Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Yukitsu]

The "primary" weapon to my mind is the "first" weapon used by choice (or the weapon of first recourse), which is to say the bow for archers, the lance for lancers, the pike for pikemen, the spear for spearmen, and the pilum for Roman infantry. If we are going to talk about the weapon "most used", that is going to be a hell of a complicated discussion with very limited data points!

I'm not sure that's a very helpful way of looking at things when considering a sort of ranged weapon used once while closing into melee. Certainly, a slinger primarily uses a sling, but the distinction is, in an ideal combat, he'll only use his sling. A legionary will ideally be using his sword to get the majority of the work done, doubly since it seems the pilum was meant mostly to disorganize an enemy formation by ruining their shields rather than cause casualties, at least according to Vegetius.

[Galloglaich]

With that tank, my guess is they are firing at a "soft" (i.e. infantry) target at or near the upper limit of thier range, so have parked on a slope to gain a little extra elevation. I'd also haszard a guess the photo is either Italy or Korea, form the hills. They are not expecting enemy AT fire, so are not worried about getting a good hull down position.

alternately, they are fighting in an overrun enemy postion, and are enguaging a target of opitunity just as they were cresting that little ridge.

I agree they are using the tank as artillery, and being up on the slope is to increase the elevation of the gun. Notice all the brass showing the huge number of shells they have been firing. And it's probably Korea, both because of the type (M4A3E8 which was ubiquitous in Korea) and the fact that they are using it as artillery. But like you said that could also be Italy.

G

[Galloglaich]

I'm not sure that's a very helpful way of looking at things when considering a sort of ranged weapon used once while closing into melee. Certainly, a slinger primarily uses a sling, but the distinction is, in an ideal combat, he'll only use his sling. A legionary will ideally be using his sword to get the majority of the work done, doubly since it seems the pilum was meant mostly to disorganize an enemy formation by ruining their shields rather than cause casualties, at least according to Vegetius.

Yeah I think this is a sort of a mistake, the pilum was definitely used to cause casualties, the emphasis on the pilum as a shield-disabling or harassing weapon is somewhat overdone. If the enemy is in good formation and has shields and helmets, they have decent protection against it, but that is most definitely a killing weapon. The sword was used to finish people off.

The importance of the sword as secondary weapon is not at all unique to the Romans. Medieval cavalry and knights used their lances first and most often, but the sword was of critical importance and was intended for use in the second stage of the fight (that they were hoping to get to... as this phase of the fight the heavy cavalry almost always won if they could get to it). This is the nature of shock warfare (that is also a term which has been overused, but I think is applicable here). The lance would break the enemy formation, the sword would literally carve it up. (The sword, axe, mace, hammer and so on).

Similarly for Iron Age armies all the way up to the Vikings, the main part of the battle was throwing rocks, darts, and javelins at each other until one side started to waver, and that is when the infantry charge would happen ... but of course the sword played the key role when the decisive close combat took place, this is when 90% of the casualties were caused.

But not all fights actually reached that phase, many did not.

Even the Swiss, so famous for their pikes and halberds, placed a heavy emphasis on the sword, both as a symbol of freedom (you had to bring a sword to vote in the landsgemeinde) and as a critical weapon for that phase of the fight when the pike square broke up. That is (again) when 90% of the killing was done.... if the fight got that far, the Swiss almost always won when they reached this phase of the battle, even when heavily outnumbered .. just like heavy cavalry did. This is why so many Swiss Reislauffer dragged around those big longswords as sidearms even when carrying a pike or a halberd. Can you imagine marching mile after mile with a four foot sword on your hip? But it was very useful, very important in the battle, as well as for personal protection.

So I think yes you can make a distinction for heavy infantry or heavy cavalry which are hoping, intending to close in and use their sidearms, vs. say light cavalry, or velites or peltasts or crossbowmen or gunners who are hoping to avoid close combat. In either case they may have a sword as a sidearm, but in the latter case it's not really part of the intended strategy. But it's still part of the defensive strategy since without swords (and body armor) these guys are much more vulnerable.


As for formation space, I think you need some space to throw a pilum you don't want to be that close together. Also the closer you are together the more likely you are to be hit by missiles launched in area fire. They would only come close together when in a purely defensive formation (i.e. testuodo)

I've got nothing against swords, I study fencing, the sword is where I live, but I just want to try to disseminate to people that these other weapons were used first and more often. The sword was frequently of critical importance in European warfare, but it was not the 'be all - end all', the actual reality was more nuanced and complex (and IMO, interesting) than that. And movies where knights are charging without any lances is are just embarrassing.

The other question to me is what put the sword above it's rivals as close combat sidearms, i.e. the saber, the mace, the warhammer, the battle axe?

