Read Soldiers & Ghosts by J. E. Lendon. He claims that individual combat was what Roman soldiers strived for and he gives pretty good evidence for it...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Printable View
Read Soldiers & Ghosts by J. E. Lendon. He claims that individual combat was what Roman soldiers strived for and he gives pretty good evidence for it...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Kind of reminds me of the story of Sergeant Alvin York during the first World War.Quote:
Originally Posted by runes
EDIT: Your thinking about 2nd Lt. Audie Murphy. (http://www.audiemurphy.com/citation.htm) The movie "To Hell and Back" shows this.
You want some more badass war stuff, check out this site: http://www.worldwariihistory.info/Medal-of-Honor/
Neat little site that tells about the men that were awarded the Medal of Honor during World War 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runes
LOL!
Individual duels aside...
Assuming that warriors choose what is better for them in battle, (like Romans choosing Gladius)
If shortswords are so convenient in close quarters, then what would be the rationale behind some phalanx soldiers like Hypaspistai (as depicted in EB) using longswords and many Celtic noble formations actually choose to fight in a close-knit formation with spear&longsword rather than spear&shortsword? (actually a weapon of choice for Greek hoplites)
To me, it was rather amazing that the top-notch Celtic warriors would fight together as a sheildwall type cohesive unit.
Prestige.Quote:
Originally Posted by Companion
A sword wasn't just a tool of war in the modern sense. It was exceedingly expensive and showed your worth as a warrior and your position in a very hierarchial social structure.
rgds/EoE
But then, not all of hoplites of Massilia are prestigious nobles. But they go with longswords anyway.
Quote:
Its soldiers have adjusted themselves with some Celtic gear to make them of greater use in a close melee if the phalanx is abandonned. They make use of a superior Celtic longsword in close quarters, able to handle themselves better in such situations compared to others with lesser weapons.
This is from EB description of Massilian Hops and I am getting a bit confused.
Its hard to explain but easier to see for youself & test.
A shield like the scutum (Long, rectangular & curved in) makes it hard to wield a longsword properly. The edges of the shild get in the way too much so it limits the use of a long sword.
A round shild, an oval shiled, a long-slender shield, non of which curve in, allow you to use a long sword better since the shield's edges don't really get in the way.
Also notice something, those units that use longsword & fight in tight formation ALSO carry a spear. :yes: Guess for what???? Soldurus, Hypas, etc all carry longsword & spear. So if they need to hold a line, or present a solid defensive wall, or charge in with a solid punch they use the spear, AND once the enemy is tired or disorganized, they breakup the shieldwall and pull out the sword.
The legions of 400AD did the same thing, they carry a hasta longsword, an oval shild, a spear (not a pilum), and some rather nasty darts.
You know, it's not like the Celts were any strangers to big tall shields, spears, short swords or close order fighting - even if their longswordmen generally preferred a more fluid style of open-order combat, probably partly due to mobility and rugged-terrain maneuverability issues. Short swords are much cheaper to make than long ones, and if I've understood correctly were common enough among junior Celtic warriors (who couldn't afford long blades) and militia types as well as backup sidearms. If combining such with a decent-sized shield offered as overwhelming an advantage against a longsword-and-shield man as is sometimes, IMO somewhat tunnel-sightedly, argued, why in the world would the Celtic warrior class that basically made its living and justified its existence through warfare not favoured a spear-shortsword-and-shield combination ? Were it so efficient they would readily enough have observed the matter whenever the longsword-bearing warriors were up against their poorer colleagues with short blades, and drawn the due conclusions - warfare being a somewhat Darwinian affair after all. The cavalry, of course, would still have found long blades useful enough, but if the infantry had had the choice between a cheaper kit that was advantageous relative to the more expensive one it ought to be plenty obvious which one they would have stuck to.
The same goes for close-order, even shieldwall, infantry in other times and places; few of them particularly favoured short swords as sidearms, generally tending to opt for axes, maces and, if finances allowed, mid-lenght to long swords.
The matter may be related to a curious detail I've read of re-enactors having noticed - in the crush of shield-to-shield combat, the actually most intuitive method of getting "elbow room" to swing a long sword or similar relatively large weapon is to go forwards, into the enemy ranks, which is the goal of heavy-infantry clashes in any case. This would seem to fit well enough into the generally rather "proactively" aggressive approach the Celtic warriors seem to have had for combat.
