Where did infantry spearmen fought one-handed outside close formation? I assume they carried shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Printable View
Where did infantry spearmen fought one-handed outside close formation? I assume they carried shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:inquisitive:
...
...
...nope, still indecipherable. What exactly are you asking ?
Which infantry spearmen fought one-handed with their spears outside close formation? I assume they carried shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Well, for starters all who did not for one reason or another fight in close formation. Duh. Given that spears were about the first weapons humans used, and the idea of shields id pretty old too, I'd say examples aren't too hard to come by. Take any "primitive" or "barbarian" culture with a metal shortage and no reason to form into potentially quite unwieldy close mass, and you'll have a brilliant example right there.
As well as of course any spearman who normally fought in close order but right now could not for whatever reason. Duh again.
The relevance and point rather elude me. Spearmen were the infantry most likely to carry very large shields, after all.Quote:
I assume they carried shields.
I am a bit too tired to give a proper answer, but suffice to say I think your use of the word "suffered" completely wrong. The Roman army conquered half of the known world without developing a better cavalry arm of its own. Yes, they lost some battles, but what army doesn't? Also, the Roman military could hardly be called entrenching: it was very aggresive, even in its early phases. Lastly, if Roman generals felt they needed good cavalry, they would hire it. So why go through all the expense and social issues of trying to raise good cavalry at home?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
You have lost me there. All I was trying to prove was that early hoplites would have found it easier (comparatively) to ward of cavalry attacks than phalangites, especially if you are not dealing with true shock cavalry (which early Greek cavalry certainly wasn't).
Blast! I meant they would have found it comparativily easier to ward of a flank or rear cavalry attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I guess I really need to get a proper night of sleep.
Well duuuuh can you then name a few example barbarian cultures "with a metal shortage and no reason to form into potentially quite unwieldy close mass" which had spearmen carrying shields with one arm who fought in loose formation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think key word here would be broken terrain.If you fighting in forest,hills or mountains.Using close order infantry formations would be rather pointles. Already in Gaul and lot more in Germania Roman legions faced problems on broken terrain. Also in these kind of enviroments using of cavalry in massed formations would have been futile. For example lets compare Greeks to their neighbours Thracians and Illyrians. Greeks were customed to fight on plains with phalanxes. And it was a good way to fight in open terrain becouse before stirrups cavalrys shock value wasnt really enough to brake spear armed infantry units alone and also heave armored infantry like Hoplites had pretty well protection against missile weapons.In those conditions the best way to fight Hoplites was to use your own hoplites.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
But in hill country like Illyria or Thracia the peltast was a natural choice becouse in the broken terrain they had to rely more on individual fighter,rather then massed body of heavy infantry.The peltast became so succesfull that eventually the Greeks adopted them also.
I think specially movies have twisted our opinions so that the Swordmen are made in to something superior to spearman and spearmen are projected as some levys with pointy sticks.
A stabbing spear is formidable weapon against both infantry and cavalry.And also cost efficient compared to swords,like Watchman mentioned.The majority of Ancient and medieval warriors through out the World didnt carry spears for nothing.A good example for this is Sengoku Jidai Japan,where the swords were almost worshipped.Still the main weapon of most Samurais was yari spear and Katana was sidearm.
As a general rule it can be sayed that if you look through out the history.The people who fought mainly on open terrain was it infantry(Romans,Greeks) or Cavalry(Parthians,Huns,Mongols).Relyed much on dicipline of their troops so they worked well together.
The people who fought mostly on broken terrain developed a warfare that was much more relied on individuals capability but if someone would say that they didnt rely on tactics at all i wouldnt agree. Both used tactics,just tactics that suited their enviroment.
Warfare is just an extreme version of any human project.You either adapt to circumstances or you die.:bow:
Well well, if we aren't copping an attitude. But as you wish, I'll list a few I can think right off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
ancient Celts
ancient German peoples (who had a serious iron shortage and relied on spears above everything)
ancient Thracians
ancient Dacians
ancient Iberians (who often used rather loose-order "light" infantry tactics)
the Vikings (ie. Scandinavians after the Roman period)
And those are just the ones I can actually name out of hand; the full list includes roughly everyone who ever used both spears and shields, and that includes "civilized" folks. The dedicated heavy-infantry spearmen of the latter would often carry very long spears and very large "body" shields, which contemporaries often describe as "being leaned against" (ie. the lower edge resting on the ground); the ancient Persian sparabara, the Medieval Italian pavesari and many incarnations of the Chinese take on the spearman are examples of this I can immediately think of.
Look, you seem to be missing something here. An average spearman virtually regardless of time and place would have his spear as a primary weapon, a shield of any but usually large size, and some sort of backup weapon. The spear would tend to be pretty long (the "international standard" bracket for long one-handed spears seems to have been about 2-2.5 meters), unless it was for example a dual-purpose design meant to double as a javelin or there was some similar reason for it to be shorter, and the warrior's primary weapon. This usually went even for the elite warriors who could afford swords and the time to train in their use; spears were after all cheap, deadly, and offered reach virtually incomparable in one-handed weapons. It would have been a foolish man who did not use it as long as it was tactically viable to do so (ie. until it broke or "range control" failed and the enemy got in too close), all the more so if his backup weapon was along the lines of a large knife as was rather common among the rank-and-file combatants.
