Printable View
Very strange to me that militia is similar to trained units.
What about, morale, training, discipline, way of life ?
Trained soldier should win against militia because they were trained ,trained ,drilled, payed.
Free upkeep is good but that means there is no reason to build trained of same kind.
Uber peasants ,panzer elephants, elven archers ??????
Proper soldiers have better stamina, and slightly higher stats as well. Plus, it's in the professional line of troops that you get the better units anyway - like knights &c.
In my warfare as a English I did not see any diference VH/VH in the begining.Morale should be much lover in foregin country and high in homeland.
In the medieval world militias (and peasant armies) achieved astonishing results. Who you thought were f.e. the Swiss when they won their first victories against the Habsburg dukes?
Or what used the upper italian cities who fought successfully against the HRE in the 12th century?
As late as 1500 a peasant/militia army defeated the Danish king and his professional army (among them high rated Landsknechts) in the battle of Hemmingstedt.
Militias often were of doubtful quality but that was not always the case.
So I like the fact that some militia units are not merely canon fodder.
Ahh the famous attack of king Hans on the Ditmarsh people.Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
Well, obviously they had a brilliant leader as they managed to confine the Danish army to a single road and then ambush that army several times. You can say it was similar to Teutoberger Wald in many regards.
The Danish king even lost the original Danish flag that had fallen from the sky (legend, but he still lost it).
Anyway, when the unpacker arrives, I will give the Peasant Crossbowmen some advantages in armour, while the Militia Crossbows will get a little morale. That pretty much sums up to me what their respective strengths were compared to each other.
i like many people asumed that the milita units (i.e those from the cities) would be worse but it appears that it is certainly not the case. in general you need castles for heavier more advanced troops, but cities are fine for producing your basic infantry.
You need castles to produce peasants, since they can kill all those town/spear militia. They can even kill armored sergeants! Stupid spear attribute!
:furious3:
Yes. All hail Peasant! :2thumbsup:
I guess, one could argue, the peasants were better trained (physically) than town militias (from all the hard labor on the fields).
That shoul just give them better stamina, which I find to be fair enough. But they are not armed or trained in any way, unlike the militia. And having a spear is significantly better than a trifork.
Tri-fork has 3 pointy things, while spears have only one... Also, I bet hours/per day wise, peasants had way more experience with the tri-forks than spear militias with their spears :clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Well, castles are supposed to train the more elite units compared to towns. With the way CA did peasants this game, they are correctly built from a castle since they're like elite units. :laugh4:
The pitchfork is an abstraction for a wide variety of implements... Peasants probably brought clubs and knives and other nasty things as well.
Which are all less capable weapons that the trusty spear. The spear is just about one of the best weapons ever. And there is a reason basically all troops carried one. Or that most weapon trainers emphasise that equal level swordsmen and spearmen should not engage as the spearmen will usually win. In Japanese martial arts it is a general rule that kenjutsu practitioners(swordsmen) should be three levels above any yarijutsu opponent to have an equal fight.
Besides a spear and shield is an intuitive form of combatstyle. You can basically give anybody a large shield and a spear and he will understand without any instruction how to use it effectively.
I don't mind that spears are supposed to get beaten by swords as it is really an abstraction of elite and not elite infantry. But it becomes silly when craptacular Peasants can take avantage of the setup for that.
I use spear milita as cannon fodder in a schiltrom formation; they keep the gate and the wall breeches giving a time for the elite troops to charge the flanks of the attackers. Usually this ends the siege, but I send out the cavalry to finish as much as possible from the routed enemies.
True in a one on one fight, not true in a formed melee. A spearman will admitedly always have the advantage over a swordsman in a duel because of his reach. If the swordsman steps forward to even things out, the spearman can step back, and still reach him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
But in tight formation, you cannot step back, you cannot keep that safety distance, and you cannot use wide, circling swings or figure 8s either, the longer your spear is, the more you're restricted to predictable forward thrusts, either overhand or underhand. So the swordsman who dodges the first stab and gets you in his kill range has a good chance to smoke you, since his weapon is faster and more wieldy.
Not to mention the obvious drawbacks in terms of being able to turn to face a flank attack...
Medieval battlefield weaponry disagrees. Basically all infantry had spears, especially those in close formation.
Think about it, the swordsman don't just have to contend with your spear alone... If his own buddy is a little slow, or is a bit of a coward, he can suddenly get several spears in his face.
Also, why do you think that the most famous spearformation, the hoplite phalanx had spears and swords, but mainly focused on spears? Because spears simply are better and don't require a lot of room to use.
The idea that swords > spears comes from a simple source. The fact that those who had proper swords were often good with them. We are talking about nobles or rich citizens who had time and money to get the best equipment and training. Then in battle they would trounce basically all spearformations they faced becasue they were far more than those three levels better. To an outsider it would like like swords indeed were better.
And since that is how the game does it, then I have no problem with spears being generally beaten by swords.
In any case, the point was that spears are not disadvantaged against various farming implementations. Hence Peasants really should never haev a chance against a formed spearunit.
No, cause your buddy behind you has a chance to beat the sword guy as well. If you're in really, really close formation, your buddy 2 men behind you can kill the sword guy as well. I doubt sword guy can dodge multiple stabs at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Of course, if the spears get hit from the side, then they shouldn't be able to turn around fast. I think that's how spears should be in the game. They should beat everything else on a frontal battle but be the most vulnerable to flank and back attacks.
But then that would trash the rock/paper/scissors thing. I mean, it's going to be quite hard to get swordsmen round the side or back of a canny opponent who has a decent number of units, far easier to do it with cavalry, and so this would make swordsmen only really effective against other swordsmen, which makes them pretty much pointless in the scheme of things.
I see what you mean (and wholeheartedly agree that spears are sorely inadequate in M2TW), but then why would those trained and wealthy individuals choose a sword (or an axe, or a mace for that matter) over such an obviously superior spear ? Surely they would have been even better spearmen with that same amount of training, and with better spears than the rest ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Trained and wealthy nobles also used spears in formation. The French and English knights used their lances at Agincourt on foot in a 'push of pike' (not true pike formation as that implies drilled and disciplined troops, which neither side possessed).
For the same reason the rich eat virgin lobster in black caviar sauce and you hamburgers. To make a class distinction and keep it there
Militia troops are awesome and not just for the Italian factions (in which case there is precious little need for castles). Some units, such as pavise crossbow militia, are quite a bit better than readily available castle units. They also have an advantage in upkeep. The only thing to keep in mind is their morale. As long as they stick around to fight it out, militias are more cost effective than castle troops in most cases.
Learning to fight the early game with spear and archer militia perhaps bolstered by mercs is invaluable and will help your economy significantly.
Yes, yes I know knights did use spears on foot from time to time. They also used swords on foot, axes on foot, flails on foot, zweihänders on foot etc... so there has to be a practical point to all of these other weapons, hasn't it ?
Social distinction is fine and dandy, yet I don't think it holds much value when your life is on the line :laugh4:. You can wear a sword to tell everyone that your purse is huge and your d*ck even bigger still, but wield another weapon in actual battle if it's more convenient. In other words, the rich eat lobster because, you know, it tastes better than McDonalds :sweatdrop:.
Besides, the Roman legionaries had great success with their puny stabbity swords, even against professional, trained-and-wealthy spear and pike formations, and they certainly didn't use them out of social distinction. They were the grunts, not the social elite. And their swords weren't their secondary weapons either, as can be argued for medieval knights.
So there must be something going for swords, and something that allowed them to trump spear formations. I just can't picture what :laugh4:. Harder to break maybe ?
Swords/axes/flails are used for personal combat (of which there was a lot on Medieval battlefields) or as a secondary weapon when the spear is impractical (too close). You use spears or halberds in large formations. So yes, social distinction is an influence on what weapons you use. If you want to be seen, prove your manhood and get heaps of ransom money, you have to fight one-on-one with swords like REAL MEN, not be a faceless peon with a sharp stick.
Romans also threw sharp sticks at the enemy before charging, so it wasn't just their swiss army penknives vs the phalangites. The gladius WAS their secondary weapon.
Yes, as dopp said, using a spear usually means being faceless, in formation, and in a team, which goes against everything the noble knew, which was being the first into the fight, killing as many peasants as possible, and beating up as many enemy knights as possible, something which the versatility of the sword allowed for. The blade of the sword was effective against unarmoured peasants, yet was ineffective enough to club heavily armoured knights till they were fit for ransoming.
When the Roman Legions went against the Macedonian Phalanxes, the quality of the latter had by the time degraded sharply; lack of flank supporting troops like Theureophoroi, misuse of skirmish troops like the Peltastai, and the famed Macedonian cavalry of ages past were practically non-existant. Nobody, but the Swiss and Flemish and the Diadochi, won any battles with a army of pure pikemen. However, the Swiss and Flemish almost practically fought armies of pure cavalry, and the Diadochi fought only other Diadochi, so they weren't that disadvantaged. Oh, and the majority of the Macedonian Phalanx during the Roman invasion was made up of lesser, levied Phalagitai, and not the professional, property owning Pezhetairoi class.
