Best weapon of ancient war

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply

Which weapon is cooler/better?

Short Spear
11
16%
Gladius/Shield
30
44%
Other
27
40%
 
Total votes: 68

User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 23354
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Post by LadyTevar »

Elheru Aran wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:I'd think the most devestating ancient weapon would be the crossbow. It revolutionized warfare on it's introduction.
Not particularly. While it was useful enough, its primary utility was as a sniping weapon and against heavy armour; it is noteworthy that the 200 Geonese crossbowmen on the French side ran like curs when Welsh archers on the English side at some battle during the Hundred Years' War let rip...
Especially since a LongBowman can shoot 5-10 arrows before the crossbowman can shoot 2. :roll:
The best Welsh archers were said to be able to have 4 arrows in flight and one on the string before the first arrow hit the target.
Image
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 23354
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Post by LadyTevar »

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:I just thought of something: how does the curved Thracian sword stand up against other short sword-type weapons, such as the gladius and falcata?
The falx was rather nasty, it could cleave right through the legionaries' helms. I'm not sure how it would fare as a standard issue weapon, especially as it was more of a "barbarian" weapon.
The falx, iirc, was also known as the saxe or salx. It was a barbarian weapon used by Germanic tribes and very similar to the falcata. It's the one I mentioned that split legionary's helms because of the 'tip-heavy' nature of its design. It could also produce a nasty draw cut once it chopped into flesh.
Image
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
User avatar
wolveraptor
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4042
Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm

Post by wolveraptor »

By Germanic tribes? I was referring to the one used by the Thrax in the Roman gladiatorial arena. The armor and weapons were based off the soldiers of a former Roman enemy, Thrace.

For versatility, I was hoping for a short sword that could not only hack n' slash, but stab like the Gladius. According to one of the links I saw earlier, the falcata was basically and small axe, and iirc the the curved sword was also a slasher. The closest I've seen to the ideal were the swords in Troy, but I've no idea if that was accurate.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."

- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
User avatar
Lord Sabre Ace
Youngling
Posts: 144
Joined: 2005-08-24 04:25pm
Location: United States of America

Post by Lord Sabre Ace »

The Katana, your fists, and your feet. Get Tae-Kwon-Do on their ass.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -President John F. Kennedy

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
General Brock
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada

Post by General Brock »

wolveraptor wrote:For versatility, I was hoping for a short sword that could not only hack n' slash, but stab like the Gladius. According to one of the links I saw earlier, the falcata was basically and small axe, and iirc the the curved sword was also a slasher. The closest I've seen to the ideal were the swords in Troy, but I've no idea if that was accurate.
Yes, I think it was accurate except I think Darth Wong pointed out, in the Troy movie thread, that the spear was still the most commonly used weapon. The cruciform-hilted, leaf-shaped blade you are referring to is the xiphos, and was the standard infantry blade. The Greeks valued unit-level training over individual skills, though.

Don't take my word for it:
Greek swords and swordmanship

by Nick Sekunda

Above all else, the Greek hoplite was a spearman protected by his bronze-covered shield, fighting in a 'phalanx' of spearmen formed up in a line so many ranks deep. When asked why Lakedaimonian hoplites who lost their shields were dishonoured, while those who lost their helmets or cuirasses were not, according to Plutarch (Moralia 220 A) the Lakedaimonian king Demaratos replied: 'Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of the whole line.' The phalanx was a fighting formation that relied on co-ordinated group activity for success: the phalanx that could maintain the cohesion of its line the longest would normally be the victor in the hoplite battle. As such, during their two years of basic training as hoplites organised by the state, which was not by any means a full-time activity, young men would normally only be trained in their role as a member of the phalanx, that is in its operation as a body. In other words they would train to march in line, change formation, hold their shields together, and wield their spears as a unit.

The sword was very much a weapon of second choice, which was only drawn once a hoplite's spear had been shattered in the spear-fighting (doratismos) that went on once the two hoplite lines met. Fighting with spear and shield mainly required courage, strength and stamina to push on through the enemy line. Once the two lines were thrown out of order, the spears were shattered and the swords were drawn, swordfights would take the form of one-to-one duels fought out in chaotic conditions where the two shield walls had broken. In his Life of Timoleon (28.1), which describes the battle of the Krimesos fought against the Carthaginians in 341 BC, Plutarch states that the hoplites of the Carthaginian phalanx at first stood their ground against the Sicilian Greeks commanded by the Corinthian general Timoleon, until 'the struggle came to swords and the work required skill no less than strength'. In another passage in his Life of Pyrrhus (7.5) Plutarch describes a duel fought out between King Pyrrhus of Epirus and Pantauchos, General of Demetrius Poliorketes 'The Besieger', in 288 BC. They first threw their spears and then, coming to close quarters, laid in with their swords 'with might and skill'. Pyrrhus was wounded himself, but managed to wound Pantauchos in the thigh and neck, that is in the vulnerable points between helmet and shield and shield and greaves.

