What are they talking about in this sentence?

[Shawn]

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

 

[Hyudra]

constantinope was on the greek side i guess, and the arabs couldnt break the walls and was getting killed by fire technology.

 

[Shawn]

what kind of fire technology did they have?

 

[imported_LoKe]

The Arabs lost to 30,000 Greeks is what I'd say.

 

[mb]

Perhaps something here might help:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/strange/20020320-9999strange84.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/strange/20020123-0130strange77.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=aut...l=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&oi=scholarr
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/...eandFallofTheRomanEmpire-5/chap24.html

"But true Greek Fire was evidently petroleum based. It could be hurled in firepots or pumped through mounted tubes ? early flamethrowers. Amazing its victims, it was a bizarre fire that could be projected downward, says militaryhistory.com. It struck a panic as it seemed to "follow swimmers in the waters, and start conflagrations that could not be quenched.""

 

[shortylickens]

Sounds like they were trying to get too many ideas into one sentance.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: supafly
Perhaps something here might help:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/strange/20020320-9999strange84.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/strange/20020123-0130strange77.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=aut...l=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&oi=scholarr
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/...eandFallofTheRomanEmpire-5/chap24.html

"But true Greek Fire was evidently petroleum based. It could be hurled in firepots or pumped through mounted tubes ? early flamethrowers. Amazing its victims, it was a bizarre fire that could be projected downward, says militaryhistory.com. It struck a panic as it seemed to "follow swimmers in the waters, and start conflagrations that could not be quenched.""

that is fvcking awesome! that is something my history teacher failed to mention.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Sounds like they were trying to get too many ideas into one sentance.

yeah, I agree. makes it awfully difficult to write a research paper when you can't tell wtf they are trying to say.

 

[everman]

The walls were made of old stale waffles, and all that the Arabs had were plastic forks. Greek fire refers to spicy feta cheese.

 

[OdiN]

Yeah greek fire couldn't be put out with water so it kinda freaked the attackers out at the time and they saw it as a kind of magic.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

It sounds like you are trying to nit-pick the sentence apart because you aren't smart enough to understand it.

 

[lyssword]

lots of arabs attacked constantinobple, a greek city. The greeks attacked them with special fire,and arab numbers fell to 30000.

 

[Beige]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

It sounds like you are trying to nit-pick the sentence apart because you aren't smart enough to understand it.

Perhaps you are being a bit harsh. Maybe you should have said "because you did not receive proper education to understand it.
Then again we do not know whether he did receive the proper education or not and that is when these type of comments should be kept within ourselves.
I apologize to you if my responce has offended you.

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: lyssword
lots of arabs attacked constantinobple, a greek city. The greeks attacked them with special fire,and arab numbers fell to 30000.

It could also mean something else if you look a little closer...

"fell to the number of 30,000 men."

Meaning:
In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time. However, the Arabs were baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire. The Arabs were defeated by 30,000 Greek men.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Or as you said:
In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time. However, the Arabs were baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire. Only 30,000 Arabs remained.

 

[mb]

double post. fvck charter.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

The Arabs lost 30,000 men. Greek fire was a greek 'flame thrower' of sorts. It was fire fueled by a liquid propellant. Something along the lines of a Molotov cocktail.

 

[thecrecarc]

using my expert analyticle skillz, ill say that sentence is trying to say

THAT, In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men. no appluause please.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

The Arabs lost 30,000 men. Greek fire was a greek 'flame thrower' of sorts. It was fire fueled by a liquid propellant. Something along the lines of a Molotov cocktail.

Constantinople was also part of the Roman Empire, Greek Fire is the name of the technology, it does not mean there were Greeks fighting.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

It sounds like you are trying to nit-pick the sentence apart because you aren't smart enough to understand it.

Ah yes, it wouldn't be ATOT without some unwarranted insult. If you are so smart, then please go ahead and tell me what the writer was trying to convey. Because it seems as if I'm not that only one here who thinks that sentence is vague.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

The Arabs lost 30,000 men. Greek fire was a greek 'flame thrower' of sorts. It was fire fueled by a liquid propellant. Something along the lines of a Molotov cocktail.

Constantinople was also part of the Roman Empire, Greek Fire is the name of the technology, it does not mean there were Greeks fighting.

Right.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

The Arabs lost 30,000 men. Greek fire was a greek 'flame thrower' of sorts. It was fire fueled by a liquid propellant. Something along the lines of a Molotov cocktail.

Constantinople was also part of the Roman Empire, Greek Fire is the name of the technology, it does not mean there were Greeks fighting.

Right.

Well Constantinople was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time. 😉

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

The Arabs lost 30,000 men. Greek fire was a greek 'flame thrower' of sorts. It was fire fueled by a liquid propellant. Something along the lines of a Molotov cocktail.

Constantinople was also part of the Roman Empire, Greek Fire is the name of the technology, it does not mean there were Greeks fighting.

Right.

Well Constantinople was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time. 😉

Eastern Roman Empire, same thing.

 

[myusername]

Well, either the arabs got their butts pounded by 30,000 greek men, or an unspecified number of greeks killed enough arabs that only 30,000 remained. If the latter, previous context would mention the number of attacking arabs, clueing you in to the answer.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

The Arabs lost 30,000 men. Greek fire was a greek 'flame thrower' of sorts. It was fire fueled by a liquid propellant. Something along the lines of a Molotov cocktail.

Constantinople was also part of the Roman Empire, Greek Fire is the name of the technology, it does not mean there were Greeks fighting.

Right.

Well Constantinople was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time. 😉

Eastern Roman Empire, same thing.

Kind of, but you dont get 'eastern Roman churches' of that era you get Byzantine churches.

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: Shawn

In 668-675 C.E., the Arabs besieged Constantinople for the first time, but baffled by the strength of the walls, and the strange effects of the Greek fire, fell to the number of 30,000 men.

What do they mean "strange effects of the Greek fire"? Also when they say fell to the number of 30,000 men, do they mean the Arabs lost that many men or the Greeks? 😕

Betwn 668 - 675 CE, The Arabs began attacking Constantinople for the first time (which implies that the Arabs attacked on multiple occasions, but this is the 1st). However, the walls around the city were difficult for the Arabs to get around. Also, Constantinople was attempting to defend themselves using "Greek Fire." The attack, though, failed and the Arabs lost all but 30,000 of their men.