One of the main reasons the spear a usually supperior weapon wasnt used by nobles was the fact that it was also a team weapon. A battle was a competition of sorts for nobles, teamwork existed but fighting as a cohesive unit wouldnt work when you out to best the man beside you. So most ditched the spear and went for the sword, mace etc. The sword was also favored for chivalry reasons, it represented a cross. You will notice though that as the medieval period went on, the sword steadily became elongated and slowly became to be like a spear though. By the time of the repier you can no longer slash with it, it is purely for thrusting like a spear.
As for the gladius, thats something of a different beast. It wasnt just the gladius though, it was used with a large skutum the two complimented each other well. It allowed for more flexibility then the pike and spear but the close range weapon also forced it's user to be in a disciplined formation. Imo though the gladius was truly one of the better weapons created throughout history.
2 points spring to mind here:
1. The Romans had those big shields and fought in disciplined formations. the result was that their would have been only 2 places a pike could have been pushed through. Over the top of the shield, but it could bounce of the helmet their if you weren’t careful. The second place was the gap between shields, but it probably wouldn't hit the guy holding the shield at the front and the next man back would have his shield in the way. As a result it would be extremely difficult to actually hurt a Roman Legionnaire in formation with pikes or spears.
2. (Something I picked up from a documentary on Spartacus a couple of years back). The Short Sword used by the Legions WAS NOT the Gladius. That, as the name implies, was used by the Gladiators and by extension Spartacus. The Legions short sword wasn't as wide, although it was a touch longer.
I think as much attention needs to be focused on the pilum as on the penknife the Romans used. It wasn't just something to "even the odds" a little before the serious stabbing part, it was crucial to a successful attack. A well-timed volley would seriously dent the enemy's line, and then it wouldn't really matter what your men were armed with when they rushed through the openings created. As long as it poked the bad guys and they fell down, good enough.
Bollocks. While there were some rapier models which did not include a sharpened edge, this was a very rare thing, and the majority of rapiers were quite capable cutting instruments. Of course they were much better for a thrust, but you could quite definitely kill an opponent with a slash to the throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
The thing to keep in mind about the rapier is that it's a duelist's weapon, and developed for use against an unarmored opponent, a situation in which you don't need great weight to achieve an effective cut.
Well duelling weapons aren't even military swords to begin with, but I think he's also referring to heavy cavalry sabres and the like which emphasize the poking part.
My point was merely that spears are better for formations where their reach is utilized, while swords are better for personal combat. I'm not sure how that got translated into spears pwn swords.
For those who perhaps don't know it, the English billmen developed from peasant weapons. This is also how the ax and hammer became weapons of war. The hammer (war hammer) was particularly effective as a medieval weapon.
I have a few issues with how some of the units are classed and who has what special abilities though.
I just had a wonderful battle that used all or almost all professional troops. And one I lost using almost all militia troops. In fairness though the militia were a bit out numbered and out classed. I so bled the enemy that I could easily overpower them if I had another strong force in the area though...too bad I don't.
I must say that archers are much more effective in this game than in MTW...about on a par with RTW though, I would suppose. I fought a full stack of English with almost all dismounted knights and swords men with a few knights thrown in, with the Scots.
(sorry no pics) but I had 4 highland archers, 2 merc crossbowmen, 1 merc spear, 2 highland pikes, 2 highlanders, 3 swordsmen, 4 assorted knights and a general. The AI kept feinting a charge to try and get me to commit troops. He had no archers so mine had free range to thin his ranks...all his men were heavy armored and the cross bows did most of the damage but there were a few lucky shots by the archers as well. When his knights tried to get at the archers they found the pikes waiting for them. I circled a couple of my weaker knights to his flank...hidden in the woods. When his infantry did charge they hit the pikes and spear first and the highlanders and swordsmen went into their flanks..then in the general jumble that fallowed I hit them in the flank and rear with the knights... I lost about 300 while he lost more than 1200. Not bad considering the blue/red bar said I was hamburger to start out.
Actually whenever the legions faced pikeformations they were in trouble... THe only reason they didn't lose, was because of the lack of support from cavalry, or the pikes having too little flankprotection.
The Romans lost two heavy duty battles against Pyrrhus, and a third that has recently been disputed as a victory, more likely to be a draw (in which the pikes were engaged in woods, hardly the home for them). They then faced pikes at Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, where they won. At Cynoscephalae they were lucky, it was a chance encounter that saw half the pikes not deplyed before they were engaged by the more mobile legionaries. The other half was successful and nearly routed their opposing legions, until some of the centurions and tribunes among the victorious right wheeled about and attacked their flank/rear. I think that any force would have blucked under that.
At Pydna the Romans were forced back and back and back across the entire level battlefield. And the Roman commander was scared shitless (he later commented on that). But because the Romans refused to just be rolled over, they were eventually pushed back into broken terrain. Meanwhile the Macedonian cavalry refused to assist their phalangites. So on the borken terrian the pikeformations began to disintegrate, leaving individuals, squads and even entire centuries to take advantage of the gaps. Gaps that should have been closed by Thureophoroi or other infantry like that. Not surprisingly the Macedonian pikes fell apart soon after.
So the victories were never gladius > pike, but sensible army > not sensible army.
Btw, the gladius went through many changes. There is no one gladius. And gladius means sword, and 'gladiator' has taken the name from the armament rather than the other way around. Just like one gladiator was a trirarius, a man with a net and a trident. Trident = trirarius... well about so. And there are other examples.
Also the hoplomachus gladiator proved to be so seriously overpowered initially that his shield was shrunk and his spear made heavier (and longer) so as to give the others a chance. That is the first case of playbalance I have heard of, and it is was in the real world.
Also in this discussion, we should be careful not to bring late infantry into this. Twei-Händers and the like... With platearmour the spear began to lack hittingpower, and was not really dangerous anymore, bludgeoning and power was needed more.
But when both sides were at best protected by mail, then the spear was plenty good. The difference was that good infantry had a sword/mace/axe/whatever to back them up should the spear break (which they do tend to). Imagine your situation then if you have no backup... 'Crap' would be my first thought.
And there are of course situation where spears aren't the best weapons. Imagine them on walls or in cramped hallways. The spearman would be in serious trouble there, unless he had plenty of other spearmen to back him up. It would be like being in formation with a lot of non-combatants, worst of both worlds.
But when I look at various units with swords in the game, they tend to be rich or noble. So I mentally give them a spear as well. Then it fits. DFKs would have spears, but their swordanimation is just a representation of them actually also having proper swords (though it could be argued that Armoured Sergeants would also have swords).
I am currently in a campaign as Milan, and I find this to be true. The militia is very simular to the castle troops, with only a few minor units (i would not use anyway) missing. The two drawbacks of building in cities, The stats are simular for the units, with the militia city troops a little weaker than their castle equivilents, and I cannot build any of the guilds that increase weapon strength in the cities. I decided to go all cities at the momement and my economy is booming, as well the costs for maintaining my army are low due to the free upkeep in the cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by katank
Haha, I didn't know that. Brilliant trivia :laugh4:. I can imagine the talk on the forums "No you idiot, Sauromatae are not modelled accurately in the colliseum, I don't care what you say !" :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Thanks for all your explanations in any case, everyone ! Things are a lot clearer to me now. :bow:
~:cheers:
Well, to be honest you shouldn't take it that literal. I wrote it like that to make a point.
But I doubt the Roman watching the hoplomachus devastate other gladiators felt he was particularly overpowered. He was a man, and as a man he was attributed the victory.
"Ahhh... Yes Decimus pwns every time, he is simply teh roxxors!!!!11111!!!" Rather than any comment on the hoplomachus as a kit.
However over time the Romans refined the gladiator system, made it more streamlined, longer fights (armour not protecting your life, merely protracting the fight) ect ect. Obviously a man with a small shield and longer spear would be more fun to watch than a man who looked much like a hoplite.
It would be more mobile and a lot more gory (lots of small wounds ect, rather than single thrust and that was it).
So it was never a contious effort to balance the gladiators as the strength were believed to lie with the fighters themselves. But in the end the results were the same. The spearmen had been nerfed.
Fair enough, all I was stating was what the Documentary said, which identified the Swords used by Spartacus’s men specifically as Gladius, and as being specifically different (and superior), to the sword used by the Legions, which was given a totally different name (although I can't remember what it was).Quote:
Btw, the gladius went through many changes. There is no one gladius. And gladius means sword, and 'gladiator' has taken the name from the armament rather than the other way around. Just like one gladiator was a trirarius, a man with a net and a trident. Trident = trirarius... well about so. And there are other examples.
Obviously the documentary was either wrong, or was using an unusual naming system of some kind.
That Pike Info is actually quite surprising TBH, as I noted I can't see many ways for a pike to actually hurt a Legionnaire due to the size and type of use employed by the Legions. Of course, a Pike wall might well have been able to prevent them closing if it was well trained, and then wear them down over a long period. Just seems a littlie odd that the Romans didn’t do better.
Well the phalanx was hardly invincible anyway. Alexander had to bail his phalangites out at Issus and Gaugamela. The latter in particular saw Persian cavalry break through gaps in the Macedonian line and sack Alexander's baggage train, forcing Alexander to break off pursuit and allowing Darius to escape. It was easily for even elite units to lose formation in the heat of battle, hence the need for good cavalry support. The Athenians (or was it Thebans?) managed to defeat a Spartan phalanx with skirmishers.
