when two armies charge into each other...

[smeegol]

When two armies charge into each other why do they just stop once the first lines touch? They stop and just stand there until the line in front dies, than a new line takes the spot. In real life the armies would mix. Its only logical too. When you have two groups of thousands of people in each charging at eachother as fast as they can... i don't acre what formation either army is in, they're going to run straight through eachother. The frontlines usually either die very quickly, run in defensively fighting until the charge is done and they're in the mix, or if they're big enough (depending on what type of unit) will just knock down the people in theyre way.

a good movie to see to get a better understandning of what im saying is braveheart. does anyone agree or have a reason why it was done like this in STW, and if its going to be more realistic like this in the expansion.

thanks

[smoothdragon]

In military terms, it is better if the army lines DID NOT mix. When the lines break and begin to mix, a unit's line can be become very exposed to being punctured by enemy infantry units or cavalry. I believe in one battle against the Corinthians and Athenians, Alexander the Great led a cavalry charge into an exposed break in the Athenian's heavy infantry charge. That led to a rout by the Athenians and their defeat at the hands of the Macedonians.

[High Voltage]

smoothdragon:
Actually that battle was against the Athenians and Thebans if I remember correctly. The Athenians(opposite of Philip) charged into Philips position on the right of the Macedonian line. Philip had his line orderly step back, making the Athenians break away from the Thebans, causing a gap. Then Alexander(macedonian left) led the Companions(cavalry) and phalanxes on the Thebans line, sending cavalry right in the gap.

Actually this was the main purpose of the Macedonian cavalry. Philip, or later Alexander, would find a way to create a gap in the enemy line, then he would send cavalry and phalanxes charging through it.

[smeegol]

yea i can see why it wasn't good when they mixed, but unless both armies slowed down a lot before colliding they would end up mixing wouldn't they? i know hardly anything about japanese history, but did they try and NOT mix the lines and they purposely would slow down to a stop and fight like its done in shogun?

[ShaiHulud]

I think it has a bit to do with differing qualities of the troops facing off. Try ND against YS and you'll see a lot individual movement, of the type Braveheart displayed.

If a unit effects a 'push' against another, the unit being pushed back loses order and mixing is the common.

'Hold' formation would mitigate against such mixing as the units are under orders NOT to break formation. 'Engage' formation allows units to try to seek the flanks of their opponents.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

[Anssi Hakkinen]

They will mix, or at least end up as something of a mess, if you use Engage at Will. Maybe this is a question of what can be considered "mixing", but at least the STW representation satisfies me. For a more ordered fight, use Hold Formation.

[smeegol]

okay thanks i'll try that. I jsut gotta try and get my shogun to work again.

i got new video drivers, and a new directx version to play Tribes 2 and I got that error in which the screen flickers after double clicking the shogun icon, but than the screen returns to the desktop.

i downloaded the nvidia tnt2 detonator 6.50 drivers
and i downloaded directx 8

what do i have to downgrade to? hwere can i get it? thanks

[High Voltage]

Goto http://www.nvmax.com/ or http://www.the-ctrl-alt-del.com/ and get either the 10.80 drivers or the 11.01 drivers. I'm using the 1080 and it works, and I'm downloading the 1101, which I hear works better. Or you can get the 5.32 drivers, I hear those work but I haven't tried them.

[Laertes]

If full mixing were implemented and chaos reigned with individual samurai wandering around, seeking individual targets -- rather than strict adherence to formations, maybe the engine would be overwhelmed with the extra decision-making?

Or maybe they figured that players would resent the loss of control that would probably result?

------------------
He is justly served; It is a poison temper'd by himself.

[smeegol]

What version of DirectX are you using? I'm downloading the 1101 drivers right now. I have DirectX 8. I was just wondering if that could be the problem. Download complete http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif i'll go try it out.

Thanks for your help.

[High Voltage]

Im using dx7, I've heard 8 has some problems on running Shogun and other games. Not sure though, but if the 1101 doesn't work, then get dx7. If it still doesn't work then get 1080. If it still doesn't work then ask someone else http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[lei]

i thought it was true that Samaurai fought by challenging single targets to honourable combat on the battlefield. i know this died out during the mongol invasions because the mongols used direct cavalry charges straight at the enemy, eliminating the chance to challenge them. perhaps this is the reasoning: each warrior on the battlefield immediately engages the closest enemy, so in formations each front line would be the only ones engaging in combat, further back lines pressing up once the formation breaks or the person in front dies.