G

[Storm Bringer]

I agree they are using the tank as artillery, and being up on the slope is to increase the elevation of the gun. Notice all the brass showing the huge number of shells they have been firing. And it's probably Korea, both because of the type (M4A3E8 which was ubiquitous in Korea) and the fact that they are using it as artillery. But like you said that could also be Italy.

just found that pic on wikipedia, caption reads as follows:

"Supporting the 8th ROK Army Division, a Sherman tank fires its 76 mm gun at KPA bunkers at "Napalm Ridge", Korea, 11 May 1952"

so, yes, it was korea, and yes, it was acting as a arty gun on infantry targets.

[J.Gellert]

The other question to me is what put the sword above it's rivals as close combat sidearms, i.e. the saber, the mace, the warhammer, the battle axe?

The saber... probably a few centuries.

The others, I'm guessing part of it is that swords require less room to swing (and against unarmored opponents, practically no room to maim or kill) and are all-around more versatile (in battle - because in general, axes of all kinds are awesome tools).

Actually, the "less room to swing" applies to the saber as well, probably.

[fusilier]

The "primary" weapon to my mind is the "first" weapon used by choice (or the weapon of first recourse), which is to say the bow for archers, the lance for lancers, the pike for pikemen, the spear for spearmen, and the pilum for Roman infantry. If we are going to talk about the weapon "most used", that is going to be a hell of a complicated discussion with very limited data points!

I'm willing to agree to disagree -- as the argument will become more of semantics at this point. :-)

I agree about the "most used" argument. I look at what their tactical doctrine was and to me it implies that the sword was considered the most important weapon (emphasis on a loose formation giving each soldier room to swing a sword, but not so loose as to allow the enemy to exploit gaps -- that would require a lot of training and attention). The pila were certainly important, and probably overlooked.

[Matthew]

I'm not sure that's a very helpful way of looking at things when considering a sort of ranged weapon used once while closing into melee. Certainly, a slinger primarily uses a sling, but the distinction is, in an ideal combat, he'll only use his sling. A legionary will ideally be using his sword to get the majority of the work done, doubly since it seems the pilum was meant mostly to disorganize an enemy formation by ruining their shields rather than cause casualties, at least according to Vegetius.

Well, I would argue that the shock of the pilum would ideally be enough to break the enemy formation, bearing in mind we are not necessarily talking about one throw as a preliminary to close combat. Of course, the Roman legionary was different in 200 BC to 100 AD, and maybe that is worth discussing in itself. Certainly, Polybius attributed the success of the Roman legionary to his refusal to fight on open ground in close order.

I'm willing to agree to disagree -- as the argument will become more of semantics at this point. :-)

I agree about the "most used" argument. I look at what their tactical doctrine was and to me it implies that the sword was considered the most important weapon (emphasis on a loose formation giving each soldier room to swing a sword, but not so loose as to allow the enemy to exploit gaps -- that would require a lot of training and attention). The pila were certainly important, and probably overlooked.

Right, I would love to know more about how Roman legionaries really fought on the battlefield, but the data is just not there. What exactly their tactical doctrine was is an interesting question. Are you thinking of any sources in particular?

[Yukitsu]

Well, I would argue that the shock of the pilum would ideally be enough to break the enemy formation, bearing in mind we are not necessarily talking about one throw as a preliminary to close combat. Of course, the Roman legionary was different in 200 BC to 100 AD, and maybe that is worth discussing in itself. Certainly, Polybius attributed the success of the Roman legionary to his refusal to fight on open ground in close order.

I think "disorganize and disrupt" is a more likely situation as compared to breaking the formation. Even then however, slingers, archers and other skirmishers would likely have caused greater casualties than the legions at those ranges (and further). I think all in all when Polybius was stating the efficacy of the Roman army in those terms, he would be referring to minor actions along the borders, and not to their set piece battles against other organized nations (or even a barbarian horde that was lead by a particularly skilled leader). The fact that most actions the Romans had were likely so common and uneventful that they were barely recorded, but would have been chronic in his time probably contributed to that statement from Polybius, rather than the overall effectiveness of each weapon by contrast to one another.

Right, I would love to know more about how Roman legionaries really fought on the battlefield, but the data is just not there. What exactly their tactical doctrine was is an interesting question. Are you thinking of any sources in particular?

I'll have to double check where, (I suspect it's part of the Marian reforms, but Polybius is the one who removed the spear if I recall, sans on the triarii, whom Marian eliminated) but I do recall the switch to sword from spear being on the lines that the close, rigid formation taken from the hoplites were too inflexible for the Roman needs, and were replaced with a looser, more responsive sword based legion. I don't recall it being room for sword swinging however, as I believe Romans preferred the thrust, not slashing.