Attacking a phalanx was hardly instant death unless you rushed at them and went out of your way to get spitted (like that lunatic Elf in LOTR). It's just a bunch of guys with sharp sticks going poke-poke-poke and using their mass to force you to break formation, not some mighty Hedgehog of Doom that kills all it touches. With good armor and a discipline (like the legions possessed) you could engage them head-on and hold them in place until the cavalry outflanked them. If the pila volley did its work you might even be able to break their formation on the charge. The least would be a draw with few losses on either side (you can't hurt them and vice versa), since most casualties are inflicted only when one side routs. I think a penknives vs spears comparison is unnecessary to explain why the Romans defeated the phalanx.
The Macedonian Pike Phalanx is not the same as the Hoplite Phalanx of the Peloponessian wars. The Spartans only ran when they saw the Athenian Hoplites forming up; the peltasts mainly decimated their morale. Only 250 of the 600 were killed in total, including those killed during the rout, so the peltasts initial volleys probably weren't that damaging, especially since the peltasts were able to engage all around the Spartans, avoiding their shields.
At Issus and Gaugamela the phalanx was under tremendous strain, if you follow tradition numbers given for that battle. It is obvious to see why they needed to be bailed out. The fact that they did held on for so long proves something. Anyway, the phalanx was designed to be part of a military system which incorporates infantry, cavalry, and archers, and it required all systems to work in order to fight properly, which is in the hammer and anvil system. If the hammer was not functioning, as Kraxis has said earlier, then obviously the system will fail. The Legion was designed to require no other support, therefore in a pure Legion vs Phalanx match the Legion will win of course, but thats like saying that a man without arms will lose to another with arms in a boxing match.
The phalanx could have been 'just a bunch of guys with sharp sticks going poke-poke-poke', and it wouldn't have mattered; since they only supposed to hold down the enemy, while minimalising casualties. The kills will come from the cavalry and the light and medium infantry.
Yes, and that's why arguing whether spears are always better weapons than swords or vice versa and using the legion vs phalanx example is a problem. Lots of other things going on there, making it much more complicated than "legion beats phalanx therefore swords always beat spears". Morale, terrain, tactics, other arms and plain luck (the Romans charging and routing the phalanx before it could form up properly) could all play a factor.
Having said that, I do believe the phalanx did more than just poke people and pin the enemy down. It was a concentrated mass designed to bludgeon its way through the enemy line and prove once and for all who the REAL MEN were, heavy infantry fighting in its toughest and most unrelenting form. However, this did not make it invincible or even irresistible, hence the need for cooperation with other arms. This cooperation was missing against the Romans for a variety of reasons, hence the loss. I wasn't trying to downplay the effectiveness of the phalanx, I was just attempting to explain how the Romans could have fought it face-to-face and not died instantly as some people seem to think. It is a strong formation and, some historians think, quite a bit more mobile than it appeared.
As for Issus and Gaugamela... inflated force figures aside, the vast majority of the Persian armies were camp followers and irregulars, which would only have served to impede the serious fighting men (ie the Greek mercenary phalangites and elite Persian cavalry), which were roughly equal to Alexander's 40,000 or so. All of Alexander's men, moreover, were hardened veterans of relatively high social standing, used to working together and in high spirits after previous victories and plenty of phat lewt. Alexander was quite adamant about maintaining as few camp followers as possible to increase the marching speed and logistical efficiency of his army. Most of the Persian army was routed without even crossing swords with their opponents (having your king run away almost immediately will do that to you). Fear and defeatism is really infectious. Yet the phalanx did run into trouble in both battles when it faced elite troops that stood their ground. That's not to say that they got beaten up badly, just that they needed help from time to time.
Btw, I think castle troops should be termed 'feudal' or 'mercenary' rather than 'professional'. The true professional troops are the state troops you get from high-level militia barracks and military academies ie gendarmes, demi-lancers, pikemen and musketeers. Professional armies require centralised taxation rather than feudal dues to maintain. There were no real professional troops in the West from the demise of the Roman legions until the rise of the dynastic state armies in the early 16th century.
Well spear vs. sword huh. Today the sword is a ceremonial weapon of most armies of the world. However, the spear, while absent other than as a flag staff is still in use, have you though of the last ditch effort of a bonnet charge? Every solider is issued that knife that fits on the end of his rifle, making it into a spear if I am not mistaken. It sure isn't used like a sword and it is a lot more effective than just the knife alone held in the hand.
The pike phalanx was actually pretty active in battle.
Imagine a man with a pike (and lets assume he is protected so he can use the pike effectively), such a pike would be pretty heavy (hence two hands), and it would taper into a relatively small head. Combine the strength of two hands thrusting, with the relatively heavy weight and small point... You effectively end up with something that is armour piercing. In fact the Romans found that their shields were penetrated in the battles with Pyrrhus. The shields were penetrated? That is pretty bad for the frontline troops. And the way it is presented makes it clear that the Romans suffered a lot of casualties through their otherwise excellent shield (the heavy republican shield, not the lighter imperial shield). That says soemthing of the killingpower of the pikes when in formation.
I have heard that the main problem for the phalangites when in combat with non-pikeformation was getting the bodies off the pikes again. That implies that the pikes were considerably more deadly than just static points.
Also, as teh pikes advanced they would compress the enemy formation. Trust me, it is not easy for a formation of men to walk backwards without falling over, it is however much easier to advance, but in this case only the pikes could advance. See the problem the Romans faced? It is impressive that they manged to stay together at all.
Btw, Magnesia was lost because the Romans won the cavalry fights and the pikes were spread out too much, not forming a single line that could soak up the Roman infantry. Bad planning really.
Thanks for that Kraxis, TBH I’d always assumed that Pikes weren’t that penetrating, (I figured most of the effort would actually go into holding them up, so you wouldn't be able to push them forward too fast). I also followed the movies a bit in assuming the shield was virtually un-penetrate-able under normal circumstances.
Shields were/are generally very good protectors, but even the aspis/hoplon is mentioned time and again to be penetrated in the battles of the hoplites.
And thrown javelins often penetrated shields. Perhaps not fatally so very often, but it clearly indicates that shields were not portable force fields.
Imagine the pikeman again, in conjunction with the warsong the unit is singing he knows when to take a step forward and push at the same time. That would be a powerful thrust, simlar to a ram at a gate. penetrating an enemy shield? Definately not all the time, maybe not even once in 20 thrusts. But 1:20 is deadly enough for an entire frontline. That would mean hundreds of shields penetrated with each thrust. The man would have to drop the shield if he wasn't already skewered... Terribly thing in front of so many points.
The pike wasn't a wonderweapon, but it wa dangerous to those who faced it, and the Romans certainly disliked it for it was one of the few things that could overpower them where they were normally strongest, in the center. And of course seeing friends getting killed while you can do nothing to avenge them is not fun. Even knowing that right now your own forces are closing in on the flanks of the enemy is little help, as such will still take long to reach the center.
Some accounts say the Romans found their shields being penetrated by Parthian arrow fire too... they really needed to find a better armor supplier. Army-issue will do you in every time...
Not really surprised if it was a heavy, (as in weight), Javelin TBH. But the stuff with Romans having things going through their shields is informative. Shields are often described as being hard to get through, Roman Shields doubly so. Indeed it was the Size and quality of that shield which is so distinctive for many people.Quote:
And thrown javelins often penetrated shields. Perhaps not fatally so very often, but it clearly indicates that shields were not portable force fields.
Interesting Information, and many thanks for it.
This thread is deviating significantly from the original spear vs. sword debate.
Anyhow, the pike phalanx can be seen as perhaps the first example of a truly successful massed formation. Later iterations include Spain's tercio pike and shot and then Napoleon's famous attacking column. These formations are extremely powerful against enemies by sheer power of being able to punch through enemy lines. Also, the devastating effect on enemy morale is often enough to get undisciplined enemies to flee in panic upon an advance. However, these formations need backup and can be shredded through outmaneuvering and artillery.
In any case, in M2TW, the biggest strategy to learn is probably flanking and maneuvering. Pinning almost invariably works and few forces survive flanking/back charges by heavy cav. I've very rarely had enemies break through the middle (totally outmatched that time with numerically inferior number of spear militia vs. dismounted Norman knights).
Shields are not easy to penetrate, of course not, that is why they were used (and still are by the police). I hope I didn't give the impression that they were. Shields worked! Period.
But that doesn't mean that they were able to withstand everything or even a whole lot. Shields were broken, penetrated and generally lost in battles often enough, and they were then replace afterwards. If they protected a man for a single battle, then it did it's job as it should. Afterwards the man could get a new one.
The shields used against the Parthians seems to have been the lighter imperial version, or a step in that direction. They were a bit smaller (cut-off ends) and two layers of wood rather than three.
