Best weapon of ancient war

[tharkûn]

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, et

Chinese crossbows may date back to 1500, however I think most of those examples were shoddy. Certainly circa 400 BC China had crossbows. Still any such crossbow is going to be very impotent because of low rates of fire, lousy aim, or terrible armor penetration.

[wolveraptor]

Okay. I guess big maces aren't going to be common or effective enough to totally negate a good wooden shield.

It's a good idea to not fight in deserts, but how the bloody hell am I supposed to get at Egypt? Those pyramids are asking to be converted into the world's most stylish brothels. Also, what about fighting in the winter? I had hoped I'd gain a massive advantage as all other armies retreated for the winter, while mine would continue attacking.

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.

Since my forces lived in a 100% military culture, I was hoping I could get away with them having proficiency with the spear, the short sword-shield, and their choice of the two-handed axe, mace, or sword. Stretching it, maybe I could get away with them knowing how to either throw javelins or fire arrows. That's 4 total, with more emphasis on the melee weapons. Iirc, knights and samurai were expected to learn a variety of weapons, as well as a lot of other useless shit.

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?

I was planning on them sleeping in shifts, except before a major battle, when I'd need all of them. The basic tactic would be to send a small group of soldiers during the night to slaughter every villager, men, women and children alike, and take their shit. Hell, they could even use the villager's huts sleep in and use as base camp. They'd hunt for meat. They sleep in the elements, wrapped in cloaks, unless they were in the situation described below, which is most of the time.

Of course, most of this would be less important if my warriors were being state-funded, as was planned. When they're not working for civiliians, they beat up on civllians until they find work. Usually, an ambitious king is willing to give them food, the barest of shelters, and a source of battles, in return for unparralleled military service. So basically, when they're working for someone, they'd take over villages, and self-serve until the supply trains moved in with food, tents, and hookers. From the warrior's own caste, of course, to preserve the bloodline. Seriously, it'd be good for moral.

I wanted to have my spear formations such that men on the sides could stick their spears out so that the entire phalanx was bristling with long pointy things on every side. No cavalry could flank us then. Of course, that would only be necessary for highly mobile cavalry. I imagine there might be problems if the spears are too long. How long do you all recomend they be? I don't want to simply lose out to an enemy force on flat plains just because they have spears 5 ft longer. I suppose that's where my cavalry come in, out maneuvering them, trying to get them to break up their lines with constant javelin fire, slings, and other shit thrown at them. The sooner my men get inside that spear wall, the better.

[tharkûn]

It's a good idea to not fight in deserts, but how the bloody hell am I supposed to get at Egypt? Those pyramids are asking to be converted into the world's most stylish brothels. Also, what about fighting in the winter? I had hoped I'd gain a massive advantage as all other armies retreated for the winter, while mine would continue attacking.

Winter fighting is either not going to be an issue for your enemies or a bad idea for you. The biggest problem in the winter is supply, feeding you army becomes quite difficult, let alone pressing onward with the attack. Depending on the climate at the time and place where you fight you either have to come up with a regular supply of food or the enemy will be more than willing to fight even in winter.

Egypt was the Nile. You don't need to conqueor the sands, just march up the flood plain of the Nile. Most likely you'd want to take out Egypt when some local conflict (civil war or rebellion) is under way to prevent them from waging a massive battle at one of the chokepoints.

Since my forces lived in a 100% military culture, I was hoping I could get away with them having proficiency with the spear, the short sword-shield, and their choice of the two-handed axe, mace, or sword. Stretching it, maybe I could get away with them knowing how to either throw javelins or fire arrows. That's 4 total, with more emphasis on the melee weapons.

How fast are you expanding and what are you doing in the way assimilation? If you are thinking about an Alexander style conquest you will NEED to be able to incorporate new recruits into the ranks without having them trained from birth. It takes ridiciously small garrisons, attrition losses, and battle casualties to overwhelm the manpower of even large state undergoing rapid expansion. If you take it slow and assimilate your conquests you can get away with more elite grunts.

Iirc, knights and samurai were expected to learn a variety of weapons

It also took entire villages to support a knight or samurai. Training someone like that from childhood meant that society receives no constructive value. You will need to have a massive population base, be ridiciously rich, or something really screwy to have hoardes of elitely trained troops. The better you make your troops, the more peons you have to having working to pay for their gear, pay for their training, and pay for their food.

I was planning on them sleeping in shifts, except before a major battle, when I'd need all of them.

Bad plan. In the ancient world sunlight was quite useful. If you are sleeping in shifts that means at least one shift is being expected to work, march, or otherwise perform its useful function in the dark. Nightfighting was devastating, but also horrificly difficult (no maps, lights, or compasses). Just finding your enemy was difficult.

the basic tactic would be to send a small group of soldiers during the night to slaughter every villager, men, women and children alike,

Meh killing villagers was easy, very few villages had trained professional soldiers and few even semi-professional soldiers. You should CERTAINLY have a vast numerical superiority. Villages were protected not by indigenious forces capable of withstanding conqueorers, but by cities which would retaliate should the village be burned (hence the notion of the "city-state"). Any burg that has a wall and watch is going very hard to defeat with light night strikes.

Of course, most of this would be less important if my warriors were being state-funded, as was planned. When they're not working for civiliians, they beat up on civllians until they find work. Usually, an ambitious king is willing to give them food, the barest of shelters, and a source of battles, in return for unparralleled military service. So basically, when they're working for someone, they'd take over villages, and self-serve until the supply trains moved in with food, tents, and hookers. From the warrior's own caste, of course, to preserve the bloodline. Seriously, it'd be good for moral.

Your soldiers will rape the women. Even celibate martial orders had problems with that one.

Paying your soldiers decent wages is going to be beyond the means of all but the most wealthy kings. Thucydides (sp?) goes into a decent bit of detail about how much the Athenians were paying for their war, elite troops like yours would cost profoundly more; particularly because you have no means to compell them to fight.

Finally no greedy King wants a dead village, he'd much prefer a live village filled with new tax paying subjects and nubile young women for the harem.

I wanted to have my spear formations such that men on the sides could stick their spears out so that the entire phalanx was bristling with long pointy things on every side.

That cuts your potential batteline legth, depth, or density by a factor of three for true omnidirectional coverage. If you just opt for spears coming out the side, then you will have trouble at the corners (which will vary depending on the angle). Frankly any ancient commander who saw you equally protecting your flanks and rear as heavily as your front would laugh his ass off. That means that half of your men will do nothing in the battle if he doesn't try to flank. A far better tactic is to anchor your line - on natural terrain barriers, on cavalry, on sword infantry, etc. or to outflank your opponent himself.

I imagine there might be problems if the spears are too long. How long do you all recomend they be?

Eight feet give or take (shorter if you go overhand, but I think overhand sucks).

I don't want to simply lose out to an enemy force on flat plains just because they have spears 5 ft longer.

Much beyond 8 ft becomes impossible to weild effectively without extremely good unit organization. Long spears can function only in formation and are very vulnerable to arrow and javelin. Once you break up the formation you can hammer it with cavalry or infantry and just wedge it open until it breaks.

[wolveraptor]

On winter fighting: I forgot that during this period, there were no major civilizations whose centers were in places where the snow was deep and cold. I figure all I need to do during the winter is hold whatever ground I've already gained and perhaps send out an occasional raiding party, if I can.

How fast are you expanding and what are you doing in the way assimilation? If you are thinking about an Alexander style conquest you will NEED to be able to incorporate new recruits into the ranks without having them trained from birth. It takes ridiciously small garrisons, attrition losses, and battle casualties to overwhelm the manpower of even large state undergoing rapid expansion. If you take it slow and assimilate your conquests you can get away with more elite grunts.

Actually, I've a lot of time to burn, so conquering the lands from India to Greece within a single king's short lifespan is unnecessary. Besides, I had been hoping for physical characteristics of my people to slowly but surely build up over the generations so that 1000 years later, they were slightly stronger and faster.
Of course, keeping troops like that idle for too long means they're really not contributing to the Empire's economy. I was hoping that their cultural and religious values dictate a simple, non-luxurious life, revolving around racial purity and being released from physical existence after their concept of a virtuous and fulfilling life. Religion is enough of a war motivator for them, as well as the addictive pleasure of thoroughly and utterly destroying your enemy, and knowing you are the best, the world's elite. Training would be something the adults would teach the young; it would not be a commodity bought or sold. They'd hunt their own meat, so the main expense would be grains and other vegetarian foodstuffs. Armor need only be equipped if an invasion is pending.
The best possible, but rather expensive scenario, would be if after generations, they built up a massive population (with their philosophy of fathering many children), and sweep across nations in a wave of destruction.

It's unlikely that I'd have my warriors fighting real battles at night: I'd rather have them burn the enemy camp and leave real quick-like, perhaps in the wee hours of the morning, so that by the time they reacted, it was daybreak, and people could see who they were fighting. If anything, the latest battles would occur at dusk.

Any burg that has a wall and watch is going very hard to defeat with light night strikes.

Such cities would not be the targets of raids, but rather miniature sieges.

Your soldiers will rape the women. Even celibate martial orders had problems with that one.

Well sure. Hell, it could be done just to make a point: we're in control bitches; surrender now, and we might not tear your wife's breast off.
The only thing they weren't allowed to do is bring the children of such events into their own society, and allow them to get jiggy with the warrior's women. "The spawn of the lower races shall not be sheltered, but rather killed, their bones gnawed by pigs."

