Also, the categories are a lot better...


In the fist category we get down to basics. Literaly...

Who's the butchest?™
Part 1
Neikid guys with big shields


Contestant One:
The Greeks
[ Linked Image ]

Yup. He's neikid, he's got a big shield, he is coverd in olive oil. He's also wearing armour, which can be seen as a sign of sissyness, but on the other hand, it lets him kill more persians before he dies.
Tough call


Contestant two
The Picts
[ Linked Image ]

He's neikid, he's blue, and he's got the biggest mustache north of, well, just about everyting. From this illustration, he looks like he's waxing his legs, which is not butch at ALL, but this could be artistic convention...


So, ladies and gentlemen your coments and votes ?[/size]

Rain today Elling!! :D
Guys with snot brake (mustache) are hard one's (i have one) so i vote on that guy :cool:

Mohawks are butch. The Greek gets my vote.

Everyone knows the Picts were much more butch than the Greeks.

That mohawk thing are a mustache brush :D

To be honest, my comment was aimed at stopping this topic and getting people on-track again. There are plenty of sites on the 'net for this sort of thing.

Dagnubbit, was not the one on blankvaapen.org sufficient? :p

Johan Schubert Moen

....whereas the Picts were known to run into battle in there birthday suit I believe. I don't know about you but that seems to be pretty good psychological warfare right there. I bunch of angry naked blue guys would creep me out if i had to fight 'em. So now after my short effort to keep this arms related (or at least warfare related anyway), I will cast my vote for the Picts.

Ooo, didn't the Picts sort of "revere" their swords more highly than the Greeks too? Or was is just the Romans who saw there swords as just tools? This seems to make sense though as the Greeks would have then had armor (or perhaps more armor at least) to contend with which would have made there swords less efficiant. On the other hand the Picts would have had better luck butchering eachother if they had no armor. Just an observation.... and probably a wrong one.

At the risk of getting into some really bizarre stuff here, speaking of artistic conventions, Greek Hoplites and nudity in battle: There is a very interesting, and quite unique, set of paintings on display in the Museum of the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe, New Mexico. These paintings, refered to as "the Segesser Hide Paintings" were done in the first half of the 18th Century on buffalo hide, probably by a Pueblo Indian artist for one of the Spaniards who participated in the Villasur Expedition to the Plains in 1720. A Swiss Jesuit by name of Segesser somehow came to own these, and sent them home to Switzerland at the end of the 18th Century where they were stored until the 1980's when they were returned to Santa Fe.

The paintings seem to depict two separate incidents. First is a raid (probably by Tlaxcalan allies of the Spaniards) on a Lipan Apache village on the Plains. It has many interesting aspects to it, but it is the second painting that is of note here. It shows what is believed to be a battle that took place in 1720 between Spaniards and their Pueblo and Tlaxcalan allies, and the French and their Pawnee and Oto allies. (It's actually doubtful that any Frenchmen were present, but since the Spaniards got their butt's kicked, it was good for propaganda). Most of the Spaniard's allies have bows and arrows, while the Pawnee and Oto (and supposed Frenchmen) have flintlock fusils. All in all its a really, really nifty piece of artwork, as well as a wonderful, and rich portrayal of history.

I was fortunate enough to be a member of the symposium that studied these hide paintings, and was therefore able to get a very close look at the details of these paintings, and one of the things that became apparent was that a large number, perhaps even a majority of the Pawnee and Oto warriors (though I don't recall the illusory Frenchmen in this way) are depicted with erections. VERY WEIRD to me at the time. And I mean HUGE erections. It wasn't something that was mentioned much while we were looking at the paintings, needless to say. However, my patron (the fellow who had invited me to take part in the symposium), being the only combat veteran in the group, took note of this and really chose to focus on the phenomenon. His take on it was that it had a lot to do with the whole experience of combat, of manliness versus manliness, and that the immediacy of death, life and the total awareness of such during combat was being shown in a very graphic way by the Indian artist. Needless to say, he created quite a stir!

There is a fascinating book out, by Dr. David Gross, entitled "On Killing". It's a phsycological study not of death, but of the violent act of killing. One of the things discussed are the phsycological parallels between sexual intercourse and killing. Accordingly, it's not unusual to get a sexual rush from murder (thus explaining to some degree the various pathologies that combine both in one violent act). Furthermore, monkeys often show agression towards other males via erections, so we're not quite as far along as we might wish to believe.

Thus the whole concept of rushing nude into battle (with erections waving proudly, agressively and defiantly) is far from unusual, it's just that most "civilized" societies have chosed to distance ourselves from this. But it's still there, clothed in our thin garments of civilization, and only coming forth on occasion, and then usually being quicky hushed up least the real word get out. As I said, pretty bizarre stuff!

Gordon