Thus, paradoxically, although sword fighting was not taught during basic training, it required much more skill and training than spear fighting. Hence a demand arose for extra private tuition in skill-at-arms, in which sword fighting played an important part. Parents with sufficient funds were more than willing to pay for this extra instruction. Instructors, known as hoplomachoi, 'fighters in arms', are first mentioned in literary sources located in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. We know of five hoplomachoi from this period by name: Stesileos, the brothers Euthydemos and Dionysodoros of Chios, Phalinos of Stymphalos (who later served as military adviser to the Persian General Tissaphernes at the battle of Cunaxa in 401 BC) and Diomilos of Andros.
Related Book:


The Ancient Greeks (Elite 7)

The hoplomachoi did not limit their terms of reference to teaching skill-at-arms; they also professed to be capable of teaching all branches of the military art, including generalship. For this reason, sources are in the main hostile to the profession of the hoplomachos. Xenophon in his Memorabilia (3.1) describes how Dionysodoros arrived in Athens and announced that he was going to teach generalship. For this reason the ancient sources are very critical of the hoplomachoi, dismissing them as charlatans. Nevertheless, they filled a real gap in Greek military training, which was only remedied at Athens in 335 BC when the reforms of the influential politician Lycurgus improved the system of hoplite training by, among other things, contracting specialist instructors in different skills-at-arms. Even Plato, one of the severest critics of the hoplomachoi, admits this through the words he puts in the mouth of the Athenian general Nikias (Laches 182 A) that such training is of the greatest advantage when the ranks are broken, and the hoplite has to fight man to man, either pursuing an enemy who is trying to beat off the attack, or when retreating oneself.

So much for Greek training in swordsmanship, what of the swords themselves? The Greek sword most widely in use during the Classical period had a straight, double-edged, leaf-shaped iron blade, swelling out towards the tip, and a cruciform hilt. References to Chalcidian swords in ancient texts, such as in a surviving fragment of the Lesbian poet Alkaios, suggest that the finest Greek swords were made in the city of Chalcis in Euboea. Indeed the eminent archaeologist Anthony Snodgrass stated in his book Arms and Armour of the Greeks, which first appeared in 1967 but is still the principal comprehensive work on the subject, that 'Chalcis became the outstanding centre of production of iron swords in Greece, as Toledo did of steel in medieval Europe'.

The sword with leaf-shaped blade could be used for both cut and thrust, but it is clear from the representational evidence that it was principally used in a downward cut. In fact we have few detailed clues as to how it was used. An interesting vase in the British Museum depicts a duel between Achilles and Hektor. Achilles on the left is still fighting with his spear, but Hektor has lost his, and is about to launch a violent attack with his drawn sword, which is of the standard type with its leaf-shaped blade. He has thrown the sword backwards in his right hand, and is about to rush on Achilles. As he runs in he will swing the sword forwards and upwards, and then up over the right shoulder, flexing his elbow and holding his chest and shoulders as high up as possible, in order to bring it down in front of him with the maximum force. Interestingly, and presumably by mistake, the artist has given Hektor a second sword housed in his scabbard.

The swelling of the blade, both in width and thickness, towards the point, which gives it its distinctive leaf shape, is presumably designed to move the centre of gravity of the blade forwards towards the point, and as far away from the hand as possible, to maximise the force of the downward blow. The emphasis was placed on the downward cut, and so we also find the Greeks making use of two types of curved and single-bladed swords designed to maximise the force of the blow.

The first type is best described as a recurved sabre. Shaped like a Gurkha kukri or a yataghan [a muslim long curved knife], the back of the blade curves forward, and the main weight of the weapon lies near the tip. The cutting edge is on the concave side. The hilt sometimes ends in the shape of a bird or animal head, or curves back to guard the knuckles in the shape of a 'knuckle-duster'. The weapon is often shown being used in a backhand cut. A good example of this is a vase in Bologna that shows an Amazon hoplite swinging a recurved sabre back over her left shoulder. She is about to deliver a diagonal slashing stroke to her front and right with it. Recurved sabres are very common in Iberia, but all these examples seem to be later in date, and it is possible they represent a later spread in the use of the weapon out of the Greek world to the west.

Finally the Greeks also used a third type of sword, not previously distinguished from the recurved sabre by Greek archaeologists, which, in comparison with the standard terminology used for medieval weaponry, we might best term a 'falchion'. Other suitable terms might be 'backsword' or 'pallasch'. It also had a heavy single-edged blade, whose back was either straight or slightly concave, but not recurved like the sabre described above, while the edge has a pronounced convex curve and broadens considerably towards the point. Like the recurved sabre the falchion also came into use in the later 6th century. The falchion is only shown on a limited number of vase paintings, and its popularity does not seem to have survived long into the 5th century.

Recurved sabres and falchions are both shown being used by Achaemenid troops on Greek vases. This suggests that both weapons may have originated in the east before being borrowed by the Greeks. No complete examples of either weapon have survived in Achaemenid contexts. However, an example of a pair of hilt applications was recovered from the excavations carried out at Persepolis, in the quarters once occupied by the garrison of the palace. It probably comes from a falchion rather than a recurved sabre. Evidently the hilt consisted of a central iron plate, an extension of the blade, to which a non-metallic plate was fixed at either side. The examples recovered by the excavations at Persepolis were of a blue paste composite material, which clearly imitates the precious stone lapis lazuli. They evidently come from a high quality example used by a unit of the guard. More mundane examples were probably made of wood or bone. In his Cyropaedia (1. 2. 9) Xenophon describes the equipment used by Persian infantrymen during the early fourth century. They each carry a bow and arrows, a wicker shield and two spears, and a battle-axe or sword. Xenophon is evidently referring to either a recurved sabre or a falchion, and he uses the word kopis to describe it.
Related Book:


The Greeks at War -
From Athens to Alexander
(Essential Histories Specials 5)