------------------
TIGER LILY!!!
check it out for yourself at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.surman/frames.html

[shingenmitch2]

SMEEGOL - in case u missed the post in Mongol room

Mixing of troops hmmm -- well that is actually true of samurai armies and Celtic armies, however the "mass mob" did not occur with Epiriot armies (those after Alexander, using phalanx tactics) nor with Roman (and probably Etruscan) armies. So to say that it would always deteriorate into a mob is incorrect--depending upon era & nation.

Braveheart and virtually every Hollywood movie are VERY POOR examples of tactics. (see every Roman Army movie with slashing sword play where the swords parry each other like fencers---everyone knows that Romans used quick stabbing motions --prefereably aimed at the armpit--- as a short sword requires) If you've based your thinking on tactics from the movies you're in trouble. Just one detail messed up by Braveheart-- the dress of the Scotts is incorrect. The Celtic war paint was NOT used in the times of William of Wallace--who, by the way was a knight, wore a full chainmail armor and Medieval helmet according to his museum in Scotland.


[This message has been edited by shingenmitch2 (edited 04-25-2001).]

[celtiberoijontychi]

I think it is in the movie "fall of the roman empire" . You see a cavalry charge against a roman cntury, the century stops and throws a volley of javelins. Very effective!!

In "Spartacus" u see a roman legion (in the final battle) advancing, formed in cohorts and maniples, the maniples manouvering to close the gaps in formation and build the front battle line.

------------------
Long live Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos

[borisus]

No army have ever kept ordered ranks in all tiems.
in battel the roman legion would bareke up after some time,no formation can stand a great atteck and still hold.

------------------
"A WISE MAN ONCE SAID,LETS KICK THAIR ASS!"

[solypsist]

hey guys this is great, the real problem is the game is in Japan and not in Rome or Scotland. So comparing the game with these examples really doesn't do anything to convince anyone.
A suggestion: watch some Japanese movies. I must admit, when I saw the battle scenes, those rank and file guys kept strict drill-formation, except when they were running.
There's nothing wrong with the way STW portrays the units in battle.

[This message has been edited by solypsist (edited 04-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by solypsist (edited 04-23-2001).]

[InterestingTimes]

Hi, I'm relatively new to this
so forgive any misunderstandings.

I don't really think that it matters
where it is. Humans are the same everywhere.

In European pike battles, It was often
the case that the pike blocks would
simply stop and look at each other.
Then they yelled at each other insults
to work up the nerve to attack. Or
they would simply stand off and try
to poke each other with their pikes.

The "push of pike" was actually quite
rare. It was when the blocks turned
and ran when they suffered the most.
i.e when they broke formation.

In the roman battles it is likely,
they did hold their formations. Each
person protected the person on his right
Every soldier knew that a friend was
beside him and behind him at all times,
this was a huge morale boost.
The romans only ever lost a few times,
i.e. when their formations broke.
( elephants, goth kniggets and so on)
or when ambushed.

it isn't hard to imagine that the
japs did this too.

[shingenmitch2]

soly is quite correct, the Japanese fought very different than classical warfare, in much looser order -- tho they kept better formation than medeival european or ancient celtic armies. That is why they ran around with flags on their backs.

However, for the arguement of ordered fighting in general...

Borisus -- sure there was always a degree of confusion when lines hit, however, if you look at say Alexander's phalanx - they almost NEVER broke order (or else the whole phalanx would collapse) order in the lines was imperative. Same thing with the Spartan phalanx. Roman fighting with three strategic echelons and ranks throwing heavy pilum required ordered units. That is why such a premium was placed upon the Centurion.

As for Romans stopping cav charges. --- not that there was heavy cav used as a shock force for the Romans to deal with until the VERY LATE classical/early medieval times, the tactic was to NOT throw the pilum, but instead to use it like a spear or pike and form the ranks up into a pseudo-phalanx.

The movie "sparticus" has some of the best Roman marching drill in a film, but if you watch the fighting, again the sword technique is ALL WRONG. ;-)


[This message has been edited by shingenmitch2 (edited 04-26-2001).]

[Yagyu Jubei]

I have really enjoyed this thread!
I would just like to point you all in the direction of the Samurai Archives to see what the times were really like!
Check it out at

Samurai.bigsitecity.com/
There is a lot of info on this topic complete with actual writings of the times!

------------------
Watashiwa Yagyu Jubei desu! Ganbate!