[fusilier]

Well, I would argue that the shock of the pilum would ideally be enough to break the enemy formation, bearing in mind we are not necessarily talking about one throw as a preliminary to close combat. Of course, the Roman legionary was different in 200 BC to 100 AD, and maybe that is worth discussing in itself. Certainly, Polybius attributed the success of the Roman legionary to his refusal to fight on open ground in close order.


Right, I would love to know more about how Roman legionaries really fought on the battlefield, but the data is just not there. What exactly their tactical doctrine was is an interesting question. Are you thinking of any sources in particular?

I'm primarily going off of remembrances of my college courses. :-) But, if I'm not mistaken, when they adopted the sword (and abandoned the spear), they went to a formation with about 3 feet to the side of each man and front-to-back. A much more open formation than a phalanx would employ, it allowed room for each soldier to wield his sword. This also gave room for a comrade to close up if he saw someone in trouble.

That formation was adopted after fighting the Samnites, and I've seen no mention of it being changed, but most of the discussion is about larger tactical formations.

Also, another question that I would ask, is the primary function of Roman Heavy infantry to be a missile troop or close-combat? They didn't carry many pila with them into battle like one would expect a missile troop, who is going to try to avoid close-combat, would.

[rrgg]

I would consider the pilum is a primary weapon in the same way that I consider the lance to be a knight's primary weapon. It's a heavy-hitting, armor piercing weapon used to give power to the charge. Ideally the legionary would probably want to simply kill someone from a distance with his pilum and not have to worry about getting into a risky sword-fight.

Additionally, if we accept that the whole reason for the gladius was because the legionary wasn't able to carry another spear along with his pila then I think that it should still be considered a sidearm just like any other sword.

[Yukitsu]

I would consider the pilum is a primary weapon in the same way that I consider the lance to be a knight's primary weapon. It's a heavy-hitting, armor piercing weapon used to give power to the charge. Ideally the legionary would probably want to simply kill someone from a distance with his pilum and not have to worry about getting into a risky sword-fight.

Additionally, if we accept that the whole reason for the gladius was because the legionary wasn't able to carry another spear along with his pila then I think that it should still be considered a sidearm just like any other sword.

I don't believe they dropped their spears because they couldn't use both a spear and the pilum. Regardless, the velites carried enough javalins to make it unlikely that you couldn't carry that number of spears, and at any rate, a pilum is about the same length as the old hasta. Carrying 2 pilum wouldn't be harder than carrying a pilum and a spear.

[Matthew]

I think "disorganize and disrupt" is a more likely situation as compared to breaking the formation. Even then however, slingers, archers and other skirmishers would likely have caused greater casualties than the legions at those ranges (and further). I think all in all when Polybius was stating the efficacy of the Roman army in those terms, he would be referring to minor actions along the borders, and not to their set piece battles against other organized nations (or even a barbarian horde that was lead by a particularly skilled leader). The fact that most actions the Romans had were likely so common and uneventful that they were barely recorded, but would have been chronic in his time probably contributed to that statement from Polybius, rather than the overall effectiveness of each weapon by contrast to one another.

Polybius is definitely not referring to minor skirmishes, it is the totality of his explanation for why the legion tacticaly beat the phalanx, and to be honest it is a bit contrived, but it is very useful for understanding the legion at that time. Under most circumstances, missile troops of any sort only ever really disrupt the enemy as a preliminary to an infantry or cavalry charge. Ideally, though, the discharge of pila will cause the enemy formation to break up enough that it will flee in the face of a charge. Of course, that is the exact tactic employed by shock cavalry in conjunction with archers. The Roman legionary was working in both roles.

I'll have to double check where, (I suspect it's part of the Marian reforms, but Polybius is the one who removed the spear if I recall, sans on the triarii, whom Marian eliminated) but I do recall the switch to sword from spear being on the lines that the close, rigid formation taken from the hoplites were too inflexible for the Roman needs, and were replaced with a looser, more responsive sword based legion. I don't recall it being room for sword swinging however, as I believe Romans preferred the thrust, not slashing.

Okay, you really need to read Polybius.

First, Polybius was not a military reformer, just a historian. The legion he was describing specifically fought with a cut and thrust sword, preferably on rough ground, and with a frontage of 6' to the man, unlike Vegetius' later legions that fight 3' to the man. The Greek phalanx style was an import, as you might imagine, and an influence from the Greek colonies in Italy, but at some point it seems to have given way to the pilum and sword. This has to do with the mountainous or hilly nature of the combat zones (Italy and Spain) and the way the natives were fighting there. Vegetius, writing in around 400 AD or so, is the one who claimed the Romans preferred the thrust over the cut, though Roman iconography is full of "heroic blows". It is hard to imagine that any spear wielding culture would be unaware of the efficacy of a thrust, though.