If subjected to continual archery it seems to me that at some point an arrow would hit a junction of the strips (the shields were made of little strips glued together) on both layers. That would make a penetrative hit possible if not likely. And of course there were always weakspots and little flaws and weaknesses in the wood ect ect... I'm not surprised that the Romans would experience arrows going through their shields in cases where arrows rained on them for hours. But interestingly it isn't a feature the Romans seem to fear much later on, and I haev to personally assume it wasn't anything that happened regularly, or when it did, it wasn't dangerous to the man behind the shield.
No you didn't I just had an overly high opinion of Roman Shields. I was under the impression they where a lot stronger than that. In effect I thought only things like Muskets and Lances, (i.e. the medieval stuff that would have gone through plate like it was cheesecake), would be able to penetrate it on a regular basis.Quote:
Shields are not easy to penetrate, of course not, that is why they were used (and still are by the police). I hope I didn't give the impression that they were. Shields worked! Period.
True enough.Quote:
But that doesn't mean that they were able to withstand everything or even a whole lot. Shields were broken, penetrated and generally lost in battles often enough, and they were then replace afterwards. If they protected a man for a single battle, then it did it's job as it should. Afterwards the man could get a new one.
That explains my overestimation of roman shields, I thought they where wood backing with a metal front, rather than pure wood. I would expect such a shield to be proof against most things since it would likely be Plate Armour or better in terms of protection. Hence my overestimation~:0 .Quote:
The shields used against the Parthians seems to have been the lighter imperial version, or a step in that direction. They were a bit smaller (cut-off ends) and two layers of wood rather than three.
If subjected to continual archery it seems to me that at some point an arrow would hit a junction of the strips (the shields were made of little strips glued together) on both layers. That would make a penetrative hit possible if not likely. And of course there were always weakspots and little flaws and weaknesses in the wood ect ect... I'm not surprised that the Romans would experience arrows going through their shields in cases where arrows rained on them for hours. But interestingly it isn't a feature the Romans seem to fear much later on, and I haev to personally assume it wasn't anything that happened regularly, or when it did, it wasn't dangerous to the man behind the shield.
You should take a look at another John Keegan work on Waterloo, where he suggests the real reason why Napoleon used the column was simply because he was usually on the offensive and the column is the best suited for manuevering at speed across broken ground. That the revolutionary fervor of the French armies often overwhelmed less resolute opponents cannot be denied, but the column is hardly an ideal attacking formation in and of itself. More determined opposition like the British could simply shoot the head off the attacking columns.Quote:
Originally Posted by katank
There, now this thread is completely off topic.
All free men had the duty of picking up arms and fight when required. They were expected to do so until the age of 60, so I believe, in those days, the average peasant was not a mere weekend warrior.
Even if without the advanced training and equipment of professional soldiers, their mindset was probably not all that of the reluctant, frightened, peasant that wants nothing to do with war.
Ah good...
There were metal and strengthenings (not always metal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
For instance the edge could have iron or bronze (though not regularly), and the shield could have fairly big 'L's on the corners (about 3/4th out towards the corner) made of metal. They would be really good at protecting the user against cleaving cuts that might destroy the shield entirely. But a facing of metal would be too heavy. The scutum was already fairly heavy due to it's size. And the only other shield that had a similar size with a metal facing was the aspis/hoplon in Greece. But to keep weight down it was decidedly thin, and not worth much as protection, it is generally assumed it was put on to give the shield a sheen and to protect it against the elements.
A shield wasn't really that tough, but what it could do that armour couldn't do as well, was absorb and deflect attacks. The shield could bend with the enemy weapon, or the user could deflect the attack so it would glance off the shield, rather than let the shield soak up the power of the weapon. In the case of te pikes that wasn't really an option. If you tried to absorb the pike just kept going and eventually impaled you, and deflecting would be hard (but possible), but then there was an entire new rank of points to contend with. And the guys behind them would have been 'bored' until then and would converge their points on you very fast. Hence you would have trouble staying in one piece.
So you can say that te pikes just defeated the shields rather than bullied their way through them. But if you happened to put power against power, the shield would buckle before the pike would... Ouch for the legionary.
And the militia of towns were particularly less included in similar rolls? No, what peasants did, the townsfolk did, and often more.Quote:
All free men had the duty of picking up arms and fight when required. They were expected to do so until the age of 60, so I believe, in those days, the average peasant was not a mere weekend warrior.
Even if without the advanced training and equipment of professional soldiers, their mindset was probably not all that of the reluctant, frightened, peasant that wants nothing to do with war.
But actually peasants were free of military service, you think of the free Greeks and other citizen soldiers. Peasants were far from citizens, they were nearly serfs.
The feudal system in it's most basic form is that Peasants provide the work and money, and the nobility provide the protection. I think it is something like 'The nobility has a right to work (as a good), while peasants have a right to protection.'
Were you a free peasant (landowner rather than one who 'rented' the land from a lord) you would have to serve, but they declined rapidly in numbers, and were all but non-existant in several countries, such as France.
So the unit Peasants, are in fact men that are the poorest and most unwilling men to serve. They have in fact been denied their part of the treaty they signed with their lord. They would likely never have served in any army before and their lords did their best to keep weapons away from them (unlawful for them to have certain weapons if any). If and when peasants served with no equipment to speak of, they were there to provide mass and somebody the enemy could tire themselves on. They were not there to kill trained and professional Sergeants.
Cities being the king's own domain (he litterally owned the cities), provided the king directly with troops, militia. So whenever the king went to war, so did militia. Cities were required to have arms and armour for a certain amount of troops, and each citizen was supposed to train for some time each year. So whileve not really great most of the time, militia forces were not to be scoffed at.
And the pointwasn't to kill, but to win. Nobles realised that going around with scars and having inflicted them was a lot better than one dying each time. You can get the gals with a heroic scar, but not if you're dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi
~:smoking:
Thanks for the info Kraxis. Just done some sums because of what you said. A shield 5 feet high and 3 feet across (what where typical roman shield dimensions anyway as that’s my best guess on them), that was 2mm of steel thick would weight 50 pounds (OUCH). Fairly good reason to not use metal right their ~:p.
Random question, (possibly belongs in the history section), considering that leather was, as I understand it, fairly hard to cut or pierce, (compared to Metal), would a wooden shield with a thick leather covering have done any better?
Indeed would it have been possible (in terms of construction, rather than size), to have produced a better shield than the heavy duty roman one?
Most shields actually had a leather covering, but it was soft.
Properly tanned leather was expensive, and is actually pretty heavy too (skin is heavy, thick condensed skin, which tanned leather is, is very heavy). I don't know if tanned leather shields would have been good or bad, but I believe there is a reason such shields were not used. Perhaps they stood up badly for wear and tear, perhaps they were not flexible enough... It could be many things, but if tanned leather had the weight and protection right (and not considering money as there are always people willing to pay), then I'm sure such shields would have been mentioned somewhere. I haven't heard of such shields, but perhaps there are such mentions? In any case I'm not a walking library so I don't know really. I just don't think it was practical.
::the Roman reenactor walks in::
Actually, the Roman scutum is remarkably tough and isn't as obnoxiously heavy as you might guess.
The scutum was basically made from two layers of plywood, one with vertical segments and the other layer with horizontal segments. This is deceptively simple; that sort of "cross-hatching" does not let the shield buckle easily without weighing too much. The shield was rimmed with bronze or occassionally brass, and had an iron boss in the center to protect the hand.
Roman legionnaire tactics actually called for the shield to be used in a sort of punching motion after receiving a blow; this would force the barbarian backwards, exposing his stomach for a quick thrust with the gladius (and often the metal edging would smack the barbarian quite nastily in their nose). This requires a reasonably tough shield; Romans were not stupid, and would have either changed the tactic or the shield rather quickly. They did neither.
That Roman shields could be penetrated by Parthian archer fire does not demonstrate that the Roman scutum was weak but rather testament to the fact that Parthian bows were extremely powerful. Roman shields generally did a superb job of deflecting arrows; there was a reason for adopting the testudo, after all.
And as for fighting phalangites; these were probably the toughest infantry foes that Rome had to cope with, but cope with it Rome nevertheless did. They did this because, of course, they were vastly more flexible than the phalangites were. Terrain and the use of the pilum and their effects on a phalanx's coherency should not be underestimated; the Roman legionnaries could easily hack their way through the jumbled mess of pikes. But what is important to note is that even when phalanxes were orderly, the Romans were still able to exploit this, effectively "pulling a Legolas"; that is to say, they would simply push their way through the forest of spears. There is a critical gap between the tip of the spears of a phalanx and the phalangites themselves, a point where not even the pikes of the further-back ranks reached. Once a legionnaire got past this point, using his relatively greater tactical mobility (later phalanxes were often overweighted with too much armor) and his shield, it was only a matter of time before he began carving up a phalangite, which would leave a gap which could be further exploited, and so on.
The initial coming to grips with the phalanx was the most dangerous part, but once combat had commenced the legionnaires almost inevitably were able to get through the pike wall.
Actually the sources are pretty clear in that the legionaries did not get in among the phalangites when the phalanx was ordered. Nor was the pilum of any apparent effective use. It is mentioned specifially to have been remarkably ineffective.
A lot of speculation is around as to why that was so, but generally it is believed thatte forest of pikes broke up the pilums so that only a percentage actually fell head first and thus posed a danger.