[InterestingTimes]

Granted there were some differences in fighting style, but this was due to the technology.

Fighting effectively with the yari would still have required much training and unit cohesion. The yari is relatively hard to use and a well trained samurai with a katana would simply close in fast. It would seem reasonable to assume that they did use techniques that mirror the europeans.

In the earlier era battles, when the fight was limited to a few hundred, the unit's were smaller. About 20 or so broken into about 5 in a subunit. Then it would be a very loose order. This would be in keeping with the idea that individual samurai fought duels while their retainers provided close support.

In the sengoku period, much larger armies were formed and the need for unit cohesion would have increased. One favored tactic of the shimazu was to have a decoy body draw the ememy into a trap. If the decoy body fought in a loose formation then naturally some would be cut of and killed when the decoy retreated.

oh, (slightly out of topic) the gladius was a very well made and balanced sword. I have this on good faith,I have never held a gladius so cannot offer first hand info. Though the gladius was designed for thrusting it was surpisingly well suited for slashing.

[shingenmitch2]

Interesting T
yes, the gladius could slash -- but you wouldn't see them clanking swords off of each other to parry blows like fencers (this is the swordplay in the movies that I speak of) The Scutum (practically a full body shield) was far more effective for stopping enemy sword blows. Films usually portray the use of the gladius the same way Erol Flynn (sp?) would use a rapier in a swashbuckling pirate movie and that is just silly.

I believe your points about samurai fighting are correct. The early samurai warfare was much more of the one-on-one open melee, and rather uncoordinated. The later warfare with troop counts in the 20 and 30,000's and beyond was well coordinated.

[Bodhiharma]

I think you guys read too much history,

And need to go live out the future! MWUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA YOU FOOLS YOU FOOOOOLS!

Sorry...alter-ego http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Honour And Pride
--Bodhiharma Daidoji

[shingenmitch2]

Smeegol- your first point that the lines are too mechanical when they hit, with guys filtering in like robots is also accurate (obviously the computer modeling is the issue, still is the best I've ever seen) -- for any period of warfare. Certainly samurai warfare it would be more chaotic than some. Only, the idea that they would degenerate into a mob is where I differ.

[This message has been edited by shingenmitch2 (edited 04-26-2001).]

[smoothdragon]

A legion of second century BC consisted of 4200 men drafted from the citizenry of the Republic. All non-slaves reported for possible induction. The 1200 youngest and poorest recruits were assigned as light troops called velites. These men carried swords, javelins, and a small round shield, but no armor. The 1200 that were next in terms of age and property became hastati, the first line of heavy infantry, followed by the next 1200 called the principes in the second line. The hastati and principes carried an oval shield, a Spanish short sword (gladius), and two pila (throwing spears). The oldest 600 men formed the third line and were called the triari. They carried a thrusting spear instead of the pilum. All foot soldiers in the legion usually wore a bronze breast plate, helmet, and greaves.The richest men in the draft usually ended up in the legion’s cavalry contingent of 300 or so men. These were divided into 10 groups of 30. Roman cavalry of the second century carried a round shield and long spear.

A legion probably advanced in three lines behind a screen formed by the velites. The first line was the 10 maniples of hastati. A gap was left between the maniples equal to the width of their frontage. The principes formed the second line, with their 10 maniples probably arranged behind the gaps in the first line. The triari formed the third line. Cavalry was deployed to the sides to keep other cavalry and light troops from the flanks. As the moment of infantry shock approached, the velites loosed a hail of javelins against the enemy and then retired through the gaps in the lines behind them. Once the velites had passed, the rear ranks of the hastati maniples moved into the gap between the maniple on the left, forming a continuous line. Just before impact with the enemy, the hastati threw their pila. This missile attack prior to the shock of infantry battle helped disorganize the enemy and weaken their morale. The shaft of the pilum was designed to bend rather than break. If it struck a shield instead of a soldier, it hung there, weighing down the soldier’s shield arm just as the infantry clashed. When the hastati threw their pila, they were acting as their own missile troops. These throwing spears were designed to bend, not break off, if they penetrated an enemy shield. This greatly weighed down the enemy’s shield, making it almost useless. The hastati then followed up their pila attack by closing for hand-to-hand fighting with their short swords which were designed for cutting and thrusting.The heavy infantry of the Roman legion was the decisive arm of their army. They were superbly trained and vigorously disciplined, making them very tough opponents

[EasyCo]

AHHH, person who knows...