I'm primarily going off of remembrances of my college courses. :-) But, if I'm not mistaken, when they adopted the sword (and abandoned the spear), they went to a formation with about 3 feet to the side of each man and front-to-back. A much more open formation than a phalanx would employ, it allowed room for each soldier to wield his sword. This also gave room for a comrade to close up if he saw someone in trouble.

That formation was adopted after fighting the Samnites, and I've seen no mention of it being changed, but most of the discussion is about larger tactical formations.

Yes, that is information derived from Polybius. It is not clear when Roman infantry formations started fighting in close order on open ground as a matter of course, but for my money it likely has to do with the incorporation of specialised auxiliary corps. Even then, it would be a mistake to imagine the legion fighting uniformly, we know that they could be variously configured, as Caesar did in his campaigns.

Also, another question that I would ask, is the primary function of Roman Heavy infantry to be a missile troop or close-combat? They didn't carry many pila with them into battle like one would expect a missile troop, who is going to try to avoid close-combat, would.

Now that is a good question. I am going to assume we are talking about on the battlefield here. The legionary in Polybius' day carried two pila, one lighter and one heavier, and I think it was the same later on (I would have to check). Now the question is how did he employ it on the battlefield? When skirmishers carry maybe six we might talk about limited ammunition, but then if every individual is carrying two, do they all throw them at once? Is there any mechanism for replenishing ammunition from the rear? How far were the legions doing the fighting by the late Imperial period? There is one line of thought that contests that the auxiliaries did most of the fighting and the legionaries acted more like an engineering core (not that I agree with this, but it has carried some weight in the past, I believe).

As a counterpoint we could ask, was the Greek Hoplite primarily a spearmen or a swordsmen? If the hoplite, like the knight, expected his spear to only be of value at the point of contact and perhaps a short time afterwards (as did the Roman cavalry, again according to Polybius) then the primary difference between the Roman infantry and Greek infantry is how they employ their "spears" before they draw their swords. One side throws them (like many Anglo-Saxons and Normans on the Bayeux Tapestry) and the other side runs them home as part of the charge themselves.

It is surely a bad idea to run onto the spears of the enemy without a spear of your own. The doctrine of the Romans seems to have been to use thrown spears in order to get into very close combat, whilst the doctrine of the Greeks was to get in close with their own spears. Of course, this is where the question gets interesting! Did the Greeks purposefully stay at spear length for a protracted period, or did they "get stuck in" as soon as possible? How long did the Roman legionaries stand in front of their enemies hurling pila? Did the entire line of up to several thousand men run forward and hurl their javelins at the same moment, or are we talking sporadic probing of weaknesses in the enemy line, followed by isolated charges to break them up? Exactly how these units fought remains tantalisingly unclear, but theories abound.

[Yukitsu]

Polybius is definitely not referring to minor skirmishes, it is the totality of his explanation for why the legion tacticaly beat the phalanx, and to be honest it is a bit contrived, but it is very useful for understanding the legion at that time. Under most circumstances, missile troops of any sort only ever really disrupt the enemy as a preliminary to an infantry or cavalry charge. Ideally, though, the discharge of pila will cause the enemy formation to break up enough that it will flee in the face of a charge. Of course, that is the exact tactic employed by shock cavalry in conjunction with archers. The Roman legionary was working in both roles.

I'm not positive how that would have played out against many of the enemies of Rome. Most would have had superior bows and general ranged capabilities, supported by troops which evidently were inferior in close quarters. Certainly, I don't think the pilum was decisive in the campaigns against the Parthians, or the Egyptians.

Okay, you really need to read Polybius.

Yeah, got the word a bit wrong. Each historian though, writes about something slightly different in terms of how the legion performs, and I'm not really sure which one is really the most accurate. Basically, there's differences in Polybius, Lucius and Vegetius, and of course, Marius changed everything. IIRC, only the last one was actually responsible for reforms, but the different eras of the legion are chronicled by all of the historians of Rome, Polybius wrote I think, about 50 years before Marius would have instituted his reforms for example, and Vegetius 300 before that.

[Matthew]

I'm not positive how that would have played out against many of the enemies of Rome. Most would have had superior bows and general ranged capabilities, supported by troops which evidently were inferior in close quarters. Certainly, I don't think the pilum was decisive in the campaigns against the Parthians, or the Egyptians.