True enough, but factually you're only going to inflict superficial injuries that way unless you manage to open a jugular vein or something along those lines. The structural needs of purely cutting swords and cut-and-thrust types are moreover rather different; the cut benefits from a thin, relatively flexible blade that does "drag" in the target matter and "rebounds" deeper into it from the slight flex it develops during the swing; the thrust conversely works best with a stiff, rigid blade (which typically has a raised "spine" or "rib" for the purpose, as many spears do, or is otherwise thicker in the middle - which obviously increases the "drag" during a cut) tapering to a narrow point. The Celts were AFAIK capable enough of making sharp-tipped long sword also useful for thrusting, but quite simply usually preferred ones optimised for shearing cuts; that they didn't have to deal with metal armour all that much likely had rather a lot to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
Remember people, not all Celts had shields since they were a very mixed bunch, the way i see it is the longer your sword is, the more cumbersome a shield becomes for you. The guys who spent all their time fighting would be very experienced in fighting and would rely more and more on his prowess than a shield, the ones who could afford/use a long sword would weeve in and out through people trying to find their next opponent seeking fame. These would be the ones at the front of the battle line, they would be the first in the charge and the ones others would try and emulate and this is great for inter-tribal warfare which would consist of one on one fights. The younger warriors would have a shield and a spear and nothing else and anyone inbetween would have whatever they could find/afford or whatever suited them, the richer may have chainmail and helmets and perhaps more and might have a shield and medium sword
Now we look at the Romans, they have a large shield and short sword and were generally well armoured (depending on the time period obviously) but all in all, on par with a rich celt. They had the scutum which was as much an offensive weapon as it was defensive, it had a large metal boss in the middle which was perfectly suited for smacking someone in the face as well as defending against large sword wielding Celts who are out for glory. They fought, all in all, rather differently, they were taught to fight as part of a machine, to keep formation and keep going without retreat, they would chuck their pila when the enemy was about 15 foot away and then charge in as the enemy lost momentum (the momentum which the Celts really really needed). Since the enemy had lost their momentum, getting hit with a counter charge is hard to counter (especially when disorganised) and as the Romans move in, pushing and punching with their shields the Celts get hemmed in and arne't able to move freely as they normally would, they can't weild their wepaons as well as they would like and at the same time they are being stabbed at from beind these large shields. You can surivive a slash usually but if you get stabbed it is a lot different since the bleeding is not only internal (much harder to stop) but it's probably also punctured an organ or two and that is a problem in any time period, but especially then.
For a good "longsword vs shortsword example, check out the last battle of Boudicca. There is an episode in a series called battlefield Britian or something along the lines and i think the presenter is Peter/Dan Snow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXVDog-ZOc This is it.
Ignore the religious stuff though.
Uh - I don't think there was any particular trend among Celtic longswordmen towards smaller shields, or any practical necessity for such either; either going by the EB units (which often enough combine a long sword with the tall hexagonal Celtic infantry shield), or by what I know of swordsmanship in other times and places (or the little detail the Massilian hoplites apparently merrily combine Celtic longswords with the big aspis shield, which the Greeks themselves readily admitted being bulky and unwieldy). Medieval warriors for example merrily mated meter-long swords to tall "kite" shields and did perfectly fine far as I know. Heck, the High Medieval pavesari of Northern Italy carried huge "body shields" that rivaled the old Achamenid spara in size and certainly exceeded them in weight (being of solid wooden construction rather than woven wicker), and commonly enough carried long swords as sidearms if their purse allowed...
Moreover, inasmuch I'm aware of the Celtic and Roman techniques of using large shields were similar enough, already due to the great similarities between the shields themselves (and I'll be damned if the Romans didn't originally nick that shield concept from the Cisalpine Gauls in the first place...). Both were carried by a central handgrip proteced by a reinforced boss, and no doubt similarly used to hit and ram the enemy situation allowing; indeed, given the comparatively greater "elbow room" required to wield the heavy Celtic longsword, this would seem like a prime method of creating that space.
Hell, when was the last time you heard of a general fighting at the front?
Hmm, any greek general?
Most "barbarian" generals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
Quite a few Roman generals in the Republic too.
The greeks loved doing it it seemed. Though, it tended not to end well unless you have some crazy stupid-divine aura of invulnerability ala Alexander the Great.Quote:
Originally Posted by palmtree
All three of the main players of the anti-Spartan league that formed after the Spartan conquest of Athens died in the last major battle against the Spartans which led to a peace instead of a victory.
Hannibal was said to have been in the center of his lines to keep his men from routing and coordinate the slow retreat of the center to allow his envelopment of the Romans at Cannae.
Then there were several occasions during the wars of the Sucessors that had kings leading in battle.
Then there was the good old Epierote that lost his head at Argos. And if you're following the history scrolls in EB, you'll see that the Spartan king and your prince both died assaulting cities.
If you want a modern example, Patton was probably the closest. There was that one commander in the Falklands campaign that lead an assault into a prepared Agentine position and was shot to death in the process. If you look at some of the Afghan Mujahadeen leaders, I'm sure you could find a few that did lead from the front.
Of coz roman generals never fought in battle.
"They don't hate romans".. https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/...itivemycx4.gif
disrespect at least...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
Wait, what? :inquisitive:
My feelings exactly.