The word kopis literally means 'chopper'. In a number of literary passages the word is used of the domestic meat-cleaver, and where meat-cleavers are shown on vase-paintings they repeat the shape of the military recurved sabre or falchion. Similarly the word kopis is also used to describe the priestly knives used in religious sacrifices, and where priests are shown they hold knives that imitate the shape of the recurved sabre. Consequently we can be reasonably confident that when the word kopis is used in a military context it is being used of the recurved sabre or falchion. The Greeks used two other words for sword, machaira and xiphos. In the final chapter of his manual On Horsemanship (12.11) Xenophon recommends that the cavalryman should use a machaira rather than a xiphos, because from his elevated seat he will be able to strike with much more force with a kopis rather than a xiphos. Clearly in this passage Xenophon uses machaira as a synonym for kopis, and contrasts it to the xiphos. Thus the term machaira is probably given to the recurved sabre or the falchion too. Euripides in his play Cyclops (241) also uses both words synonymously.

Modern scholars and enthusiasts currently use the word machaira to describe the Greek recurved sabre and falchion, but this is not desirable practice. In its basic sense the word machaira means 'knife', and so the word is used of kitchen knives used for eating and in diminutive form for surgeons' knives, and the Greek word for a cutler is a machairopoios or 'knife-maker'. For this reason we cannot be certain that whenever the word machaira is used to describe a sword in the ancient texts it refers to the recurved sabre or falchion. It is used, for example, to describe the straight-bladed Lakedaimonian short-sword (see below). Similarly it seems that the word xiphos is used both in a general sense to mean 'sword' and specifically to mean the standard Greek slashing sword with leaf-shaped blade and cruciform hilt.

All of these three different types of sword in use during the early Classical period had one major fault. The shape of the blades of all three types created a weak point at the neck of the blade near the hilt. In time even the best blades would weaken and shear. This happened during the final phase of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. Herodotus (7.224-5) describes how the 300 Lakedaimonians commanded by Leonidas fought with their swords when their spears had broken, and then 'with swords (machairai), those who still had them, and even with their hands and teeth'.

A completely different sword comes into use towards the end of the 5th century, but its introduction is more likely connected to new tactics and concepts of combat developed by the Lakedaimonians rather than any inherent faults in the swords currently in use. No examples of this much shorter weapon, known as the Lakedaimonian short sword, have survived, however, a model sword in the British Museum, purchased privately in Crete in 1898 and later acquired by the Museum, perhaps copies one. It measures 32.2 cm, and so is larger than life, and is made solely of solid bronze. It weighs 780 grams. The hilt does not seem to have been manufactured separately from the blade, but it is not immediately obvious whether it has been brazed on, or whether the sword has been cast in one piece. There is no evidence for the remains of any flash around the hilt, but on the right flange of the hilt above the guard there is a circle of flat metal, possibly where the sprue has been broken off and smoothed down. Consequently, despite the slightly serrated edge, it was probably manufactured for a non-military purpose: perhaps either as an offering in a temple, or as a fitting for a statue, possibly erected by one of the cities of Crete to honour a Lakedaimonian king or general. Nevertheless, it probably reflects the shape of the Lakedaimonian short sword. The blade is a dumpy leaf shape, and the bottom of the guard is an ovoid shape. The pommel is roughly circular.

The first literary passage mentioning the Lakedaimonian short swords is in the Moralia (217 E) of Plutarch, which preserves a pithy statement of the Lakedaimonian statesman and general Antalkidas. In answer to a man who asked why the Lakedaimonians used short daggers, Altalkidas is reputed to have said, 'Because we fight close to the enemy.' Antalkidas was active from the 390s through to the 360s BC. He played a prominent role in the Lakedaimonian campaigns in Asia Minor, which came to an end in 387 BC with the famous 'Peace of Antalkidas' that he himself helped negotiate. Most probably this passage can be assigned to an incident that occurred during this campaign. It is clear from the representational evidence, however, that the short sword came into use considerably earlier, probably at some point in the second quarter of the 5th century.

Elsewhere in the Moralia (232 E) Plutarch attributes a very similar statement to an unidentified Lakedaimonian, who says that they could get to close quarters thanks to their short swords. It is uncertain whether these two passages preserve original statements by two separate individuals, or whether the second citation is an abbreviated and distorted version of the retort of Antalkidas. It is significant that in these and other passages use of the short sword is clearly regarded as a Lakedaimonian practice, at least initially. It is also significant that in both these passages the Lakedaimonian short sword is called an encheiridion, or 'dagger', rather than one of the more usual words for sword.

The reason for the switch to the short sword is made clear in these anecdotes. The earlier Greek swords were multi-purpose and were designed for use in the cut-and-thrust of a duel with a single enemy after the collapse of the phalanx. The Lakedaimonians were superior in drill to the other Greek hoplite armies. Marching in step, they would attempt to maintain their order right through the hoplite battle. If a hoplite had his spear broken in battle and was forced to use his sword, there would be no room for the swinging overhead blows of the cruciform sword, sabre or falchion, and they were too long to be used handily for underhand thrusts. But this was exactly what the thrusting short sword was designed for. The Lakedaimonian hoplite could attack his enemy's trunk or loins with it, either finding his way round his opponent's shield, or using his own shield to push a way through the enemy shield-wall. If he could open up a gap in this way, it did not have to be too big for him to get in a blow. The way in which the Lakedaimonians and their imitators used their swords in repeated under handthrusts can be compared to the way in which the Roman legionary used the 'Spanish sword' to such great effect.

A short sword of this type, though a little smaller in size, is shown in use on a sculpture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The sculpture is made from 'Pentelic' marble, which came from quarries on Mount Pentelikon in Attica. We know that Attic marble was exported to be used in sculptors' workshops in neighbouring countries, nevertheless on stylistic grounds the stele can be safely attributed to an Attic workshop. Therefore it would be reasonable to presume that the stele was originally commissioned as a tombstone by the family of an Athenian warrior who had died in battle. He probably died during the Peloponnesian Wars, as the sculpture has been dated to the late 5th century BC on stylistic grounds. The stele, broken off at the top, shows the deceased as a triumphant Athenian hoplite, about to deliver a fatal blow to the hoplite at his feet with a downward thrust of his spear. Presumably the stele is meant to symbolise victory in death, for it seems that the warrior at his feet is also about to deliver the wound that killed the Athenian in the form of an upward thrust with his short sword. The sculpture clearly demonstrates the way in which these swords were used to deliver short stabs. The hoplite lying on the ground, perhaps wounded, wears a pilos-helmet, and could possibly be regarded as a Lakedaimonian. He does not, however, wear the distinctive long locks and beard of a true Lakedaimonian warrior. Perhaps, therefore, he is a Lakedaimonian mercenary, or a hoplite recruited from among the Lakedaimonian helots, or serfs.

Use of the short sword spread to other Greek armies, though outside the Lakedaimonian army it never completely replaced the more traditional types of Greek swords. The Lakedaimonian army was the best-organised Greek army, and the equipment it used was more uniform than that of other Greek states. There is even some evidence for the state issue of equipment. In other states the type of weapons carried by the citizen soldiers seems to have, to a large extent, depended on personal choice, within the framework of state legislation outlining which items the citizens had to carry while serving as hoplites. Therefore in other armies the types of sword carried by the hoplites may have varied to quite a significant degree. Nevertheless, in some areas, and the process is most easily discerned in Boeotia, the short sword seems to have also entered universal use in the first quarter of the 4th century. A number of representations of hoplites from Boeotia show them adopting an aggressive pose, body thrust to the front with the left leg forward, pushing forward the shield to throw the enemy off balance, while the right hand is drawn backwards poised to deliver a mortal thrust with a short sword of the Lakedaimonian type.

The Lakedaimonians continued to use their short swords, and the same jokes, right down to the age of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, by which time it was no longer in widespread use in other Greek armies. Plutarch, in his Life of Lycurgus (19.2), tells us that when an Athenian mocked the Lakedaimonian swords (machairai) for being so short that jugglers on stage could easily swallow them, a certain King Agis replied, 'And even so we still reach our enemies with these daggers (encheiridia).' Here Plutarch puts the word machaira, often used, as we have seen, for the 'sabre' in the mouth of the Athenian and encheiridion, or 'dagger' into the mouth of Agis. A parallel passage in Plutarch's Moralia (191 E) identifies the monarch in question as Agis III, who reigned 338-331 BC, and the Athenian as the orator and politician Demades. Here the word xiphos, the standard Greek word for sword, is used of the Lakedaimonian short sword, as it is in a second passage of Plutarch's Moralia (241 F), where, according to Plutarch, a Lakedaimonian mother is said to have remarked to her son, when he complained that his sword was too short, that he should 'add a step forward to it'.

The way in which the words encheiridion, machaira and xiphos are interchanged in these passages relating to the Lakedaimonian short sword, even allowing for some inaccuracies in their transmission from the original source down to the pen of Plutarch, demonstrates how the different ancient Greek words for swords are applied quite irregularly. However, vase paintings, sculptures and other archaeological evidence clarify the distinctions between the three types of swords and throw additional light on the evolutiuon of the most widely used short sword into the Lakedaimonian xiphos.

Further Reading
de Souza, Philip, Essential Histories 27: The Pelopponesian War 431-404 BC
de Souza, Philip, & Heckel, Waldemar, & Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd, Essential Histories Specials 5: The Greeks at War - From Athens to Alexander (Osprey, 2004)
Sekunda, Nick, Elite 7: The Ancient Greeks (Osprey, 1986)
Sekunda, Nick, Elite 66: The Spartan Army (Osprey, 1998)
Sekunda, Nick, Warrior 27: Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC (Osprey, 2000)
Sekunda, Nick & Warry, John, General Military: Alexander the Great (Osprey, 2004)
Snodgrass, Anthony, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998)

Read more articles

All contents copyrighted © 2004 by Osprey Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. The content of these publications may not be reproduced in any form, printed or electronic, without prior written permission from the publisher.
From:

Linky


You will find pictures of Greek swords here (machaira sword, parazonium dagger):

By the Sword Catalogue, Greeksl
General Brock
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada

Post by General Brock »

wolveraptor wrote:The timeline takes place mostly in ancient times, even before the rise of Rome, though I'm thinking of expanding into that just for coolness. In any case, it stays firmly out of medieval times. So plate armor isn't a an issue, nor are crossbows. The units I'd be facing would probably be spear phalanxes, chariots, and maybe short-sword/shield combos.

I imagine I'd equip the bulk of my army with short swords (haven't decided what kind yet) and small metal shields. If our enemy had any significant cavalry division, I'd have a group of soldiers equipped with spears as well as the usual armament. I wonder if such spears could double as javelins? If so, all my soldiers would have spears, and if there were no cavalry, they'd hurl the missiles much like Roman armies. My soldiers would not be wearing heavy armor, which would increase, to some extent, their maneuvering capability on the battle field. I'd also spread my lines out so that a large group of soldiers weren't stuck in the middle. I haven't made any real decisions about how my cavalry units would be arranged. I know, though, that I would have no worries about cavalry archers, who would otherwise utterly devastate my army. Since there was no stirrup, there could be no effective hit-and-run archers.

Were maces and axes used to great effect in that period?
The period you seem to be referring to is bronze-age, early iron, in whioh case good bronze would be at a premium and iron, particularly if from a meteoric source, would be almost magical. Maces and axes would be used if only because, like a spearhead, they were much easier to manufacture and mass produce without straining resources. Not to mention easier to train large numbers of expendagrunts in their use.

As for calvary, you would do well to look here:
Additionally, the stirrups can be useful before the impact, to brace the rider more firmly against the cantle. The moment of impact however, tends to pull the rider's feet up and back - or otherwise "out" of the stirrups.

Useful, yes. But are they "necessary" for the shock of the charge with couched lance? Not especially. To test the effect of the stirrups, one has only to remove them from the saddle and try the pass without them. I have accomplished many successful passes at the quintain without stirrups, with no appreciative loss in the force of impact.

The stirrups are extremely useful for lateral support, and "standing" in the hand to hand fighting of a melee likely to follow a charge. It is especially difficult to pull a man off a horse if he has his feet firmly planted in the stirrups. Stirrups then allow the horseman to exploit the success of the charge, once a lance is broken or discarded in the chest of an unfortunate foe.

Back to the moment of impact. The lance is forced back into the armpit, where it is gripped between the pectoral muscle and inside edge of the biceps and triceps. We learned fairly quickly that to perform a pass wearing only a light shirt or jacket would often result in a tear or abrasion commonly called a Quintain Burn. If the rider's grip was weak, the lance would slide back causing friction burns along the arm and chest. Repeated passes in one rehearsal often resulted in ugly bruises and bleeding. The effect was reduced when practiced in a leather jerkin or chainmail, though that too had its own peculiar tortures.

If the angle of impact was too oblique, the lance would skip off the surface of the shield, and torque back against the rider's face, neck or chest. In order to prevent clothes-lining himself, or hitting his horse with the butt of the lance, we developed a technique called "windmilling". This was achieved by instantly releasing the "armpit grip" and raising the lance above the rider's head. The momentum of the point was allowed to carry the tip counter-clockwise, clearing the horse and rider' heads, and brought to a stop by the strength of the wrist alone. A weak grip could result in the lance simply flying away above and behind the rider. This exact move was also useful when the lance penetrated a shield or target, and the rider needed to release a lance to prevent himself from being unhorsed.

Once a solid hit is put on target, the rider focuses his full body on delivering the blow. Arm, wrist and chest grip the lance, while the abdominals contract to assist the back, and the legs grip the horse tightly. It was not uncommon to hear a shout or grunt expelled in our efforts to focus "chi" energy at the moment of impact.

If the lance does not break, then the rider must continue to "push" through the hit, either penetrating the target, or "unhorsing" it. This was accomplished while simultaneously moving the bridle hand forward even as the body recoiled backwards, and strength was expended to maintain the contact.

One of the biggest misconceptions about shock combat is that the combined weight of horse and rider is directly translated to the lance - As if somehow the horse, rider, and lance were one rigid mass. In fact, they may move down the field as one, but at the moment of impact, they react as separate units.
From:

Shock tactics

Study also the Egyptian army at the time of the Rameses I/Seti I reforms. Ypoknons is correct when he points out that weaponry is secondary to organization and esprit de corps in classical and ancient armies.

Hatchepsut : The Female Pharoah, by Joyce A. Tyldesley is a good general primer on the subject as she gives a concise overview while examining the conditions of Hatchepsut's ascendance, but there are others much more detailed I can't pull off the top at the moment. Mostly, the Egyptians established a professionally administered army based on meritocracy. Rather than rely on gifted leaders born into the ruling elite, there was a determined effort to build up a corps of professional experience reinforced with bureaucratic inertia, (so no one inept ruler could screw everything up) drawn objectively from all levels of Egyptian society.
User avatar
sketerpot
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 2004-03-06 12:40pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by sketerpot »

Lord Sabre Ace wrote:The Katana, your fists, and your feet. Get Tae-Kwon-Do on their ass.
I imagined a bunch of Katana-wielding Tae Kwon Do people going up against a decent infantry line with an assortment of swords, shields, and decent support weapons. Then I winced at the carnage I saw resulting.

Katanas are awfully long to swing around effectively against a large number of adversaries, and you didn't mention a shield or armor. Shields are very effective, both at protecting an individual soldier and at protecting the people behind him. In a clash with more than a few people, group tactics are going to be very important, and it's essential to get a proper mix of weapons and protective equipment.

Hell, even the Samurai used bows and spears as their weapons of choice. Katanas are nice weapons for heavy slicing, but they're certainly not the be-all end-all of swords. No sword can occupy that exalted and mythical position.
User avatar
Lancer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3957
Joined: 2003-12-17 06:06pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Lancer »

Lord Sabre Ace wrote:The Katana, your fists, and your feet. Get Tae-Kwon-Do on their ass.
two things:
Katanas get their asses kicked by their counterpart European swords.

Taw-Kwon-Do is Korean, not Jap.
General Brock
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada

Post by General Brock »

A second to Wilfulton's ColdSteel.com link. If the novel idea dosen't work out you could take some of the live action images and transpose them onto an online comic. I mean, if you can draw OK, or find someone who can.

Matt Huang wrote: >snip<

I thought TKD was a modern art with a few elements of Japanese MA, and not wholly derived from indigenous Korean sources, but I could be wrong. As for katanas being inferior to European swords, hmmm. Is Keevan_Colton around? He might be abe to offer some insight, because a flat out statement claiming Japanese katanas are better than Euro blades leaves out a lot of variables. A lot of enthusiasts and experts are divided on this point, and pretty much agree that it comes down to the swordsman and the combat environment. As far as anyone knows, no such encounter between such swordsmen at the height of their powers ever happened in history.

I'm not even sure if wolveraptor could fit a katana-like sword into a pre-Roman era fiction, although one could write whatever one wants if the spell is woven well enough.
User avatar
Lancer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3957
Joined: 2003-12-17 06:06pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Lancer »

There was already a discussion on katanas vs their european counterparts here:

European swords vs Asian (esp Japanese katanas)
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Especially since a LongBowman can shoot 5-10 arrows before the crossbowman can shoot 2.
The best Welsh archers were said to be able to have 4 arrows in flight and one on the string before the first arrow hit the target.
Regardless, the crossbow is a vastly superior weapon because with a little target practice anyone can wield it effectively, whereas using a longbow effectively required a lifetime of practice.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Lord Sabre Ace
Youngling
Posts: 144
Joined: 2005-08-24 04:25pm
Location: United States of America

Post by Lord Sabre Ace »

Matt Huang wrote: Taw-Kwon-Do is Korean, not Jap.
I know Tae-Kwon-Do is Korean. But someone I know who went to a different TKD school whese the trained with katanas.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -President John F. Kennedy

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
User avatar
Lord Sabre Ace
Youngling
Posts: 144
Joined: 2005-08-24 04:25pm
Location: United States of America

Post by Lord Sabre Ace »

Lord Sabre Ace wrote:
Matt Huang wrote: Taw-Kwon-Do is Korean, not Jap.
I know Tae-Kwon-Do is Korean. But someone I know who went to a different TKD school whese the trained with katanas.
edit:

should be "where they", not "whese the"
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -President John F. Kennedy

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
tharkûn
Tireless defender of wealthy businessmen
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:03pm

Post by tharkûn »

The timeline takes place mostly in ancient times, even before the rise of Rome, though I'm thinking of expanding into that just for coolness. In any case, it stays firmly out of medieval times. So plate armor isn't a an issue, nor are crossbows. The units I'd be facing would probably be spear phalanxes, chariots, and maybe short-sword/shield combos.
Metallurgy of that era made iron and even bronze quite expensive. Cost will be a major issue when outfitting troops.
I imagine I'd equip the bulk of my army with short swords (haven't decided what kind yet) and small metal shields. If our enemy had any significant cavalry division, I'd have a group of soldiers equipped with spears as well as the usual armament. I wonder if such spears could double as javelins?
Short swords and small shields are going to get your batteline decimated against advancing spears. You need larger shields (like those used by real legionaires) to protect your men to get inside the range of spears. At the time period in question armoring a man enough to protect him with just a small shield is too costly and too much weight.

Doubling your javelins and spears could be done, but you must sacrifice to double up. A javelin works best with a different head, different length, and different weight.


If so, all my soldiers would have spears, and if there were no cavalry, they'd hurl the missiles much like Roman armies. My soldiers would not be wearing heavy armor, which would increase, to some extent, their maneuvering capability on the battle field. I'd also spread my lines out so that a large group of soldiers weren't stuck in the middle. I haven't made any real decisions about how my cavalry units would be arranged. I know, though, that I would have no worries about cavalry archers, who would otherwise utterly devastate my army. Since there was no stirrup, there could be no effective hit-and-run archers.
Heavy armor will decrease your maneuvering capability. The weight of heavy armor at that time period was prodigious and easily saps a man of strength. Couple the fact that heavy armor does piss all to breathe and you quickly dehydrate your men. Lightly armored troops will invariably outmanuever equally skilled heavy troops. The strength of heavily armored troops was their ability to simply march right through lightly armored troops.

Horse archers don't require stirrups, however anyone who can do a good job of it has been seriously trained for the task (likely since birth). As an added bonus to the infantry such early horse archers would perform terribly on anything but level open ground.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Best weapon of ancient war

Post by Darth Wong »

wolveraptor wrote:Feel free to move this as is appropriate. I had a seed of an idea for a novel, and it has to do with a bunch of kickass warriors conquering the ancient world in a sort of alt-history.

Two major weapons I can recall of ancient armies were pike or spear phalanxes (Macedonians) and short sword-shield combos (Romans).

One disadvantage of the Macedonian phalanx was it's ability to be broken up by terrain abnormalities, plus the infinite ease with which it was outmaneuvered. I planned to give my warriors short, 6 ft spears that could be used for beheading and slashing as well as stabbing: sort've like a mini-halbred, you might say.

The other weapons is far more firmly rooted in history: the Romans used the shield and Gladius to great effect, blocking the massive swinging swords of barbarians and taking down the massive warriors with a single thrust to the throat or heart. Plus, they looked wicked cool in the "Troy" movie.
People have posted in this thread who are far more knowledgeable about ancient warfare than me. But I would like to contribute this thought: the ultimate army configuration for your alt-history story would depend on what the enemy is using.

PS. One must keep in mind that an ancient enemy would not have the history of warfare that a modern person would have, if thrust into that world. It's not just a matter of technology but also tactics. The enemy might simply not have thought of countermeasures to certain tactics which may seem obvious to us, with our millenia of hindsight. So in a very large sense, the introduction of unconventional tactics onto the battlefield, even with unremarkable weaponry, could very easily result in massively one-sided routs in this alt-history world of yours.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Ypoknons
Jedi Knight
Posts: 999
Joined: 2003-05-13 06:02am
Location: Manhattan (school year), Hong Kong (vacations)
Contact:

Post by Ypoknons »

Before the rise of Rome, the Gauls were using spears and iron longswords of questionable quality with which they sacked Rome (Rome was still using the Phalanx at this point; technically the Triarii would still be using a Hoplite-style formation as RTW begins). Horse archers were not uncommon. Alexandrian phalanx and Hoplites were everywhere. Spear-and-bow Persian infantry was common. Sword and javelin troops would be around - Greek Thureophoroi, often confused with imitation legions, used sword and Javelin, and the Greeks themselves used Hoplites like Rome would use legionnaires in sieges. Not sure about the Falx at this point. Check up on Chinese weapons – there are some interesting hammers used at this point. Things could really wash up far away from home …

I hate to say it, but there isn’t that much choice in weaponry. Metalsminths weren’t really that good in the early iron age.

There are reports of legions using their pillia as spears. I've personally always loved short swords and classical Hoplite shields.
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

Lord Sabre Ace wrote:The Katana, your fists, and your feet. Get Tae-Kwon-Do on their ass.
TKD? Lol, TKD is a sport and a Katana is hardly going to fit in the OP world.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

General Brock wrote:
A really cool weapon would be a light halbred like the Japanese naginata, or some version of the Chinese dao dao. Since you want a Western flavour, something like an estoc or tuck, which was a narrow sword, almost a rod, meant to poke through gaps and weak points in armour. It proved to be a light, yet efficient weapon that the upper class warriors took to carrying off-duty. In Spain it became the civillian espada de ropera (sword worn with clothing, as opposed to armour); that is, the rapier, which revolutionized the sword arts in the west. I think the only rapier to make it as a military weapon was the papenheimer, during the Thirty Years War and it was unfashionably pretensious for commoners to weild it.
Oh? evidence for this stuff regardinf the Tuck evolving into the rapier not to mentioning it 'revoltionising the sword art in the west'
More popular was falchion, a really big cleaver meant to open up plate armour and favoured by the Flemish town militias of the late medieval era.

snip
falchion opening plate armour? evidence?
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Lord of the Abyss
Village Idiot
Posts: 4046
Joined: 2005-06-15 12:21am
Location: The Abyss

Post by Lord of the Abyss »

HemlockGrey wrote:
Especially since a LongBowman can shoot 5-10 arrows before the crossbowman can shoot 2.
The best Welsh archers were said to be able to have 4 arrows in flight and one on the string before the first arrow hit the target.
Regardless, the crossbow is a vastly superior weapon because with a little target practice anyone can wield it effectively, whereas using a longbow effectively required a lifetime of practice.
I've heard it suggested that crossbows used properly could simulate the advantages of early gunpowder warfare. The idea is, you take advantage of it's ease of use compared to a bow and arm great numbers with it. Then, you fire in ranks; first rank fires, then drops and reloads. Then second rank fires, drops and reloads. Then the third, etc. The idea is to create a continuous fire. I don't know enough about ancient weapons to judge, but it sounds effective.
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Well, using a crossbow is simply much more cost-effective. If your longbowmen gets a mace to the face, then you're out an expensive asset that takes years and years to train. If your crossbowman gets maced then you grab some other guy, stick him on the line and show him how to work the winch.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
wolveraptor
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4042
Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm

Post by wolveraptor »

Short swords and small shields are going to get your batteline decimated against advancing spears. You need larger shields (like those used by real legionaires) to protect your men to get inside the range of spears. At the time period in question armoring a man enough to protect him with just a small shield is too costly and too much weight.
That was my dilemna: how can I get a metal shield big enough to be good protection? I didn't want my army to fall prey to the trick that the Romans used: sticking meter-long javelins in their shields to force them to throw it away. Also, wooden shields have the tendency to be destroyed by heavy mace blows, which would be common for skill-less grunts, I think.

At the same time, I value a highly mobile army, one that didn't half die from walking to the field of battle, like the Crusaders.

So far, I'll have my army armed with spears and shields, with back up short swords, whenever the battlefield is choked up and crowded. That combo would be work best in such situations, when the opponent has no room for great sweeping cuts and swipes.

When my opponent has highly mobile cavalry or an open battlefield, I'd switch to spears and backup two-handed swords/maces/axes or any thing that can use all that space.

And always, I'd have my soldiers rain fire on to the ranks of an approaching army. The rear-most lines would continue as long as they could.

My cavalry would mainly be used for hit-and-run attacks and archery, rather than charging and main-body attack.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."

- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Post by Elheru Aran »

HemlockGrey wrote:Well, using a crossbow is simply much more cost-effective. If your longbowmen gets a mace to the face, then you're out an expensive asset that takes years and years to train. If your crossbowman gets maced then you grab some other guy, stick him on the line and show him how to work the winch.
Ah, the difference is all in the *rate of fire*. While, certainly, crossbows are much easier to use, IIRC this is a fic he's looking for information upon; in that case, he can just start out with already-trained longbowmen. And with those, well, practically *nobody* is going to get close enough in order to attack your archers. Ever hear that expression 'darken the sky with arrows'? It's not as metaphorical as you might think.

And if some sprinters do get through. That's why you have the archers behind a line of pikemen/spearmen/infantry. They are quite undoubtedly any mediaeval-level-tech army's premier weapon; therefore it is to said army's advantage to protect them.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
tharkûn
Tireless defender of wealthy businessmen
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:03pm

Post by tharkûn »

That was my dilemna: how can I get a metal shield big enough to be good protection? I didn't want my army to fall prey to the trick that the Romans used: sticking meter-long javelins in their shields to force them to throw it away. Also, wooden shields have the tendency to be destroyed by heavy mace blows, which would be common for skill-less grunts, I think.
Heavy mace blows were rare, you have very few powerful blows in your arm before fatigue sets in. Further in order to deliver a heavy mace blow you need lots of room and often open yourself up to attack. This tends to mean you have more men per meter on the line and that they can stab the heavy mace man before he makes contact. Even should he break the shield he still faces the ugly fact that two guys may be stabbing solely at him. "Skill-less grunts" with heavy maces are going to become pincushions against heavily trained troops.

In any event I suggest you look to the Romans. Curving your shields allows you to deflect any blow off center. On center you can reinforce with brass or bronze. Further by using steamed wood you can greatly reduce the mass your troops need to lug. With such a shield you can use the shield offensively and deflect the mace's momentum - which makes a good oppurtunity to stab the sucker.
At the same time, I value a highly mobile army, one that didn't half die from walking to the field of battle, like the Crusaders.
Don't fight in deserts, desert fighting was the worst attrition you could find outside of the deep jungles few people gave a damn about. The heavier you make your forces the worse dehydration is going to affect them. Of course the best thing you could do is give them some type of fanatical sense of sanitation (like religious purity rituals) to combat disease.
So far, I'll have my army armed with spears and shields, with back up short swords, whenever the battlefield is choked up and crowded. That combo would be work best in such situations, when the opponent has no room for great sweeping cuts and swipes.
That is sensible. I'd suggest going with hardened leather, wooden shields (banded and studded with metal), and definately having some elite cavalry and missile troops to supplement.
When my opponent has highly mobile cavalry or an open battlefield, I'd switch to spears and backup two-handed swords/maces/axes or any thing that can use all that space.
Not a good idea. You want to keep the number of weapons you have to supply for your troops and that they have to lug around small. You also want them to be able to quickly become proficient, not have to spend years learning dozens of weapons. Highly mobile cavalry should bring out the arrows, javelins, and spears. While the backbone of your forces should be cheap infantry, having no cavalry at all is usually a bad idea.
My cavalry would mainly be used for hit-and-run attacks and archery, rather than charging and main-body attack.
Hit and run was not terribly effective unless you have superior range to infantry bowmen and certain armoring issues are dealt with. The real reason the Mongols overran the world is that their compound bows had draw weights near those of the English longbows and could outrange their enemies. Likewise their strength meant that they could penetrate armor like the English longbow (armor penetration without good, relatively cheap iron would most likely be lousy). If you go for recurve composite bows, do recall that you need stirrups to be able to stand up to fire (you could use an assymetric bow, but that decreases your accuracy). Also do recall that training anyone to be a proficient horse archer took years and would make these highly elite troops.

The main value of cavalry was mobility, while most spear formations are excellent when hit head on, they are terrible at defending the rear. Cavalry were wonderful for hitting the flanks and rear of a formation in order to get it to collapse. Hitting the main body is a decent tactical decision - just DON'T run your cavalry into the front, hit the sides and rear.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
User avatar
CoyoteNature
Padawan Learner
Posts: 167
Joined: 2005-09-12 08:51pm
Location: Somewhere between insanity, inteligence and foolishness

Post by CoyoteNature »

I think the Longbow is the coolest weapon, suppose it depends on how you want to fight though

Bows in general my preference, depends on if you like bleeding the enemy or facing them head on.

Heck go all out, use interesting techs of the time, or not, use Greek fire, or not.

Think about basic logistics, and supplies; I think most armies foraged for a lot of their supplies in ancient times. Does your enemy burn the farms before you, guerrilla tactics or not, attack your infrastructure, When your men sleep, what do you do about night attacks?

What's the climate like? does it fit the weather?(Despite Cortez's advantage in terms of armor, the Aztecs were stil able to slaughter him initially, although admittedly more due to greed) Do you have enough soldiers for atrition through things like warfare, or even disease(as some others have posted). Are your men mercenaries or not. Seem to recall, forgive me if I'm wrong, mercenaries were used fairly commonly during various conflicts between Greek city states.

Anyway, perhaps its obvious, but those are my thoughts.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm sure about the latter.

Albert Einstein

Brains, brains, brainsssssssssssssssss uggggg, brains.

Brains
User avatar
wolveraptor
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4042
Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm

Post by wolveraptor »

Just a note to everyone: my army is at a late bronze age early iron age tech level, around the time of the Persian-Greek, or possibly earlier, and maybe even extending as late as the height of Rome. It does not get into longbows, crossbows, katana, etc.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."

- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
Post Reply