It is probably fair to say that the Roman Legionary was not the decisive element in campaigns against the Parthians generally. Against the Egyptians I am not so sure, as I understand their military system was essentially that of the Greek successor states, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, got the word a bit wrong. Each historian though, writes about something slightly different in terms of how the legion performs, and I'm not really sure which one is really the most accurate. Basically, there's differences in Polybius, Lucius and Vegetius, and of course, Marius changed everything. IIRC, only the last one was actually responsible for reforms, but the different eras of the legion are chronicled by all of the historians of Rome, Polybius wrote I think, about 50 years before Marius would have instituted his reforms for example, and Vegetius 300 before that.

Right, historians provide varied data. Vegetius is one of the least reliable, as he was actually writing in 400 AD (six hundred years after Polybius, five hundred years after the Marian reforms) and essentially produced a synthesis of numerous predecessors, mainly without regard for context it seems. Polybius is fairly reliable, and Livy as well. I am not sure I have ever read Lucius (I know, shocking!); the memory grows fuzzier each year!

[fusilier]

Matthew, I've been doing some haphazard internet research into the subject (which is always fraught with dangers), so I wanted to ask you a question --

It appears to me, that when the Romans initially abandoned the spear/phalanx formation, and adopted the sword, they hadn't started using the pilum. Is that correct? When was the pilum introduced to Roman heavy infantry tactics? I don't see any mention of it when they were basically phalanxes.

You also asked if a hoplites primary weapon was his sword, because the spear becomes useless after the initial impact. This assumes that the initial impact leads to a melee, and isn't decisive in itself. Clearly the more interesting combat is when it does lead to a melee, and that may cause some greater emphasis on such a tactic (likewise the more interesting combat is when the Roman legionnaire closes with his gladius).

It's an interesting question, but it side-steps the question of doctrine -- which I consider to be pretty important. The phalanxes were tight formations, that didn't give much room for individual sword fighting. The close combat is often referred to as a "press" which implies to me that it could get quite tight and uncomfortable, making even fairly simple jabs with a sword awkward -- not impossible obviously, but probably more difficult than if there was a little bit of space. Returning to practice, the men of the rear-ranks could still use their spears during the press (again, how effectively given that everybody is "pressing" together is probably questionable).

So, according to doctrine, the phalanx formation doesn't seem to have favored the sword, and in practice, the spear/pike could still be used by some of the ranks if it came to a general melee.

This, interestingly enough, leads to the question of what the heck Roman soldiers in the rear ranks were doing during close combat fighting (throwing pila is impractical, and they can't really join in). Again the depths of Roman formations seem to have varied considerably (at least in sources), from 3 or 4, to 8 or 10. (I speculate that they served as immediate replacements for casualties or tired soldiers -- some phalanx tactics involved piling up men very deep on a flank, and it worked so there must be something to it)

As for the spacing distances given by historical authors we need to be careful about how we interpret them. They are sometimes written in terribly confusing fashion. I recently found a Spanish drill manual from 1595 online, and sent it over to a friend who could translate it. He didn't have time to translate the whole thing, so I asked him to translate a couple of pages that looked interesting. He gave me a rough translation of a description of the spacing between pikemen. It took me a good half-hour or more to figure out exactly what the heck the author was trying to say. Each man occupied something like five-feet left-to-right and seven feet front-to-back. I had to read through a very complicated description, several times, before it eventually dawned on me that he was basically saying that the ranks were placed every four feet, and the files every three feet. (The trick was figuring out that a soldier occupied a square foot). So Polybius and Vegetius may have been trying to communicate the same thing, but in confusingly different ways. ;-)

[Matthew]

Matthew, I've been doing some haphazard internet research into the subject (which is always fraught with dangers), so I wanted to ask you a question --

Fire away, but I am not hugely more reliable than the internet I inhabit!

It appears to me, that when the Romans initially abandoned the spear/phalanx formation, and adopted the sword, they hadn't started using the pilum. Is that correct? When was the pilum introduced to Roman heavy infantry tactics? I don't see any mention of it when they were basically phalanxes.

As far as I am aware, nobody really knows why or exactly when it happened. It is related to Gallic invasions, perhaps, campaigns in Spain, war with Carthage, and campaigns within Italy. Partly it may be an issue with the terminology, but some form of pilum or heavy javelin was definitely in use by 200 BC. I would have to go and look up one of the old threads on RomanArmyTalk to follow the somewhat convoluted reforms supposed to have occurred between the end of the Roman Kingdom and Polybius. It seems likely that they always had light armed javelin troops in service, an equivalent to the Greek peltast. A big change in 300 BC, though, was the widespread adoption in the Hellenistic successor kingdoms of the pike phalanx. I do not believe that was imported into Rome. Still, some sort of sword would have been a side arm at that point, but not the gladius hispanicus, which seems to have been adopted some time in the third century BC.