Finally no greedy King wants a dead village, he'd much prefer a live village filled with new tax paying subjects and nubile young women for the harem.

Eh, if he really demands it, it shall be done, but destroying the children of a village really freaks the enemy out. My warriors would be one step closer to modern, annihilate-it-all warfare. Think Assyrians, only meaner.

If spears can function well at only 8 ft long, then I see nothing stopping warriors in the back from simply sticking out their spears as soon as they see cavalry starting to attack from that side. Also, my lines could be spread widely to prevent a massive flank by cavalry; besides, I like to keep a small but effecitve part of my army slightly behind the main body when I think my opponent is going to make full use of mobile units.

A question about facing the Macedonian phalanx: since the spears were ridiculously long, couldn't my warriors sort of push the pikehead aside with a shove of his shield and cut it off? Only one man needs to succeed at this, and my warriors can stream in through the gap. Of course, it might be easier to try to break up lines and then attempt this.

[General Brock]

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?

http://www.liebaart.org/zwaard_e.htm
http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/SRM/weapons.htm

These sites mention the use of the falchion against armour, with pics of period art depicting its use against plate armour.

The introduction of the estoc (which means thrust or point in early French), to defeat mail links and plate introduced a whole new perspective on fencing, reliant soley on accurate point work. The estoc also became popular off the battlefield as a dress weapon, being lighter and easier to carry than a full longsword. You are correct, though, in asserting there is no direct evidence that the tuck 'evolved' into the rapier; they remained distinct weapons in concurrent use in their respective environments.

The sword's decline in value on the medieval-modern battlefield was countered by its rise in civilian use as a weapon for duelling, self-defense, and sport, and much of this civilian interest was sparked by the science of fencing primarily with the point using a light, elegant and ornate sword called the rapier.

While it is true that traditional longswords did become longer and narrower to defeat plate armour, they remained cut and thrust weapons with simple cruciform hilts; not obvious candidates for inspiring the rapier. The estoc was a thrusting weapon, like the rapier, with elaborate quillions to protect the hand.

According to the ARMA, there is no link between the estoc and rapier, but Mr. Clements has been roasted for poor scholarship in the past by the classical fencing community.

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm

These links allow possible connection between estoc and rapier:

http://www.answers.com/topic/estoc
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... rapier.htm

Their thinking is that the espada de ropera merged with the estoc to produce the rapier. The thing is, as far as I can tell, there was no such thing as a purely civilian sword before the rapier. Swords were used by free civilians, but they were military-grade weapons.

In Spain, 'espada de ropera' remained in use as a term alongside 'rapier', which might indicate two different weapons, or more likely, that they were interchageable terms for a sword worn off the battlefield. The military-grade estoc was very likely refined to suit an environment where armour and rugged travel wasn't a big factor, but fashionability and deadly effect was.

Bac Tau, a modern fencing master who has studied tha matter, has concluded that the estoc is a precursor to the rapier, but provides little supporting detail:

http://home.lynx.net/bactau/artof.htm

Bac Tau's pages give a pretty good summary of fencing history, and he has written extensively on modern and historical fencing. In any case, once the rapier came into its own, there was no reason to carry an estoc as a dress weapon, so while an estoc may have continued to see use on the battlfield, it was supplanted as a dress weapon by the rapier.

The separation of civilian and military swordplay was revolutionary, and laid the foundations of modern sport fencing. This is reflected in the institution of honour duelling. Historically, a combination of melee weapons had been used in duels, all with military applications.

http://users.chariot.net.au/~amaranth/a ... honour.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm

The popularity of the renaissance rapier for civilian self-defense, statement of social class, and object of fashionable scientific study helped established the sword as the weapon of choice and convention for bourgeois civilian combat. When duelling became illegal, the safe combat practices and attitudes developed for training duellists made the transition to popular recreational sport. The development of the rapier allowed a redefinition of swordplay beyond techniques; the art began treading down a path for purpose and focus that eventually went beyond that of honing techniques for killing or wounding.

Military weapons like the backsword and sabre remained cut-and-thrust, and lingered in the calvary before falling into disuse. Duels between military officers, who came to favour the sabre, were fought, but became illegal like civilian duelling. Until light duelling sabres were developed by the Hungarians in the 18th century for the civilian sport market, the sabre was through as a practical weapon. That niche was developed by the rapier-descended sport of fencing using epee and foil.

The use of swords in civilian contexts saved the technology and portions of the accumulated knowledge base from the fate that met the quarterstaff, pike, and longbow. It also inspired new schools of fencing with unique innovations, such as linear fencing, the technique of the lunge, and printed manuals on the science of defence meant for broad audiances by masters eager to promote themselves.