This goes both in and out of formation. Spearmen work best in close order and would tend to try to do so most of the time, true, but close order itself isn't always an option (particularly in obstructed terrain) and not everyone used it even when possible for their own reasons. If nothing else not all warrior cultures operated on a mindset suited to such relatively organized ranks. And is the warrior going to simply abandon his main (and often only real) weapon just because he isn't in the optimal conditions for it ? Heck no.
Can anyone give me detailed info about the following greek cavalry:
-Thessalonian Cavalry
-Seleukid Cataphracts
-Kleruchoi Agemata Cavalry
-Heitaroi
Equipment, training, books about them.... :book:
Eh? I didn't know you were so sensitive with all the duhs in your previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I just wanted clarification on why you said spearmen would continue using their unwieldy weapons one-armed in loose combat or why they would fight in loose formation in the first place.
Well, are you satisfied or should I elaborate more ? I must say the underlying logic of your line of inquiry strikes me as quite odd - if the spearmen can use long spears and shields simultaneously in formation, why in the world would they not continue to do so outside it as long as their "distance control" allowed ? Pikes are useless in individual combat solely due to their grotesque size which makes them difficult to manuver and a lone one thus easy to largely bypass, after all.
@Watchman: To use the word of Germanicus (roughly)
"Don't fear the Germans in the woods, as they are in disadvantage, due to their huge lances and shields " - still a good spear and a big shiel are excellent outside of formations, just not so good against a Roman with gladius and scutum.
A true watershed in European history was the ever increasing use of spears with large shields and a backup axe/sword/dagger from roughly 700 BC onwards, displacing largely the bow and axe/sword as main maidens of the warrior.
A fine longbow and a handy strong axe are great for skirmishing and ambush tactics, but don't allow men to stand up to a group of spearmen with big shields.
You're implying that the Romans had some advantage fighting in woodland against Germans, while history shows us differerntly. Just look at Varus in the Teutoburg forest. To be fair, that probably was more of a giant ambush then a 'real' battle, but it stands that the Germans had an advantage wich they used for their maximum advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gealai
Just because there is evidence of some Germans fighting in a shield/spear wall, doesn't mean that all of them did. Even tribal Germans must have recognised the potential of a bunch of poorer soldiers armed with dirt cheap spears and large shields clumped together on favourable terrain.
?Quote:
A true watershed in European history was the ever increasing use of spears with large shields and a backup axe/sword/dagger from roughly 700 BC onwards, displacing largely the bow and axe/sword as main maidens of the warrior.
As far as I know, the Celts gradually started switching from small to larger swords for their more elite infantry (of course the lower end warriors would still carry spears mainly)
The Germanians used axes, but gradually use of swords started becoming more and more prevalent towards the first century BC.
All I've read on the topic suggests the Germanics were dirt poor as far as metal goods went for pretty much the whole Roman period, so they'd naturally have loved the simple, effective and metal-light spear to the death.
It's not like they'd had too much choice in the matter anyway.
Most sources seem to suggest that all other things being equal "barbarian" infantry tended to be superior to their "civilized" colleagues in obstructed terrain - although sometimes the choice of weaponry, like the Thracian rhompaias which were apparently a bit long for fighting in forests, limited this effect. I'm guessing this was simply due to the fact the "barbarians" were more individual warriors, and the disciplined formations that normally gave "civilized" soldiers a clear edge naturally didn't work nearly as well on rough ground.
Can anyone give me detailed info about the following greek cavalry:
-Thessalonian Cavalry
-Seleukid Cataphracts
-Kleruchoi Agemata Cavalry
-Heitaroi
Please?:book:
I'm not implying anything, I'm just marking Germanicus words. :sweatdrop:
You rightly point out that the specific nature of the "battle" doesn't allow for the standard yardstick. How well various warriors/soldiers do outside the battle formation is quite comples and can't be reduced to weaponary. Costume, terrain, overall plan and so on are all important facts. Watchman's argument is well suppported by history, although I might change "civilized" into "trained" or "formed". Regular troops, even very brave ones - see Roman heavy infantry, prussian line infantry - often performed poorly when they had to face nimble warriors in a chaotic situation, when the drilled mechanism failed
EB has a neat line-up of Germanic warriors, which shows well the fact the germans were both able to fight in dense shieldwalls with long lances and in shallow order. Given their bravery and loyality they were hard to beat as the long Roman-German demostrates.
About the axes...
When you study european history starting way back - as I do in the uni - you can recognize interesting patterns. The bow was of immense importance well until the late bronze and early Iron/ La Tene'. There are huge numbers of arrowheads dating from this timeframe, and a good deal of them sticking in human bones.
The axe was and is a great weapon and tool, making it an ideal secundary weapon in low intense tribal warfare, with small raids and ambushes.
The spear - as well as the not so visible (wooden) shield - becomes more and more important as weapon, when the nature of warfare changed from champions with full panoply and some followers to high intense conflict with large amount of warriors on each side ( dating depends on the area, starting 600-500 BC in central Europe). The combination of spears/ shield with an axe is effective in large groups and cheap. Later on the axe gets replaced more and more by swords, although it never ceases to be used in Europe. The bow becomes more and more a siege weapon before the use of Rome ( ~ 0 AD and steppe tribes ( ~ 200 onwards) renew it's use.
For more info ask.