You also asked if a hoplites primary weapon was his sword, because the spear becomes useless after the initial impact. This assumes that the initial impact leads to a melee, and isn't decisive in itself. Clearly the more interesting combat is when it does lead to a melee, and that may cause some greater emphasis on such a tactic (likewise the more interesting combat is when the Roman legionnaire closes with his gladius).

It's an interesting question, but it side-steps the question of doctrine -- which I consider to be pretty important. The phalanxes were tight formations, that didn't give much room for individual sword fighting. The close combat is often referred to as a "press" which implies to me that it could get quite tight and uncomfortable, making even fairly simple jabs with a sword awkward -- not impossible obviously, but probably more difficult than if there was a little bit of space. Returning to practice, the men of the rear-ranks could still use their spears during the press (again, how effectively given that everybody is "pressing" together is probably questionable).

So, according to doctrine, the phalanx formation doesn't seem to have favored the sword, and in practice, the spear/pike could still be used by some of the ranks if it came to a general melee.

That may or may not be the case. What is interesting about the phalanx is that the Spartans favoured excessively short swords, almost daggers really, which suggests a very tight press for their disciplined soldiers. On the other hand, the Saxon shield wall was a similarly tight formation and saw sword fighting of various sorts. It is particularly interesting that the swords of the late Republic and early Principate were shorter than those of Polybius' time, excessively short like Spartan blades. This suggests that Vegetius' 3' frontage and "true" heavy infantry may date from that time. It may be that fighting in such close order can only be achieved by full time soldiers.

This, interestingly enough, leads to the question of what the heck Roman soldiers in the rear ranks were doing during close combat fighting (throwing pila is impractical, and they can't really join in). Again the depths of Roman formations seem to have varied considerably (at least in sources), from 3 or 4, to 8 or 10. (I speculate that they served as immediate replacements for casualties or tired soldiers -- some phalanx tactics involved piling up men very deep on a flank, and it worked so there must be something to it)

Right, and even more interestingly the Romans of 200 BC fought with two reserves, the Hastati at the front, Principes in the second line and Triarii in the third. There seems to have been a rotation system, which I know Machiavelli investigated, but I do not know about that. The chequerboard formation is more familiar to me, though.

As for the spacing distances given by historical authors we need to be careful about how we interpret them. They are sometimes written in terribly confusing fashion. I recently found a Spanish drill manual from 1595 online, and sent it over to a friend who could translate it. He didn't have time to translate the whole thing, so I asked him to translate a couple of pages that looked interesting. He gave me a rough translation of a description of the spacing between pikemen. It took me a good half-hour or more to figure out exactly what the heck the author was trying to say. Each man occupied something like five-feet left-to-right and seven feet front-to-back. I had to read through a very complicated description, several times, before it eventually dawned on me that he was basically saying that the ranks were placed every four feet, and the files every three feet. (The trick was figuring out that a soldier occupied a square foot). So Polybius and Vegetius may have been trying to communicate the same thing, but in confusingly different ways. ;-)

Heh, yes it can be tricky. In this case we can be pretty sure of the distances, as Polybius uses his calculations to compare the maniple with the Phalanx, asking why when each phalanx soldier occupied half the space of the Roman soldier [i.e. 3' to 6'], the latter was able to win out. Vegetius, if I recall, actually gives a calculation for the total frontage occupied by a legion after his 3' per man statement, so we can be pretty sure about that too.

[Galloglaich]

The Hastatii's principle weapon was, of course, the spear (hasta), later they were re-equiepped with pila and gladius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasta_%28spear%29

The Romans had peltast-like light infantry called "Velites", they were basically the soldiers too poor to afford armor. After the Marian reform they were folded into the regular infantry (as the State supplied the armor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velites

The Romans picked up the Pilum from the Iberians or Celit-iberians, apparently. It existed long before use by the Romans and persisted long after (as the Angon) well into early Medieval times. Contrary to popular belief, though primarily an armor-piercing javelin it was also used as a spear. it had smaller / lighter (plumbata) and heavier (soliferrum) cousins.

G

[Yora]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

As for me, I studied Cultural Studies and Intercultural Interaction, picking lectures and seminars focused on religious history and Asian philosophy. Now I branch out into Japanology to become an "interpreter or mediator", assisting with adjusting to foreign societies and avoiding backlash from misunderstandings for buiness, tourists, and migrants.
Military technology and tactics is really only a hobby, but from my academic background I am used to always question if any activity that people do is actually what it appears to be and done for the purpose I assume, or if there is something going on that you only notice when you know the context and the believes of the people. I am also fascinated by physics, and in military technology you have these two things come together like nowhere else, especially when there is a lot of material in form of movies and video games that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And I was born in the early 80's. Nothing on TV did make any sense.
So every time I see a movie or play a game, and there's tactics or special weapons involved, I always have to know what the reasoning behind it is.
And just this year I've been found to be affected by ADD, which actually makes it that I HAVE to know! Once I'm hooked, finding the answer is the only thing that matters.