I hope,hope, hope the Romans will be the Total War II : Romans or what ever...

EasyCo

[smoothdragon]

I believe a 3D tactical game about Rome will be released by Pyros Studios.

[Alastair]

A good name would probably be Caesar: Total War II

[shingenmitch2]

SmoothD --nice post, I see u gave the abbreviated version (grin) ... for further reading see Connoly "Greece and Rome at War"

And remember the amount of organization and cohesion u wrote about was just during Republican army-- after Marius' reforms. By the time of the Empire the echelons changed a bit and the soldiers were all full-time professionals -- so they became even more proficient.

[This message has been edited by shingenmitch2 (edited 04-30-2001).]

[RageFury]

hmmm..i am thinkin that ur right..although in military terms holdin formation would be best so that ur flanks do not get enveloped..i think that ranks may have been hard to maintain..once in melle..especially since this sort of organization was not adopted in Japan (to the best of my knowledge)

-Fury

------------------
http://www.rebelact.net/shared/barbarian.gif

[smeegol]

yea.. and i forogt the one who posted about which armies would mix and which armies would hold formation: he said that samurai armies didn't adopt holding formation (like the romans used). So that just helps my point, do they not mix (at all) because there would be too much decision making? I don't know why there would be too much because once the too armies meet and if you have engage at will on the soldiers run around to the closest eney and fight. I love zooming in to the battle and watching that if the formations start becming jumpled and you get attacked on the flanks its awesome to see your men running around choosing ppl to attack.

[Steeleye]

Hmmm... that's some Dachi you've got there, Fury....

Kyodaispan

[shingenmitch2]

Big nodachi Fury? I won't even go there ... hehe

As for the accuracy of STW -- I have to believe it is fairly accurate. Stephen Turnbull consulted for the game and he is the FOREMOST western expert on the samurai. No one else even comes close to that guy. If he was pretty satisfied, I'm satisfied.

[Alastair]

Actually not. As far as I know, and I know rather far,
1) Each soldier usually carried three swords, and could use either of two of them. (the other one was solely for hari kari) There were no specialized swordsmen, such as Naginatamen or No-dachi men.
2) All classes of person fought. Even the artisans. Some people even used their pipes (ie smoking) as clubs.
3) No-dachis were not a commonly used weapon, and there was almost certainly no one trained solely in the use of them.
4) Ronin were simply warriors whose masters had died, and were up for hire.

These are just a few things, and I am sure there are many more.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

1. Samurai carried two swords, the katana and the wakizashi. The former was the primary fighting weapon, the latter a back-up and for use for the hara-kiri. (In later times, a separate dagger was carried for use in the ritual suicide also known as seppuku.) The no-dachi was carried in addition to those weapons by warriors who had mastered its use, but they were few and far between during the Sengoku Jidai (the weapon had lost its popularity, as it was rather clumsy and heavy to lug around). The naginata isn't a sword, it's a polearm.

2. Obviously, anyone can fight for personal defence. The samurai were the professionals, and members of other classes who fought in actual armies were grouped with the ashigaru (but, as both artisans and merchants could usually make a steady income through their normal professions, the ashigaru were for the most part impoverished peasants).

3. See 1.

4. By definition, any samurai whose master has passed away can be rônin. However, as wealthier vassals of dead lords could simply become their own masters, the term is usually only applied to the lower ranks of the samurai hierarchy. As their training most often focused on combat skills, becoming a mercenary was a natural next step for them, until they could find a permanent line of work under another lord.

------------------
"The unhappiest of all unhappy states is the republic or principality which cannot accept peace and cannot tolerate war."
- Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli

[Vile]

I don't want by any means disrespect Stephen Turnbull as he writes very enjoyable and interesting books, but I wouldn't go as far as call him THE FOREMOST western authority on the subject of japanese military history. I think he's actually specialized in Japanese religion, not the history of bushi class.
All the same, he writes very good books for the general public (his books are very enjoyable to read, unlike some more academical works), but I doubt if all that he claims in his books could stand academic critique.