Not so many. The early Rome was surrounded by more or less civilized and well structered states. And Rome was on the offensive (of course only because they had to defend themselves in advance...). The Romans could force their enemies more or less to fight pitched battles to settle the wars. In longer wars with smale scale warfare (e.g. Iberia) the Romans did not excel, to say it modestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
From the 2nd c. AD onwards the empire was more or less static, Rome was on the defensive. The Roman army up to the beginning of the 5th c. AD was of such an overwhelming might that the enemies (mostly Germanic tribes) could often not dare big battles. Look at the battle of Strasbourg 357 AD: the Romans were about 13000, the Alemanni about 10000-15000, mostly professional war bands, an exception that such a big number came together (35000 from the sources, which is almost impossible to get into accord with the run of the battle). But ridiculously low numbers in a major battle compared with the times of the republic.
Hmm, I would have thought the tribes in southern Italy, and of course the Gauls in northern Italy, counted as unstructured or uncivilised people. Or of course the multitude of Gauls Caesar faced near the end of the republican era.Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
So i emailed Mike loades about Celtic fighting styles and uses of a shield and he emailed me back something quite intresting so i thought i'd share it here.
"Hello James,
Thanks for your kind comments. Apologies for delay in reply but I am in
america at the monet filming a new series and have been on the road the
past few days.
Now to your very good question. Any answer is, of course, pure
speculation - we just don't have enough written evidence on these
matters. However i would suggest one of two possibilities. The first is
that I believe warriors would be likely to fight in pairs - a right
hand man, a wing man, a buddy system - call it what you will. If you're
going into the thick of a melee it is quite a good idea to have someone
watch your back. They may not win as much personal glory as you but
they can help you do so - their role being primarily defensive, a
larger shield could be an advantage.
The second thought is that one shouldn't necessarily think of a shield
as a purely defensive weapon. It protects against missile attacks
(spears, axes, slingstones, arrows etc) during the crucial approach to
the enemy front line. Once there it can be used offensively to smash
into the line and make your way through. Even in one on one combat, a
skilled warrior can use his shield and sword as an efficient and fluid
combination. However I take your point and it may be that once in the
thick of the melee, a heroic warrior would discard his large shield and
fight ferociously with his two handed sword or, according to personal
choice, favour a smaller trage or buckler type shield. I think the
words 'personal choice' are the key and what suits one man doesn't suit
another. Personally I would go for a smaller shield every time - but
I'd quite like a big guy with a big shield behind my back.
Best Wishes
Mike"
It is a real shame we cannot implement a buddy type unit in EB but we all know about the limitations. I hope you all found it as intresting as myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
Rome did just as well in small scale warfare as it did in large scale warfare, it generally had problems mainly with the fighting style the Iberians used which was to charge forward and attack and then just as quickly to withdraw which looked very much like a retreat. When they did this the Romans thought they had broken and so went after them, when they did this the Iberians re-grouped just as quickly and attacked the disorganised Romans who had broken rank to chase down what they thought was a broken enemy. One writer (can't remember his name) mentions how well trained they must of been to do this when fighting in such a large army.
In the later centuries large scale warfare became less common and smaller skirmish's became the norm and generally the Romans became very adapt at it. The main problem the Romans had in the later centuires wasn't the tribal enemies but internal strife (civil wars) and when this happaned the tribes on the frontiers took advatage of the fact that the numbers had dwindled and raided deep into Roman lands. Indeed the Romans did lose a few pitched battles against Tribal enemies but on the whole it wasn't the fact that they were outclassed but simply poor leadership, especially with the battle with the Alemanni although that isn't to take away from the tribal warbands and their leaders, there were of course times when they out matched and out smarted the Romans but to say it was because the tribal enemies overwhelmed the Romans by themselves is wrong.
If the Romans had kept it together politically a bit more, they most probably would of been able to hold off the tribal raids and might of even added more lands. This is total speculation though but i still believe their downfall was the civil wars and that most of the other problems came from that.
That sounds a LOT like two examples I can think of. The first example was in Ming Dynasty China (~1400ADish) when it was constantly raided by Japanese pirates equipped with excellent Japanese weaponry like the katana longsword and wakizashi shortsword. One Chinese general, after many Chinese armies were utterly routed by the Japanese, began a search through China to find ways to defeat the invaders. One of the places he searched included the Shaolin Temple where most arts he found there he believed were now obsolete, save the Shaolin staff. Eventually, he came up with an ingenious idea of creating a squad of men to fight against them. One man held a large, oversized shield, another wielded a spear, another wielded double Chinese broadswords, etc. One interesting invention was the Chinese ringed saber that was meant to counter the Japanese fencing art of kendo that was based on sight and sound by making lots of noise from the rattling of the rings and the bright red silk scarf it had on it. Needless to say, the Chinese armies fared much better after making these reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Internet
The other example that comes to mind is the biblical story of Jonathon and his armor bearer from 1 Samuel 14: 4-13. Basically, Jonathon and his armor bearer decide to take a risk and attack the Philistines' position for the glory of God. Apparently, their attack was extremely successful; the two men slew 20! From what I recall, an armor bearer was like a defensive aid to a warrior and acted like a shieldman who had some offensive capability too, but they were most effective when working together. Both examples sound like those Celts! The moral of these stories? Teamwork rocks! :yes: