View Full Version : Troy: Fight training for the film.
I have just finished watching the documentary on the fight training conducted for the film troy and found it interesting to hear how the stun men managed to make sense of the weapons, formations and tactic's described in the history books.
For instance according to Homer, Hector carried a spear 5.5M long but in practice the stunt men found a spear that length impossible to handle effectively in a melee and so it was successively shortened until it became a viable melee weapon. The one used in the fight with Achilles was only just over 2M in length.
The trainers also discovered that tight shield wall formations made sense during the advance into contact but that once the formations closed the men needed space to weild their weapons and shields. Thus during the mass combat scenes the marcshals were constantly shouting 'Make Ready', 'Keep your distance', 'Don't get too close', 'Give yourself room' The point being that the extra's were completely unable to use their spears if they got too close to an opponentand unable to use their shields if they got too close to their neighbours. They actually discovered that closely packed infantry were easy targets for more dispersed warriors who were able to lunge forward and take men out almost at will.
Some interesting stuff on Bronze Swords too. They obviously bent easily and could not keep an edge (which mean't that the rubber ones supplied to the extra's were actually quite effective) and after testing various Bronze Sword designs for effect the special effects unit decided that most injuries caused by these weapons would probably be blunt trauma injuries like broken bones rather a cuts of stab wounds. Lunges would have to make most use of the point rather than the edge and would still require considerable strength behind them to penetrate.
One noticeable result was that in the final strike by Achilles that kills Hector you see Brad Pitt stab his sword into Hectors chest and then place his other hand on the pommel and use his entire bodyweight to drive the sword into Hectors body. More like driving in a stake that stabbing someone with a sword.
Woreczko
12-31-2004, 17:34
Interesting :)
On a sidenote, AFAIK there is no mention of use of phalanx-like formation in Iliada, so why did they bother with tightly packed formations?
Interesting :)
On a sidenote, AFAIK there is no mention of use of phalanx-like formation in Iliada, so why did they bother with tightly packed formations?
Well I think it makes logical sense to form a shield wall style formation during the intial advance if only for unit cohesion and missile defence. Those concepts must have existed even if the phalanx didn't.
Sir Chauncy
01-01-2005, 11:09
Using Tactics in a battle eh? That sort of thinking will never catch on.
Crimson Castle
01-01-2005, 11:38
I have just finished watching the documentary on the fight training conducted for the film troy and found it interesting to hear how the stun men managed to make sense of the weapons, formations and tactic's described in the history books.
Ya, I also noticed that.
I was a little thrilled when I saw how the trojans beat back the first Greek attack by throwing their spears into the Greek shields - causing the latter to drop them- before dispatching them with their swords. Nice to see history come to life on the silver screen.
Silver Rusher
01-01-2005, 11:49
Yes, uncannily enough, despite starring Brad Pitt AND Orlando Bloom, that was probably one of the most accurate large-scale historical hollywood movies I have ever seen. Kudos to the producers!
On a side note, what they used in the film was definately, definately not a phalanx. Come on, it always makes sense to use a tightly packed formation if you are going to use a long pike/spear.
On a side note, what they used in the film was definately, definately not a phalanx.
The spears were not long enough for a start, but it would be interesting to see what todays ancient weapons experts would come up with if they were asked to recreate the phalanx system as a workable battlefield weapon.
I personally have doubts about the effectiveness of the thing as its described in most historical accounts so I'd like to see someone prove that it works as described.
KyodaiSteeleye
01-01-2005, 13:25
RE: tightly packed formations - I would think that if your primary weapon is a thrusting weapon - eg: spear, then this shouldn't be a problem - as you need little space to thrust - its cutting weapons, like edged-swords that need lots of room to use properly.
Silver Rusher
01-01-2005, 13:33
The spears were not long enough for a start, but it would be interesting to see what todays ancient weapons experts would come up with if they were asked to recreate the phalanx system as a workable battlefield weapon.
Have you seen Alexander? They had to have had phalanxes in that. I personally haven't seen it, it's supposed to be terrible, but from clips I have seen the phalanx looks quite realistic.
For instance according to Homer, Hector carried a spear 5.5M long but in practice the stunt men found a spear that length impossible to handle effectively in a melee and so it was successively shortened until it became a viable melee weapon. The one used in the fight with Achilles was only just over 2M in length.
So does this mean the unit descriptions of pikemen in RTW (with their 6-metre-long pikes) are historically inaccurate? Or was there some special technique in handling such long sticks?
well, it wasn't single combat so no it's not inaccurate. As a wall, held overhand with a specially designed sheild the Phalanx was a formidable head on adversary
So does this mean the unit descriptions of pikemen in RTW (with their 6-metre-long pikes) are historically inaccurate? Or was there some special technique in handling such long sticks?
The difference is that the people of the Iliad had a mainly man-to-man vision of warfare, with most of the fight being resolved on a duels between soldiers basis.
Pikemen, on the other hands, are on a totally opposed vision of warfare, entirely based on formations and maneuvering.