Quote
1) Each soldier usually carried three swords, and could use either of two of them. (the other one was solely for hari kari) There were no specialized swordsmen, such as Naginatamen or No-dachi men.
[/QUOTE]

I would like to know where you base these claims on?
I don't think that seppuku, or harakiri as it is commonly called, was so common on the battlefield that every samurai had a weapon solely for that purpose.
Propably weapons were more of a personal choice in detail, but most samurai propably had an o-dachi (long sword.. tachi or katana mountings) and secondary sword/dagger (kodachi, tanto, aikuchi, kabutowari, yoroidoshi, etc.), and many propably had a yari as their primary weapon, some specialized on some other weapons like naginata, nagamaki, tetsubo or no-dachi, but not in great numbers...
Most ashigaru used yari as their primary weapon and naginata had lost it's popularity during the Sengoku Jidai, propably mostly because of the change to more strict formations (naginata takes more room to operate efficiently).
It seems that most of the casualties were caused by missile weapons (bows before arquebuses were introduced and arquebuses later).

-M. Vilenius

[shingenmitch2]

VILE -- If Turnbull isn't the authority, who is? As far as I know, no one has specialized in understanding the samurai, their battles, tactics and warfare in as much detail as Turnbull. Also, I believe he is the only westerner who has been allowed to take part in actual war "recreation" battles in Japan (akin to U.S. Civil War recreations)

[This message has been edited by shingenmitch2 (edited 05-07-2001).]

[ShaiHulud]

If not the only Westerner to participate, he was at least the first to be permitted to play the part of a leading Japanese general in one celebration. (Something about 4 generals, as I recall it..)

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

[Moriboy]

Not to be a spoil sport on the historical dialog of colliding armies, but at least in STW the AI often does unexplicable things with troops. Last night I watched two units of fresh enemy YS standing at the flank & rear of a cavalry unit I wasn't watching. Ugh, make me shudder. Maybe they were on a smoke break. Without a doubt, I get away with things no sober & sane human would allow. It's really not a feature, it's a bug.

[shingenmitch2]

Moriboy -- you're not a spoil sport (grin). We have been talking mostly in the theoretical/historical realm. I haven't been talking so much about the coordination between units, or how and when they fight, simply more about what happens when a unit starts fighting another unit -- the crash of arms.

In this respect STW has some plusses and minuses. Formations are kept, but certainly too ridgidly.

In terms of what u are saying about battle coordination, the AI for STW is one of the best I've seen, but as with all AI at this point, it leaves much to be desired. Human opponents are still the most fun and challenging.

[Dunhill]

I don't see much mixing on the battlefield in STW. I have noticed it when people use the redzone and rout through armies, and when the formations are spread out a bit giving room to flank, but when it is shoulder to shoulder and both sides charge it usually stays that way. You can identify the line of battle aftewards by the line of dead on the ground, as I often do when a battle is winding down and I go to see how my partners have been doing.

It might be nice to identify dead sprites by colour to give a touch of realism to the results of battles, I don't think it would take much to do, just a correlation between unit losses and sprite colours.

[Vile]

Quote Originally posted by shingenmitch2:
[B]VILE -- If Turnbull isn't the authority, who is? As far as I know, no one has specialized in understanding the samurai, their battles, tactics and warfare in as much detail as Turnbull.
[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry I can't drop too many names, but I think you're stepping on many toes here when you are saying that NO-ONE even comes close to PhD Turnbull. There are many western historians that take their studies very seriously and are "specialized in understanding the samurai, their battles, tactics and warfare". PhD Karl F. Friday is one that comes to my mind. He's assistant professor at the university of Georgia and has a menkyo kaiden ("a graduation diploma", or the highest rank gained in traditional bujutsu ryuha) in Kashima Shinryu (a traditional bujutsu school).

Like I said, I would in no way disrespect Mr. Turnbull! I have his books and they are really enjoyable to read and have lots of valuable information. But then again I wouldn't canonize him as the foremost historian of samurai martial culture as there are many other, who do serious research, but don't publish so much literature for the general public (thank god, someone does! I'd hate to only read academic text).

[This message has been edited by Vile (edited 05-09-2001).]

[Didz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by smeegol:
In real life the armies would mix.

Who says! I have read numerous first hand accounts of battles and invariably two lines do NOT mix until circumstances force them to.

When you have two groups of thousands of people in each charging at eachother as fast as they can... i don't acre what formation either army is in, they're going to run straight through eachother.

Again! not normal behaviour in real battle. for the most part two forces advancing on each other will do so steadily seeking to maintain their cohesion and will only charge at the very last moment.

The frontlines usually either die very quickly, run in defensively fighting until the charge is done and they're in the mix, or if they're big enough (depending on what type of unit) will just knock down the people in they're way.