And I have to say, every time I arrive at an answer that I still have doubts about, I ask you guys if you think it's plausible.

[Galloglaich]

I'm only an amateur historian with no real formal education beyond a few semesters in college.. I am a military veteran and was stationed in Germany in the 80's.

I have about 12 years experience in the historical fencing community. I placed in international fencing tournaments in 2010 and 2012, so did two people I trained (one in Houston and one in Göteborg, Sweden). I was also an instructor in two HEMA events, in 2011 and 2012.

I wrote a historical book on the Medieval Baltic. I also wrote some stuff in the RPG world, mainly historically based combat rules and weapon statistics for The Riddle of Steel and for my own game, Codex Martialis.

G

[Autolykos]

though Roman iconography is full of "heroic blows".

I wouldn't use depictions as evidence on the most-used combat style. Thrusts are generally more efficient at killing, but wide swings look flashier - so that's what people paint/sculpture. I sure hope future historians won't use the Rambo movies as a source on modern infantry tactics.

As to my background, I'm currently writing my PhD thesis in physics and have about a decade of experience in various martial arts (Kickboxing, Escrima and Ju Jutsu mostly, but I dabbled in a few others). My knowledge in history is mainly cobbled together from lots of less-than-reliable sources (school included, but facts are few and far between in German history classes... hated it back then), so I will be wrong or at least wildly inaccurate most of the time (that's why I like this thread, lots of people to point out mistakes in my information and/or reasoning). The main interests that lead me here are strategy, geopolitics and weapon technology (history just provides a lot of material to study these).

[Yukitsu]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

As for me, I studied Cultural Studies and Intercultural Interaction, picking lectures and seminars focused on religious history and Asian philosophy. Now I branch out into Japanology to become an "interpreter or mediator", assisting with adjusting to foreign societies and avoiding backlash from misunderstandings for buiness, tourists, and migrants.
Military technology and tactics is really only a hobby, but from my academic background I am used to always question if any activity that people do is actually what it appears to be and done for the purpose I assume, or if there is something going on that you only notice when you know the context and the believes of the people. I am also fascinated by physics, and in military technology you have these two things come together like nowhere else, especially when there is a lot of material in form of movies and video games that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And I was born in the early 80's. Nothing on TV did make any sense.
So every time I see a movie or play a game, and there's tactics or special weapons involved, I always have to know what the reasoning behind it is.
And just this year I've been found to be affected by ADD, which actually makes it that I HAVE to know! Once I'm hooked, finding the answer is the only thing that matters.

And I have to say, every time I arrive at an answer that I still have doubts about, I ask you guys if you think it's plausible.

I have a large collection of university level textbooks on military history, focusing on politics, tactics and strategy. My primary focus is in Canadian military history, but the second largest ones are Japanese military history and WWII general history. The high end courses I've actually taken were political in nature. My exposure to Roman accounts is mostly through Vegetius reading the de re militari, as I figured it would be appropriate to read it along with On War, The Art of War (both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu), the Book of 5 Rings and the 36 Stratagems. (Forgot the Strategicon)

My general view of the individual kit has tended to be that every soldier is well equipped assuming the worst, and that they're equipped the best that they can be, not the best that is possible.

One of my favourite readings, is any scenario where significant technological, tactical and strategic revolution altered war enough to be noteworthy.

[Galloglaich]

I think some people may find this interesting.

The real life fencer, magician, and mercenary soldier, Henrich Agrippa. This is perhaps the historical equivalent of the DnD "Fighter / Magic User"

http://www.hroarr.com/heinrich-corne...a-freyfechter/

G

[Yora]

Well, not really. The type of magic he dealt with would not have been combat spells as in AD&D. I know this because we did a long analysis on his work in the seminar or arcane and divine magic. I mean "Magic and Religion".

[Spiryt]

I pretty much read books and Internet for most part. Some bow shooting, etc. no real professional knowledge/exp.

Would be nice to know how many historians/military historians/archaeologists are here, there's always quite a few on boards like Myarmoury or Freha.pl

Although education is, sadly or not, completely non equivalent to knowledge, I had privilege to hold some discussion with student of military history from prestige university on one forum.

He had held some most hilariously inane and lunatic opinions on antique warfare I've ever seen - after some spectacular deduction work, he had deducted that Partian arrows would fly at around ~ 600 m/s. Quite a lot of such ridiculous things, extracted from perfectly legit historical fact, before he got banned.

[Yora]

As I learned quite early on in University, "History" is not really a science.
It mostly is about supporting the narrative you want to be true. History books can tell you a lot about culture, believes, values, morals, and ethics. But in regard to the writer, not the subject he writes about.
Very few texts can stand up to the standards of the present day. And there's no reason to believe that after 5000 years of History, we suddenly overcame all predjudices and personal agendas in the mid 90s.

[Tyndmyr]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

I am an avid user of weapons and reader of books in the WW2 era especially. Having gone through a few hundred of those, and done some original research with pilots in the pacific theater when I was younger, I've got a fair bit of knowledge on certain topics. Anything WW2 era or modern era, I'm pretty solid on. I also have a good practical working knowledge of most medieval weaponry from a "I've used it" standpoint.

However, there are other topics, like this one, where I mostly just lurk and read, since I really don't have the expertise to contribute further.

[Matthew]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

For what it is worth, I did a BA in Ancient and Medieval History, an MA in Medieval Studies, and have written (but am yet to submit) a PhD thesis titled "Middle English Literature and the Crusades". My early interest in ancient and medieval warfare is partly what inspired me to undertake these studies. It both supplements and overlaps them, which is to say if I am not studying it as part of these endeavours, I end up studying it for its own sake. I am an avid war and adventure gamer, as well as sword & sorcery enthusiast. However, I have no practical training in any martial arts, experience as a reenactor or anything like that.

I wouldn't use depictions as evidence on the most-used combat style. Thrusts are generally more efficient at killing, but wide swings look flashier - so that's what people paint/sculpture. I sure hope future historians won't use the Rambo movies as a source on modern infantry tactics.

Ha! I am not sure that is quite the same thing, more like using a chanson de geste as a model for medieval warfare. Of course, there are dangers in using iconography as a reference, but it can be a useful adjunct and sometimes it is used as primary evidence (take Trajan's Column for the most famous example). The Romans are described as using the cut or chop and depicted doing so, I am not sure there is any more evidence outside of Vegetius for them despising it (maybe there is).

[Galloglaich]

Well, not really. The type of magic he dealt with would not have been combat spells as in AD&D. I know this because we did a long analysis on his work in the seminar or arcane and divine magic. I mean "Magic and Religion".

True, though you never know what he was really into, all we have for sure is what he published which was enough to almost get him hanged for heresy. But we also know that there were some other more sinister / DnDish books like this around in his day.

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Rite...ywords=clm+849

... which do have a few D&D ish spells like summoning a Magic horse you can ride, flying and invisibility. And I know of at least two other ones like that from the 15th Century, one from England and one from Holland. There are also many older books he would have had access to which are a bit DnDish, for example there is an old Arab magic book which has recipes for summoning magic scorpions to attack people. Written by an Arab scholar who was very well known to medieval alchemists.

And at the very least he was also an alchemist himself, and alchemists had stuff like pyrotechnics, strong acid, smoke bombs, explosives, drugs, poisons and so on.. for real.

Enough I think that you could have a pretty cool template for an interesting character in an RPG. At least, it would fit well in one of mine ;)

G

[Joran]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

I mostly lurk, but I have a B.A. in History with a concentration in Military History. That concentration was a grand total of 4 classes, two of them on Modern Military History (1494, the start of the Italian Wars, to the present day). The other two were advanced reading classes, one completely devoted to Clausewitz's On War. Tactics was a pretty small part of the class. Instead, the professor preferred to talk more about strategy and logistics. He liked to distill his class down to answering two questions: "Who fought and why? Who paid, how much and why?"

Since I've been out of college for almost a decade now, a lot of my knowledge has lapsed, but I'm interested in reading everything posted here. I occasionally like to dig up an old textbook and read through it again.

[fusilier]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

I have a minor in History with a concentration in Ancient history -- and another one in the American West, and almost had one in Asian history. I took as many history courses as I possibly could as an undergrad (and even managed to sneak a couple in as a grad student)! I had a really good Ancient history professor, and I tried to take as many classes as I could from him. He was basically the only professor at the University who focused on ancient history, and a great lecturer. I would not have ended up with a concentration in Ancient history if it hadn't been for him. I never got a chance to take his class on Ancient/Classical warfare unfortunately, although a couple lectures were always devoted to warfare in his classes.

I have a BS and MS in Computer Science. I'm a reenactor and have about half-a-dozen impressions. I read, investigate, and talk to others as much as possible.