If a legionary had gotten in among the phalangites while the formation was ordered the formation would come to halt as they nearby men would have to drop their pikes to deal with him. That in turn would leave more openings, and rather fast, even if they managed to kill said legionary before he could kill anyone (best case scenario). It would be a quickly falling house of cards, yet whenever the Romans faced the pikes head on (ordered), it took hours to finish the battle.
The smallest attested units to have 'infiltrated' the phalanx was actually maniples, led by entrepeneuring centurions who reformed their troops to something more sensible and then edged into the gaps between tactical units. But only after the phalanx had begun to get disordered.
Had individual legionaries been able to infiltrate, the push of the phalanx would have staggered to a halt within half an hour as units tried to form up again, while others didn't want to advance alone. It would be a horrible mess terribly fast.
In any case the legionaries that faced proper pikeformations were not imperial legionaries with the 'lighter' twolayer shield that was actively used in melee. They were the legionaries of the 'Polybian' legion, with a larger curved oval shield, far too heavy to use in punching (I don't know about you but 22 pounds gets heavy pretty fast if you punch with it). The shield was a protable wall for them, and little more, of course it was better than the smaller shield the phalangites carried, but directly using the shield as you said would be near impossible as a doctrine (I suppose individuals now and then used such a move when in dire straits or something).
Hmm, we seem to be at odds here, unfortunately.
First, I'll start with your point about the pilum. I never said the pilum was particularly effective against the phalangites, just that it was yet another tool of the legionnaires to help disrupt the phalanx (if I overemphasized their importance earlier, I apologize, that was not my intent). The pilum would have been less effective against the phalanx against most of the barbarian tribes that Rome would have faced; this comes not only from the pikes projecting above but also simply because phalangites were considerably better-armored (indeed, as stated before, often over-armored). In any case the pilum was not yet in its final form. What is most important about the pilum is, again, that the phalangites would have had no equivalent for it.
You argue that legionnaires could not have penetrated the pike wall very often because they would have quickly gained the upper hand - so quickly as to end the battle itself quickly. I would in turn argue that if the Romans didn't ever penetrate the wall, then they would have automatically been forced into "shoving matches" which the phalangites would have easily won - and rather quickly as well. The length of the battles therefore suggests that the situation was more complicated.
Consider Cynoscephalae, the "classic" battle of phalangite vs. legionnaire. Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Philip's left wing was disorganized and the legionnaires could then outflank the rest!" This is true, but that's not what should be looked at here. I want to look at those "rest".
Philip's right-wing was able to form up well, and was on higher ground than the Romans they were facing. Even given strong Roman discipline, the Macedonians should still have rather quickly dispatched with the Romans - but they didn't. Instead, the pezhetairoi abandoned their spears for swords. This they were forced to do this because the phalanx began to break up, for two reasons; one of which was because the terrain began to break up, although, again, the phalangites still had the advantage of terrain (as they were marching downhill), and Philip was not stupid enough to throw away such an advantage. The other reason was that the Romans, by sheer will or skill or luck or whatever you want to call it, were beginning to push their way back into the phalanx. This would be, of course, prove disastrous, and so Philip made the decision to drop pikes in favor of swords. This would seem to have almost handed victory to the Romans, except Philip also made sure to make his line deeper to compensate. Thus Philip might have gotten his victory, except that the legionnaires still held, and suddenly twenty maniples crashed into his rear (after having beaten the left wing).
The lesson here is quite clear: the legionnaire was able to capitalize on opportunities that the phalangite, even without his pike, was able to. The ability of the Romans to not only hold their ground, but also disrupt the phalanx by, even if gradually, penetrate it, had the effect of bogging down the forward momentum of the phalanx and stagnating it to the point where it was inevitable that the Roman military system, which was grand-tactically as flexible as on the tactical/personal levels, would be able to triumph.
This effect also happened at the Battle of Pydna. There, once again, the phalangites were indeed able to push the Romans back - but, due to a combination of terrain and intrepid Romans units penetrating the pike wall, the phalanx lost momentum, and the Romans once again carried the day.
So, in a sense, you're right - in a perfect situation, a phalanx would push back legionnaires, no problem. The problem is that this is simply not realistic; it was inevitable that the phalanx would begin to break up. Terrain is one reason. Roman discipline and fitness is another; maintaining a phalanx is hard and exhausting work, and little mistakes would begin to happen - little mistakes that soon turned into big mistakes because the Romans were quick to capitalize on it. The instant that the momentum of the phalanx was lost was also exactly when the initiative was handed to the Romans. The scale of the battles was such that it took time for the Romans to do this - but do it they did. Winning a battle slowly is better than losing a battle fast.
And as for the shield - I thought you were talking about the "typical" (i.e., the Imperial) Roman scutum. That the Polybian scutum was bigger and heavier doesn't matter: first, the "punch" of the shield was not necessary against a phalangite, the gladius did the job just fine; and secondly, a bigger shield would only have let a Roman legionnaire penetrate a pike wall easier anyway.
Please note that I mean no disrepect here - it is obvious to me that you know what you are talking about, and you certainly didn't get those historian badges just because you look good :beam:. I simply disagree with your interpretations.
Polybius and Livy disagrees with you on the pikes being dropped. Both mentions shields being dropped in flight, but when the phalangites at Cynoscephalae tried to surrender, both agrees that they raised their pikes upwards. If they had already thrown them down, that would be a pretty tough thing to do.
And Livy in particular mentions that any army is troubled when struck in the rear/flank, but the Macedonian phalanx even more so since it is cumbersome. Without the pikes the men would have no trouble at turning to face the Romans individually, yet both authors claim they were rather defenseless. Clearly they were at odds as to what to do, and as such there was no concerted effort to hold the Romans, and after a while they either fled or tried to surrender (pikes up).
At Pydna the Macedonians actually didn't have much armour (expensive), but they advanced and pushed the Romans back across the plain, only when they began to push them up against the foothills did the battle turn. Clearly it was the ground that gave the Romans the openings they needed. For the advance had been steady and pretty fast (since it was a quick battle), so if the Romans had been able to regularly infiltrate the phalanx the breakup would have happened before the broken ground in the foothills. Or at the very least the Macedonians would have halted their advance to check the lines.
At this point the machaira sword of Alexander's phalangites had been decreased to the enchiridion large dagger (or very short sword), so in a sword melee the phalangites were lesser armoured, had a smaller shield and a much less capable weapon. A legionary should have little trouble holding his position inside the phalanx if he was cautious. His mere presence would be enough to disrupt the formation.
I do not agree that the Romans would have broken fast against the phalanx had it never been disrupted. Both Heraclea and Asculum saw the legions hold firm for a long while before they were beaten by Pyrrhus' cavalry. Take note there... his cavalry. The phalanx itself could not finish the battles. It could kill and push but not crush the enemy.
Also when the celts invaded Greece, they too faced a phalanx of pikes. Here they had to swarm around it as their forces that tried to infiltrate head on got chopped up. And you have to agree that as swordsmen the celts were generally better than the Romans on an individual basis, yet they had to forego the front for the flanks as well.
From all this debate it sounds like the phalanx and the legion could go head-to-head without much decision until either events elsewhere on the battlefield intervened or the phalanx began to lose cohesion due to unfavorable ground or a too-rapid advance (a similar thing happened at Gaugamela when the phalanx rushed to keep up with Alexander's headlong pursuit of Darius, allowing the Persian cavalry to penetrate the line). The inferior quality and training of the troops that faced the Romans may also have played a factor.
I notice that most of these discussions focus on the weapons, armor etc. Surely other things matter as much if not more than that. Unless the palanx was really the uber hedgehog of death that killed everything it touched, which we can say with some certainty it was not, confused and dispirited phalangites will lose against disciplined and determined opponents. The European empire-builders beat various other armies not because their guns were leet (many other peoples were using guns too by that time, or could afford to hire European mercenaries to help out; the Indians often had more heavy artillery than their British opponents) but because of superior generalship, logistics, training, discipline and morale.
I'm not bashing you or anything (especially since you can ban me...), since you are obviously trying to explain exactly how it happened. But perhaps you might consider that weapons are only a small part of the whole until you hit the Industrial Revolution. Nowadays it's different, of course, but importing today's ideas of firepower and killing efficiency into what was as much a moral as physical contest with relatively feeble weapons (compared to high-explosive and machineguns) is a dangerous tendency.
Hmmm... perhaps I am mistaken on Cynoscephalae, although I know I've read that Philip ordered his right wing to use swords instead of pikes. I do know the story of the raised pikes - a sign of Macedonian surrender, which the Romans either did not know or did not care about, leading to the slaughter of the Macedonians - but that could be referring to the disorganized left wing of the army (which was still using its pikes) or you can argue that it's like a "white flag"; I mean, not everybody carries a white flag with them to surrender with, but if the enemy is bearing down on you you'll rip out your own :furious3: underwear to make yourself a flag. Macedonians could well have just picked up any pike to show their surrender - wouldn't you if you saw the Romans bearing down upon you?
You and Livy are of course both correct that an army struck in its rear was in big trouble, especially a Macedonian phalanx - but you are incorrect, I believe, on it being simple for the Macedonians to turn to face the Romans, which they didn't. They didn't because all Philip told them to do was drop their pikes - he didn't tell them to break formation. The Macedonian right-wing at Cynoscephalae was still in a phalanx formation, only without the pikes, because 1) reorganizing would take too much time 2) the Macedonians, who were neither as well trained nor as well-armed as the Romans, would have inevitably had a "pack" mentality" and 3) Philip just needed to push the Romans off the hill, whereupon they would presumably break. When they were ordered to use swords, Philip was essentially just making sure that his phalangites used their swords on his and not the Romans' terms. Remember too that Philip thickened his right-wing, which would have added weight that was valuable for pushing the Romans off the hill but also made the already cumbersome Macedonian line even more bloated, allowing for the Romans to easily exploit their rear. Consider what happened at Cannae; the Romans increased the depth of their formations in an attempt to break through Hannibal's center, which they very nearly did - until they were hit in their flanks by the Libyans and Hannibal's cavalry. Had the Romans tried an organized breakout they probably would have succeeded; instead, the Romans naturally panicked and any semblance of battle order was lost.
Your comments on Pydna seem only to support me. As I said before, a phalanx was very tough to handle when it had an organized advance going - but this advance was very difficult to maintain and once momentum was lost, it could not be regained. So it was at Pydna; the Macedonians advance well, pushing the Romans back to the foothills. But then terrain, fatigue, stubborn Romans, etc. all combined to ruin that perfect advance, which the Romans quickly capitalized upon. To me it seems highly doubtful that the Macedonians could have halted to reform their lines, even if they wanted to, for two reasons: 1) the Romans were on the run, why stop? and 2) it has been repeatedly pointed out before that once a phalanx was committed, it was extremely difficult to get it to do anything else besides "keep moving forward". To me it implies a level of command-and-control and discipline that the Macedonians (at this point anyway) were not capable of.
Again, I think we're basically saying the same thing but in two different ways. The phalanx, in a perfect situation, should theoretically be able to steamroll legionnaires before it. The fact that this didn't happen shows that the phalanx rather quickly became disrupted and bogged down, again for reasons listed previously (terrain, fatigue, discipline, stubborn Romans). You said it yourself: "The phalanx itself could not finish the battles. It could kill and push but not crush the enemy." And that's exactly what would happen - the phalanx would kill and push, but simply could not maintain that for long enough so as to end the battle; it took outside forces, like the cavalry you mentioned, to do that. This was the ultimate problem of the late Macedonian armies - they relied too much on the phalanx to do too much, rather than the phalanx-and-cavalry combination perfected by Alexander. Had Philip, at Cynoscephelae, ordered cavalry to hit the flank of the main Roman body facing his right wing, he might very well have broken the Romans and carried the day; the Romans were downhill, seeming unable to make any headway against the sheer mass of phalangites before them, and the majority of them could not have had any idea of what was happening on their right (Philip's left). Philip effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
That the Celts were unable to penetrate the forest of pikes simply shows that they were different from the Romans. First, the vast majority of the Celts would have been much less-well armored than their Roman counterparts, and quite a few would not even have had shields - especially not great big shields, which the Romans happened to enjoy. Secondly (and this is a two-parter :2thumbsup: ), though there is little doubt in my mind that the Celts were individually better swordsmen than the Romans, 1) not all Celts were swordsmen; many were spearmen, and would have posed far less of a threat if they managed to penetrate the phalanx; and 2) the Celts individual nature would have made it less likely that they would penetrate the pike wall. They would have been more likely to try it, but they would have been less likely to try it in an organized fashion. Like you mentioned earlier, the Romans would have had centurions etc. saying "Right lads, split into 3's and look for gaps in the pikes, and when you find one, move into it!" (except that they would have said it in Latin). The Celts would have been more likely to go "YAARRRRRRR!" and run screaming into the phalanx - and likely right into the head of a pike. Imagine it as finding a needle in a haystack - or, better yet, a hay in a needlestack. A Celt is going to dive into the hay/needlestack; now he might find the needle/hay, but he probably won't (and he'll probably be cut really really badly from all those lovely needles). The Romans, on the other hand, would have divided the pile into sections and given a pile to each legionnaire or group of them, whereupon he/they would begin taking apart the pile until he find his needle (or his hay). It'll take him/them longer than it might take the Celt, but he/they are also more likely to succeed.
As an aside: Have you ever considered Roman reenacting? We always need smart people to help us out (as opposed to, say, being one of those people who asks if we're Greeks, or insists that the Romans didn't have metal). You don't happen to be anywhere near Colorado, do you :beam: ?
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
And by pushing into the enemy formations you'd put any weapon that
needed free space to function (be it axes, polearms, spears, pikes,
two-handers) at a disadvantage. While you could use superior smaller
weapons, training and numbers (in the limited area) to good use.
Check my location...:beam: I live in Denmark. I believe I would find it fun, but I simply don't think I have the money to pay for the stuff.
I cincerely doubt the Macedonian dropped their pikes at Cynoscephalae. That Polybius, who would have been able to hear about from veterans, doesn't comment on it, and Livy who used several sources doesn't either, places a clear indication that the phalanx was acting as usual. In fact both historians tend to specifically mention when an army does not act as usual, and dropping the pikes would be a rather huge event.
And the surrendering troops were definately from the right, the left flank troops fled and were actively being chased. They woul at best surrender individually, which tended not to be very successful in those days.
Also, while there is indicators that the Macedonian right might have been a larger part of the army, there is no indicators of the phalanx being particularly deep. The two armies were roughtly even in size, but the phalanx put more men in a smaller place. So the Macedonian army would actually be less wide on the battlefield. Since they could match the Romans for length it seems a disproportionate number of Romans chased of the left. Leaving outnumbered troops to fend off a larger section of phalangites.
When struck in the rear the Macedonians were baffled and confused, but had they been using their swords they would be more mobile, it would have been possible for the rear-rankers (NCOs more or less) to order troops to reform, or at least just turn to engage the enemy. That would have led to some heavy fighting for a while, yet it seems the Macedonians were just steamrollered by relatively few troops. With pikes the rear ranks would be slower to reform and would be at odds to what to do... carry on or turn? Their pikes might still be important ahead.
Besides they had pushed the Romans far enough back to have left their dropped pikes 'far' behind (at least outside of reach), so the surrender was definately some they carried themselves. And the practice meant all pikes, that made it clear to the enemy (though not the Romans) that the entire unit was finished. Hence another reson to keep the pikes at hand, to indicate you surrender.
Actually the republican scutum seems to have been a copy of the Samnite shield which in turn, cropped up around the time the Gauls invaded Italy (and sacked Rome). The large oval shield and the curved tower shield were celtic first. Only specialised troops used the smaller buckler-styled square shield, such as slingers and berserker type troops (not berserkers, but you get their way of behaviour). And yes they didn't use swords all of them, a lot of spears. But these were short spears, easily useable inside the phalanx if it came to that.
A longswordsman with a large oval shield would have just as much going for him for breaking in, as a legionary, but being a better swordsman he would have a better chance. Yet they seem not to have had any success, leading to the wraparound.
Besides the centurions didn't order the men to go in small squads, they led their entire unit in. It would be more like: "Ok, form ten ranks and follow me." Making a deeper formation for smaller frontage would lead them to be able to edge into openings. There the Romans would fan out causing their mayhem.
My points of contention are the dropped pikes and the individual infiltration against a formed phalanx. A disordered phalanx would suffer both individual infiltration (where units couldn't go) and unit infiltrations, such as those at Pydna.
Random shield related question I forgot to add yesterday.
How can you visually tell the tougher shield from the weaker one, as all the roman shields I’ve seen seem to share the same basic idea, tall broad and hard to hurt:smash:.
I mentioned the Leather on shields just because I’d heard Egyptian Leather shields where better at resisting arrow fire than metal ones and another piece where arrows went through mail easily, but here stop by the padding underneath. (I'll admit the Egyptian bit cam from one of the history bits in AoM so it is somewhat suspect).
Hence I wondered if the leather might have acted to blunt the Pike, making it much less penetrating.
Ah, that's a shame Kraxis. But even just getting the equipment is fun, and really does help you to get a better understanding of ancient warfare IMHO. If you want to know more about some of that, do PM me :2thumbsup:
But now to our current argument :beam:
I have here a book called The Great Battles of Antiquity (Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose Jr.), and I have a few choice quotes here I'd like to share with you:
"This cumbersome body of men [the phalanx] could hold its ground and slowly advance forward only as long as the ground was level. Even the slightest uneveness of terrain tended to throw the ranks of the phalanx out of alignment. There was an additional tendency for the wings of the phalanx to move outwards from the center as it moved, and to create gaps between the individual syntagmae... as the Romans demonstrated at Pydna, it was possible to insert an infantry maniple into the gaps and hack at the phalanx from within... [as] few of the opposing forces in the Macedonian military experience were capable of exploiting this vulnerability... the gap problem was accepted as part of the normal risk of infantry combat." (pg 328)
"The comparative advantages and disadvantages of Roman infantry and the Macedonian phalanx, as revealed in such battles as Cynoscephalae, were summed up by Polybius... 'In the front nothing can stand up to the sarissa; the individual Roman with his sword can neither slash down nor break through the ten spears that simultaneously press against him. But the Roman legionary is adaptable... [t]he sarissa-bearer can fight only as a member of the entire phalanx and not even in small units... [f]urthermore, the phalanx can move only on very level terrain; every ditch, every hill, every hole, every clump of trees causes it to fall into disorder. But if it has fallen into disorder at any place at all or if Roman maniples should fall upon it from the flank, which can be easily done with the echelon formation of the Romans, then it is lost.'" (pg 332)
Again, on this point we almost seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I reiterate my stance: the phalanx was extremely tough from the front, but as soon as anything - terrain, fatigue, Roman resistance - caused it to start to break apart, the Romans could easily capitalize on it. Are we agreed on this point?
"Philip ordered his phalanx to form at double depth, shortening his front like a hammer, and instructed his troops to arrange themselves in close-order "shield lock" formation. Then, Philip ordered the phalanx and cavalry to charge straight down the hill into the Roman left wing." (pg 337)
There's the answer to your double-depth query.
"The [Roman] left wing took the full brunt of the Macedonian charge. The open formation of the legion allowed it to flex and bend in the face of the momentum of the phalanx. Resistance slowed the Macedonian charge in much the same manner, Livy notes, as a tree branch bends but does not break before the wind. It was in circumstances like these that Roman training paid huge dividends. Almost as if on command, the legion broke into small groups and sidestepped the charge of the phalanx. As the phalanx tried to pass through the legion, small units of swordsmen fell on its flanks and began to slash it to pieces. Attacked from the flanks, the phalangites could not move their long sarissae to meet the assault, and their spears became entangled. Livy notes that someone gave the order to abandon the spears and fight on with swords."
So actually Livy does mention that the pikes were dropped in favor of swords. Again, the problem of the phalanx is reiterated here: once the momentum is lost, and once there is even the slightest disorder, the Romans could move in and capitalize on it. Your point on the Macedonians putting up more resistance in the rear if they were indeed using swords is valid but does not seem applicable. Remember that the formation of the Macedonians didn't change (as would likely have been almost impossible under the circumstances), only their weaponry. I'll again use the example of Cannae; the Romans could have given better resistance, indeed possibly have broken out, but what happened? Fear happened. The Romans were packed all on top of each other, they don't know what's going on, there is dust everywhere, screams and shouts are echoing... And it seems doubtful in any case that the Macedonians could have given much resistance anyway; as you yourself said earlier, the Romans were vastly better swordsmen than the Macedonians. The twenty maniples that crashed into the rear of the Macedonian right did so going downhill (as the fighting had carried the Macedonians down the slope), which would have added even more impetus to their impact.
Additionally, the surrendering troops probably came from the left, if only because they were still using their pikes. That the left wing crumpled and fled does not necessarily mean that they all fled. It's possible even that the "raised pikes" story is apocryphal, or at least not as meaningful as we might guess; Philip lost 13,000 men dead at Cynoscephalae out of, according to Livy, 23,500 (16,000 of those being phalangites), which was quite shocking to the Greeks, who may have wanted some sort of justification (even if it was surrender, on the argument that killing a man who surrenders is worse than the man surrendering).
You're right that the Roman shield was descended from Celtic ones. So were their helmets. Along with chainmail.
The problem was that, unlike the Romans, the Celts had no organized way of equipping their troops. A rich Celtic warlord might look a lot like a Roman; wearing a very similar helmet, chainmail, and carrying a sword and a shield. But many Celts were simply spearmen, and would be lucky to have any kind of shield, let alone a nice big one (and never mind armor or helmets).
A short spear would not be a good weapon for attacking the inside of a phalanx. A "short" spear is still much too long and unwieldy to be used effectively in such a cramped space. The same problem arises for the barbarian with a sword as well; they were terrifically skilled, there is no question, but to utilize their skill they needed space; their swords were longer, and were designed for cutting, and were thus simply too unwieldy in such a locale, and might even have given the phalangite, with his very small sword, a better chance. The Romans, of course, used the short gladius in a thrusting manner, and so did not have this problem. This sort of "cramping effect" happened at the Battle of Watling Street; the Roman position was at the narrow end of a sort of "V" clearing in the woods, with Boudicca's Britons, who vastly outnumbered the Romans, in the wide end. When Boudicca's warriors, sensing an easy kill, charged forward, they were compressed into the narrow end. The Romans were able to resist the charge, and the barbarians found themselves in too tight a space to effectively use their mighty longswords and large axes. The Romans, on the other hand, were presented with a giant mass of mostly unarmored bodies to stab with the gladius. No headway could be made, and once the Roman cavalry charged in from the woods, the barbarians turned and fled - unluckily, right into their wagon circle, which presented a wall that the Romans were able to push them up against. The result was, of course, a devastating slaughter that totally ended the rebellion.
Carl: for the most part, the Roman scutum was just several variations on a theme; the biggest different between the Imperial and the Polybian scuta are that the former has a flat top and bottom to save weight.
Scuta were covered with linen or leather, and, no, I don't know why there were both (although I can try and search for that). My best guess is that it was just different contractors supplying different things, which is also why there are different kinds of Roman helmets occuring at the same time; again, they were variations on a theme, contractors supplying the state with them and with legionnaires likely just grabbing whatever they could/what they liked when they were being equipped.
Leather would probably add more protection than linen, although the presence of either was not so much a defensive measure as just a way to keep the shield together and prevent splinters. The amount of leather or linen on a scuta would in either case almost certainly not be enough to cause any significant difference in penetration.
Yes we agree on the first part.
But I happen to sit with Livy's account right here, and it seems I have been mising a little line that seems confusing at best.
So he does account an order to let the spears drop and to double the lines. And the losses amounted to 13000, but that is killed (which presumably includes the wounded who were likely put out of their miseries) and prisoners, and they amounted to 5000 in all. So 8000 were killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Livy
However, what Polybius has to say might shed some light on the matter.
Lower their spears and charge... Makes sense eh? Meanwhile it can also be misunderstood when you read one language as complex as Greek and write in another (Latin). So it seems Livy simply misunderstood Polybius, for he clearly states later that he used Polybius as his source because he was by far the best when it came to Greek matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
This one would also seem odd if they didn't use the pikes.
*- Insert by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
A smaller shield and smaller weapon would not confer any sort of advantage in such a fight. A small shield would be better in an open more personal fight, but where total protection was needed and movement was impossible, such a shield was less than the scutum in effect. And while the enchiridion was a large dagger or small short sword, it was a slashing weapon, not a stabbing weapon (basically it looked like a small kopis/falcata). That would not be terribly great in such a fight anyway.
I think it is clear that Livy have made one of his rather numerous errors (he was a good authority on knowing sources, but apparently a bad translator).
About the left and it being them who raised their pikes.
General chase as we know them. Merciless, if not terribly effective. But the fact remains these troops were broken (literally as there was no semblance of formation left), but that it is also likely that they were the ones who made it away from the battle (they fled before contact).Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
Meanwhile after the right broke, it seems Flaminius stumbled upon a unit of the phalanx who had been somewhere between the left column and the right line. They were formed and on the summit (a position the left only barely reached before being on flying).
Take not that the quotes are in chronological order, so the left has already been routed a good time ago, and is being actively chased by the Roman right. Apparently one taxis survived, distanced from the others, or else it was the remains of the right, or possibly even a sort of reserve, many possibilities. It also seems that some of the Roman right turns back and attacks them from behind (how they can attack from above when the unit was at the summit isnot explained) and kills them (clearly they didn't become prisoners). In any case a decidedly odd incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
Polybius gives Livy his numbers on casualties, 8000 dead and at least 5000 prisoners.
About the short spear. A short spear would be around 5-6 feet, easily turned and used, and spears are fast weapons with good properties of penetration, hence a short spearman could inflict as much damage as swordsman.
A lot has been said about celtic swords, but they had by this time abandoned the blunted sword, and used a sword that did both cut and stab. When such a swordsman got to the phalanx front he wouldn't need to get in and play Roman legionary, he would then be able to hold his distance. At that point on a single point would oppose him, wielded by a guy who could hardly see what was going on, and at this point the other 5-rankers could not turn their point to help halt another file because their own file were in the way of the move. The swordsman would thus be able to stand just outside and chop up the phalangites with wide cuts they could not deflect (unless they dropped the pike naturally) and stabs they could not respond to. But that didn't happen because the Celts failed to get people inside the pikes.
About shields (I'm beginning to sound like one of those ancient historians with those headers :dizzy2:).
The republican shield was roughly shaped as the shield the Hastati, Principes and Triarii have in RTW. Super-eliptic (more or less rectangular with round corners) and curved. And instead of strengtheners (like the 'L's I mentioned before) it had a central vertical spine encompassing the boss. This was apparently for strength as well as decorative functions. The shield with a spine would not be bent back too far and would be more resistant to powerful strikes, but would likely suffer more structural damage in a fight.
And Celts, unless they were skirmishers, tended to use large oval shields. A shield is relative cheap, and can easily be made and replaced compared to arms and armour. Shield and spear was a requirement for most. Armour was a benefit of station and rank.