This of course would be the sure fire way of losing the battle. The objective should be to kill the enemy without getting killed yourself. Wild sword swinging charges into the centre of an enemy formation almost guarantee's that you will get a sword in your back. Bad move.

a good movie to see to get a better understandning of what im saying is braveheart.

Never, Never, Never, take any notice of what you see in movies. film directors show what looks good and will make them money not what actually happened. Compare Braveheart with historical reference works such as the '45' rising and you realise that Scots did not charge blindly into melee at all indeed one of the most important lessons the British learnt before Colluden was that the Scots were vulnerable to a well aimed bayonet thrust under their sword arm when they raised their claymore to strike. Up to that point the Scottish sheild wall was consider almost impenetrable.

IMO: Shogun is remarkably accurate in its handling of melee situations. Formations do get intermingled but only when circumstances dictate it.

[shingenmitch2]

DIDZ --- errr... I guess that would be "ditto", see my earlier posts (grin)

VILE -- I'll defer then to you're knowledge. But as you say, there isn't much else printed on the Samurai ARMY tactics -- at least easily available books. I am a bit of a book afficianado, and have found tons of rare WWII East front books (Halder's War Diary is one of my favorites), but on the samurai I have found Turnbull and very little else.


[This message has been edited by shingenmitch2 (edited 05-10-2001).]

[Alastair]

Speaking of history books, smoothdragon, where did you learn all that about roman warfare? Could you refer me to some Roman military history books? I plan on studying the Romans after I finish (in my somewhat amateurish way) the Napoleonic times.

[smoothdragon]

For a good summary of warfare, read this:
A History of Warfare by John Keegan

History of the Roman army formation:
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

And for learning about Alexander the Great and his tactics, visit this site:
http://www.hackneys.com/alex_web/alexfram.htm

[EasyCo]

I really like Romans...Sooooo....

Here is a very good book. Roman Warfare author Adrian Goldworth

[Alastair]

Thanks all. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Ahhhh .... not Goldworth. I believe he is very wrong in many of his assertions. I could go on for hours, but I won't. Suffice it to say he's a young graduate and this book appears to be much of his thesis work, but much of it is pure theory that goes against the accepted understanding of warfare at that time. His stuff is meant to be a bit controversial and although he does have some good points, there are simply too many holes in many of his ideas.

So far the best book I've read, was produced by the scholar/artist Peter Connolly. His book Greece and Rome at War, is comprehensive and his explanation of tactics are some of the best and most accurate you'll find. To accurately draw pieces, he's had to build replicas and test them out. He has a sound practical knowledge of the weapons and armor and has been in the history field for years.

[EasyCo]

Shingen:"I could go on for hours, but I won't." http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
This is not the right topic..But...How do you no Goldworth?? I would like to know??

EasyCo

[This message has been edited by EasyCo (edited 05-11-2001).]

[shingenmitch2]

I've read his book and some bio stuff about him. I've done fairly extensive reading on classical warfare and Goldworth is in disagreement with many. He also make many sweeping statements about unit tactics without any explanation or backup.

Most of what is known about Roman tactics comes from a few primary accounts (actually written at that time). Empire tactics are fairly well established, Republican tactics after Marius's reforms are less well known, and early Republic tactics tend to be mere guess work.

Many simple things are really only conjecture and not known for certain about Roman warfare -- how did the cohort/maniple actually charge? How did the run start? and the what was the actual timing of the pilum throw, or were they in contact with the enemy and the rear ranks make the throw? Did the the maniples exchange position after contact with the enemy, and if so exactly how?

These things are just not know for certain. Too many books simply state that which is conjecture as if they were known facts--which they are not. Goldworth makes too many sweeping statements about many tactical issues.

I believe there are authors out there who have better theories--ones that are more thoughtful and in somecases even tested out. I, of course, have my own opinons (grin)

[EasyCo]

Ok...cool. Im kinda a History buff..Especialy WWII.

[Vanya]

Are ye guys sayin' that the battle between the Scoripion King at the gates of Thebes with Anubis' army is NOT representative of typical sengoku era clashes???

Oh wait... Duh! It IS a good example, as the pooch warriors were shown chasing their enemies from the field of battle 'cause they lacked courage and honor and were fleeing for their worthless lives!!!

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Didz]

Quote Originally posted by shingenmitch2:
DIDZ --- errr... I guess that would be "ditto", see my earlier posts (grin)[/QUOTE]

Sorry! for some reason my posting seemed to take ages to appear on the board. I actually wrote it before I read your excellent post. Honest;-)