Pikes in formation, like a phalanx, are deadly effective. Pikes in duel are deadly ineffective.
So does this mean the unit descriptions of pikemen in RTW (with their 6-metre-long pikes) are historically inaccurate? Or was there some special technique in handling such long sticks?
You cant use such a long spear with one hand only. Pikemen with weapons of 5-7 meters use both hands. The Ancient pikemen did use shields but they were smaller than a Hoplite shield so the left hand could be used to hold the weapon.
A pike was actually a weapon that could be used for duels but yes in an individual fight a men with a spear and shield would have an advantage.
On a sidenote, AFAIK there is no mention of use of phalanx-like formation in Iliada, so why did they bother with tightly packed formations?
Homer does describe soldiers closing up and fight in tight groups but it was still a more more fluid warfare with a combination of brave warriors in loose order up front with occasionally close order groups.
On a side note, what they used in the film was definately, definately not a phalanx. Come on, it always makes sense to use a tightly packed formation if you are going to use a long pike/spear.
Its some ago that I watched the movie but IIRC it did look very phalanx like with two big lines of close order infantry fighting each other. It should have been more skirmish/loose order for the front ranks than what we saw in the movie.
CBR
Woreczko
01-01-2005, 17:19
Yes, uncannily enough, despite starring Brad Pitt AND Orlando Bloom, that was probably one of the most accurate large-scale historical hollywood movies I have ever seen. Kudos to the producers!
On a side note, what they used in the film was definately, definately not a phalanx. Come on, it always makes sense to use a tightly packed formation if you are going to use a long pike/spear.
Ow come on - most accurate historical movie?! The landing of Achaians on a the asian shore looked just as an invasion of Normandy with all these archers, catapults and trees sticking in the ground (for what? to stop wooden, self propelled horses?). Archers were in general "overpowered" in the movie - IIRC both sides decided not to advance, because they could have entered the range of bowmen. Pretty silly, don`t you think?
Accurate? It had llamas on the streets of Troy. I rest my case.
For instance according to Homer, Hector carried a spear 5.5M long but in practice the stunt men found a spear that length impossible to handle effectively in a melee and so it was successively shortened until it became a viable melee weapon. The one used in the fight with Achilles was only just over 2M in length.
Maybe Hector really had a 5.5M long spear and used in effectively, it is just that in the movie they used the pike the Brad Pitt way, with all the needless jumping and running around. So say if the used it historically it would be boring for all the hollywood fans.
RE: tightly packed formations - I would think that if your primary weapon is a thrusting weapon - eg: spear, then this shouldn't be a problem - as you need little space to thrust - its cutting weapons, like edged-swords that need lots of room to use properly.
The problem the fight trainers had with the spears was that because they were over 2M long and needed to be held in the middle for balance then at least 1m extended behind the warrior when carried at the ready.
When thrust directly forward there was little problem as the warrior merely extended his arm forward thrusting directly at the warrior opposite. However, this was a futile exercise as the warrior to your front, unless he was a moron, had his shield in place to defend against that thrust.
The effective thrust was one that was not aimed at the shield of the warrior opposite but at the exposed spear arm of the warrior to his right. The problem was that this thrust across at an angle mean't that clearance was needed for the 1M of spear behind the thrusters speararm both when aiming the thrust and withdrawing the spear. If the warriors next to you and behind you were too close then they impeded your ability to aim and thrust your spear. This was not a problem for warriors with the short thrusting swords used later by the Romans but was soon found to be a serious issue for spear armed infantry.
Not only that but given that attacking at an angle proved to be the most effective technique it soon became obvious that if the target was not to be a sitting duck he had to have the freedom of movement to turn and bring his shield arm into service to block the incoming blow. Again being able to step back and swing ones body and shield to block an incoming spear point coming from an angle proved not only difficult but dangerous in a closely packed formation and so once again the trainers found their fighters needed space to move.
When spear armed warriors were engaged in a tightly packed formation by
others in a looser one it was found that the fighters in the looser one had the upper hand being not only to choose targets of opportunity but also avoid the restricted thrust from their opponents even though there were more of them.
Even the simple choice between an underarm or overarm thrust was denied those in a tight formation as it was impossible to raise the spear when your elbow was jammed against the body of the man next to you. Thus the looser formed warriors were able to block the underarm thrusts from the tight formation with their shields whilst plunging their spears overarm over the top of the enemies shield and into their faces.
Have you seen Alexander? They had to have had phalanxes in that. I personally haven't seen it, it's supposed to be terrible, but from clips I have seen the phalanx looks quite realistic.
No don't think its released in the UK yet. I heard the American's didn't like it but I've learn't from expereince that this is rarely an accurate measure of a good film anyway. American audiences don't like having their intellect challenged by a movie in my expereince, after all Master and Commander wasn't popular in the USA either.