Just one sidenote about shields Kraxis: I've seen the first scutum, or a shield looking like the scutum in the modern Region of Friaul, which was Italic-Illyrian IIRC and had close contacts with the Noric Celts, the Raetians and the Illyrians as well as Etruscans. IIRC the picture was dated around 500BC, it was in a book about the gens italiae, or the people living on the territory nowaday called Italy.
With so many influences almost everybody could have been the possible inventor. It might be worthy of note that the norteast corner of Italy is hilly and mountainous once you rise from the valley of the Po. The Phalanx was surly know as the Etruscans and the Greek colonies employed it, yet most fought since the 600th century with helm, a shield (large or small), two/three javelins/spears and axes/swords. A flexible combination, well suited on all terrains from flat valleygrounds to steep wooded slopes....
Cheers
OA
Yes, I have seen some similar shields, however they have been destinctly different. Generally more like the Mycenean tower shields (rectangular, but rather wide so they get a squarish feeling), than the celtic oval spined shields, and neither were curved.
It seems the Samnites were the ones to invent that feature, or at least make it a prevailent among the troops.
However the hoplite phalanx was used until the very end by the Tarentines (3rd century, where the roman took the city), much like the Etruscans, and the Romans only seem to have abandoned it around the Second Samnite War (4th century).
However the Roman system of having plenty other types of spearmen and skirmishers could be indicative of how the other armies were as well.
Hmmm...
I'm not sure how much further we can go on the Cynoscephelae debate - because the sources we're relying on are too vague :laugh4:
It certainly seems possible that Livy did misunderstand Polybius, and that "lower your spears and charge" meant "charge as a phalanx."
But, on the other hand, maybe it means "lower" as in "drop" - that is to say, the Macedonians dropped their spears and charged with swords to try and push the Romans off the hill, just like I was saying before.
Who knows? The passages seem too vague for us to determine either way. I'm inclined to agree with the latter - not only because it's convenient for me :laugh4: but because, as Gabriel and Boose pointed out, it seems likely that their pikes may have become entangled. But Livy having missed the translation doesn't seem far-fetched either... -sigh-
Your next quote from Polybius again seems vague, although admittedly I don't have the works of Polybius with me. Are you sure he was referring to the Macedonians in that case? And if he is, are you sure he's referring to their right wing (as opposed to their left, where they would have, at least theoretically, proved helpful against the elephants and charging romans)? I remember when I read Herodotus' Histories that you had to pay very close attention because otherwise you often weren't sure just who or what he was talking about. It's also possible that Polybius saw the Macedonians using their small swords and shields as an advantage incorrectly, for reasons such as 1) because he thought it would make them more mobile than the legionnaires in the close-combat situation (a drastic underestimation) or 2) it was a "decided advantage" as compared to using their cumbersome and tangled pikes.
Again, it seems to me that we simply don't know what either of them meant.
I couldn't tell from your tone whether you were agreeing with me or not on it being the left-wing Macedonians who would have raised their pikes in surrender. Does Polybius' account mention the "fugitive chase" in any detail? If it doesn't, then perhaps we should consider the "raised pikes" incidents as probably occuring with isolated Macedonians who for whatever reasons decided to surrender instead of run. This may be what Polybius mentions (in that last quote), which doesn't necessarily have to be referring to a taxeis per se but may just be referring to a bunch of Macedonians who surrendered either as one or began to gather around each other when they did so (for emotional support if nothing else). Passage again seems too vague to conclude anything too deep.
I got my figures from Gabriel and Boose's account. Maybe they misinterpreted Polybius/Livy; I don't know, but for now I don't think it's too important.
I've held and used a short spear in my reenacting before (a Celtic one in fact; it was the only one we had with us), and while it is indeed a light and fast weapon, I didn't say that; I said that it was difficult to use in very close-quarters combat, hoplite phalanxes notwithstanding; contrary to most people's view of hoplites, it was very difficult for them to use their spears great affect, because they were smushed together, allowing for very little leverage in a thrust, and in any case there was almost nothing to thrust at due to the heavy armor of the opponent; there was the initial crash, then essentially a shoving match with shields (the name of which escapes me now, unfortunately [the maneuver, not the shield]), with most casualties coming up through pursuit if there were such forces available. Remember that at Thermopylae, when the press of the Persians became so great that the Spartans had difficulty using their spears (which were indeed often grabbed at by the Persians), they switched to their swords and cut down the Persians like a scythe through wheat. If a Celt somehow managed to penetrate the pike wall of a phalanx, he'd find himself so squeezed in because of the sheer mass of phalangites that I can't imagine him being able to use his spear to any great affect; there would simply be no room.
Same thing for the Celts. That they could stab with them is not as important as you might suspect; the point is that for that kind of close-quarters combat, the swords were simply too big. Squeezed on all sides by dozens of pike shafts and phalangites and possibly buddies that made it through with him, slashing (the really devastating way to use the large Celtic swords) would indeed be quite deadly but nearly impossible, and for thrusting he could well be even worse off than a spearman; his sword is not quite as long but still awkwardly long, and also weighs much more than a spear (with the weight often concentrated towards the tip of the blade to help those devatating slashes), making it quite difficult and exhausting; a short sword like the gladius was much better because it was not only short, but relatively light as well. I speak from experience but you can try this for yourself: grab a wooden baseball bat (er, do they play baseball in Denmark?) and, holding the end (the correct end), try and thrust it forward. Now take, say, a wine bottle or a tall beer bottle (with the booze still in it:laugh4:), hold it from the neck, and then try thrusting it forward. Much easier, isn't it? (And yes, NOW you can drink :medievalcheers: )
You're right on the shield marks (in responding to Oleander); the scutum, like most of the things the Romans used, is basically Celtic. The Romans also employed the phalanx, like most everybody else did at the time. I'm pretty sure that the Roman system of various spearmen and skirmishers (roarii etc.) was, like you suggest, probably similar to those of other groups - but only because the idea of troops by property-classifications and so forth comes from the Greeks, who of course had heavy influence on the Italian peninsula; difference ended up being that the Romans eventually established much more refined versions of it.
Hm Kraxis, the flattish look might be caused by the limitation of the artist...
However I have to confess that I don't recall exactly the look of it, I just know that it looked very very similar to a Roman scutum. Anyway it might be copied and perfected by the Samnite, one should not underestimate the trading and cultural links on the penisula. Celtic tribes might have picked it up on their way south, down the eastern coast of the italian penisula, who knows?
It just seemed to me to be a likely place for such an shield, which is so suited for closed ranks both in flat valleys and in broken terrain.
Cheers
OA
mmmm...
¿wrong forum?
So far in my personal experience as Italians and Spaniards, castles have been unnecessary after some 20 turns or so.
Italian Militia and Genoese Crossbow militias are GREAT and the Spanish have crossbow militia, tercio pikemen, sword militia and musketeers all built in cities.
For some other factions, castle troops are fundamental to survival, e.g. the Eastern Romans.
Actually it might very well be the wrong forum now... We'll see if the local powers think so.:beam:
Anyway, Polybius was sort of a real figure of authority on the pikephalanx. He wrote an entire manual on how to use it, sadly it is lost to us now. And after the Cynoscephalae account he goes on to explain the differences of the phalanx and the legion. He says practically all the sensible things that are there, such as the phalanx without it's pikes would be defenseless ect ect. broken terrain = bad. You get the drift, we have heard it before, but he was the first man to tell the world.
If he had meant 'drop', I'm certain he would have used a clearer term so that 'we' (the translators from ancient Greek to all languages) would not fall into the mistake Livy seems to make. Besides if they did something that he himself considred odd, I'm certain he would have commented on that. Generally Polybius is a clear and to the point source, little dallying around like Livy (GAH! He just has to make conversations for each and every event). That is why I am certain they retained their pikes, and to me it also makes better sense.
On the chase Polybius says little. Apparently he was a little short on info on that, or else the chase was a regular one, so he had little need to explain. Generally chases are commented on in a single line like his.
But he does say that the entire right flank chased, save the 20 maniples that turned around and hit the formed phalanx in the side/rear.
What is interesting about that is that if the surrendering unit was on the left, there is little option to where it could be. It must almost exclusively have been closer to the right than the fleeing units (or else it too would have been sent running, and Flaminius would never have met it on his attack on the ridge). But that puts it directly into the route of the 20 maniples.
Something does not add up, and Polybius is oddly silent on the matter.
So the surrender of a left flank unit by pikes up (remember Flaminius has to be there to want them taken prisoner rather than what actually happens), seems wrong. A reserve unit on the right, or one of the units on the far right could have done so when they saw the rout of the others. That would make it sensible that Flaminus would see it, and that the returning chasers would fall into it's back.
But I agree, Cynoscephalae seems drained by now. I see little that can change either side.
OA I do not doubt the shield, but as far as I know the celtic shield was somewhat old, perhaps 700BC. And towershields weren't that uncommon, the Myceneans had them, and so did the Sumerians and Egyptians. So it could very well have been an individual development, that suited the local terrain.
The Samnites di however change the shield they copied, they have it trapezoidal so as to not impeed their movement in the hills. Bright little change there.
That they also taught eh Romans about the manipular legion... well that is for another discussion.