The Wizard
01-02-2005, 00:44
On a side note, what they used in the film was definately, definately not a phalanx. Come on, it always makes sense to use a tightly packed formation if you are going to use a long pike/spear.
Actually, the classical phalanx used by the Greek city-states until the Iphicratean reforms was no more than a well-ordered shield wall.
Only when the spears got longer did the formations start to look like hedgehogs. The zenith in such formations in the ancient period was, obviously, the Macedonian phalanx of sarissa-armed soldiers.
~Wiz
KyodaiSteeleye
01-02-2005, 11:49
That's interesting Didz - sounds a bit like the tactic that the British redcoats are supposed to have employed against the highlanders at Culloden (although some say this was only propoganda).
My response would be related to the wizards - that my impression of the first rank of a phalanx was a solid shield-wall, meaning that your left side would have been covered by the right hand side of the shield of the man to your left. Granted, i imagine this would leave you limited options at attack, as you have to do so whilst maintaining the wall. However, with an overarm position, the length of the spear behind you is over the head of the man behind, and you will have a limited option to angle and aim your thrusts.
That's interesting Didz - sounds a bit like the tactic that the British redcoats are supposed to have employed against the highlanders at Culloden (although some say this was only propoganda).
The tactic at Culloden was certainly part of the pre-battle training for the British troops. Whether it would have actually worked or would have been followed by the troops on the day is less certain.
The Scots for a start did not close with the Allied line in a single cohesive wave but actually hit it at an angle and in a 'devil take the hindmost rush'. So, the theory probably didn't work in practice, although no doubt some soldier probably tried to apply it.
My response would be related to the wizards - that my impression of the first rank of a phalanx was a solid shield-wall, meaning that your left side would have been covered by the right hand side of the shield of the man to your left. Granted, i imagine this would leave you limited options at attack, as you have to do so whilst maintaining the wall. However, with an overarm position, the length of the spear behind you is over the head of the man behind, and you will have a limited option to angle and aim your thrusts.
I think Wizard was talking about something different, but even the shield wall idea isn't supported by the evidence.
Logic would suggest that if an armies tactic's relied upon the shield wall for defence then the nations armourers would design shields which provided maximum benefits for this style of fighting.
We can see this principle in action in say the Roman Shield which is tall and square providing maximum protection when locked against others on either side. But the same is true of other cultures that were known to use this tactic and thus carried tall shields.
The Greek and Trojan shields are round and convex, not a very good shape for a shield wall as it leaves numerous gaps at both top and bottom for enemy weapons to find a target. Not only that but the convex shape whilst deflecting missile and weapon tips is as likely to deflect it up into the bearers face as down their side suggesting that the shield was not intended to be used in static defence like its Roman equivalent but was intended to be used to actively block.
This was another point picked up by the fight trainers though not emphasised on the DVD. If you notice, during the 1v1 fights especially, the round shield is used very much like a second weapon by the fighters being brought to bear on incoming blows to block and deflect them. The round shape is well suited to this because it provides equal defence against an intercepted blow at no matter what angle it is held, the square Roman shield however, is intended to be held upright and infront of the body almost as a static defence. The former is suited to a fighting style which expects the bearer to fight an active combat 1v1 whilst the latter suggests that the bearer is expect to fight as part of a formation relying on mutual support.
All conjecture of course but I think it makes sense.
Reading through the discussion on shield walls etc. I just wonder whether one possible way of fighting was that the first line had the job of mainly defending (holding their shields tight) while the actual stabbing (looking for holes in the opponents defence etc.) was done by the soldiers in the second line, who did not have to concentrate on their shield.
Just a thought.
Reading through the discussion on shield walls etc. I just wonder whether one possible way of fighting was that the first line had the job of mainly defending (holding their shields tight) while the actual stabbing (looking for holes in the opponents defence etc.) was done by the soldiers in the second line, who did not have to concentrate on their shield.
Just a thought.
Logic would suggest that this would place both at a disadvantage. With the best will in the world a man in the second rank would not have as much reach as a man in the front. Thus the obvious counter to this tactic would be for the man in the front rank of the enemy formation to stand back and use the extra few inches reach of his weapon to take out the front rank of the enemy formation.
For this to work the second rank men would need longer weapons to compensate and perhaps here we have the beginnings of the concept of the phalanx where a sort of arms race developed involving the delployment of longer and longer spears. However, all other things being equal the man in the front rank will always have the greater reach thus even in a phalanx the front rank seemed to carry weapons even at the expense of carrying shields.
More interesting is whether these ancient warroirs fought in a similar way to japansese samuria. Perhaps the large formations did not actually close at all but once within reasonable striking distance individuals from the repsoective front ranks merely moved forward to seek each other out and fight a chaotic series of 1v1 combats. This would actually fit in with the constant references to individual showdowns which historians have always interpreted as occurring in interludes between the big fights but which might have been mere highpoints in the overall event. After all if Samuria warriors sought out there most challenging opponents in the pell mell of battle then why shouldn't Achilles and Hector seek each other out in the same way.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.