Rapier swordplay was revolutionary to western culture beyond the sword-arts. Although the period of use was comparatively short, the legacy that arose from it has impacted around the world. The gentleman's code and fencing developed concurrently with the honour duel, and became the basis for modern sportsmanship. Even the vaunted Asian martial arts owe some of their viability to this ideal, because as Asian countries westernized, the example of sport encouraged them to hang on to their own 'obsolete' martial traditions, to everyone's benefit.

Therefore, I conclude that the estoc was the transition weapon between civilian and military swordplay, a lighter thrusting weapon revolutionary in its own right as a departure from heavier cut-and-thrust swords. It allowed the development of the rapier, a sword sharing many of its characteristics and techniques of use. The rapier was a true civilian weapon, and the technology and the concepts behind its use further redefined the western sword arts.

[Stuart Mackey]

Ahh, thats more like it , nice reply .
On the point of Clements and scholorship and the classical/sport fencers: I would be wary, no one is perfect but when a group of people who train in what is essentially sport try to tell those who study combat whats what I tend to smell rotting fish. Like a target shooter telling a soldier about small unit fighting.

[Zornhau]

I voted "spear" - it's cheap, easy to use as a mass infantry weapon, and yet was also a good for martial arts (covered by the German tradition). I can't think of any other weapon which persisted for so very long.

[HemlockGrey]

Slaughtering villages is a bad tactic. Not only does it deprive you of taxpayers, it also deprives your army of logistical support. And if you kill them all regardless of whether they surrender or not (something your empire's racist code would lead to), you will stiffen resistance when you come up against major population centers. Alexander and the Mongols and the Romans exterminated resistance but they showed mercy to cities who surrendered without a fight.

In fact, your ideology will lead to constant uprisings in your empire unless you either exterminate everyone or spread your armies thin enough to cover every bit of your territory, which will cripple your ability to expand or even fight serious defensive wars.

And if you mercilessly plunder villages, expect villagers to construct walls, arm themselves, deny you food, burn their crops, and pick off stragglers and isolated foragers or bands of soldiers. For reference, see "The Thirty Year's War".

And you're going to have trouble paying and feeding your army, which means desertion.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed, it's been said that a large ancient-era army would tend to leave famine in its wake already, just from depletion of local food supplies as they move through. Deliberately exacerbating this situation would probably be counterproductive.

[Zornhau]

It depends on the kind of war you're undertaking. Trashing your enemy's villages/ers does him economic harm, forcing him to submit. The peasants may well blame <i>him</i> rather than you for his bad military showing, as per the Jaquerie in the 100 Years War.

This was - as I understand - a fairly standard tactic of feudal warfare. It worked best for detatching minor lords along your enemy's border.

However, it only works if you leave the defeated lord in power. If you want to rule directly, burning out the peasants is probably stupid.

[Spoonist]

A few tips,
read up on the alexander campain and on how many men they actually fed, and how many died of famine and disease relative to how many died of actual fighting.
Also read up on the fighting culture of the spartans which sounds similar to your super-culture especially on why they lost.
Even though they are the wrong era I think that you should also look up the Huns for inspiration as well.

The real successes in warfare where usually dependent on 4 things;
1 - A leader who could raise an army
2 - A new food supply
3 - A weakened opponent (otherwise you'd be wiped out before you start)
4 - A new device of war
Your "spears" wouldn't win a single war without the 3 steps before it.

If you base your "advanced" weaponry on spear & shield alone your culture wouldn't have stood a chance in ancient times.
The really successful ancient armies had several different kind of troops so that they could adjust the tactics to their enemy. This was usually divided into several elements which could be deployed differently depending of enemy. Think of a grand paper-scissors-stone game. If the enemy had cavalry you wanted spears, if he had spears you wanted swords, if he had swords you wanted archers, if he had archers you wanted cavalry, etc.
egypt used both sling based skirmishers and bowmen on chariots to harass a defending line so that it couldn't remain still.
Elephants where used to break a defending line, both from intimidation and from bowmen, while romans used tared up pigs set on fire to make the elephants freak.
Rome used its cavalry for centuries as a reserve which depending on the deployment of the enemy either outflanked or used spears to harass the 'corners', but against the celts they only used it to hunt down retreating armies.
Heck romans even bred ducks to use as both a food supply and as "watchdogs".

Now mind you that while europe/africa/middle-east usually couldn't supply and mount large armies, this really drove technology forward. If manpower becomes the bottleneck you tend to give them better armor and better weapons. In asia it was rather fights of attriation between huge but poorly equiped armies. It was more costeffective in asia to deploy another 10000 troops instead of giving your last 10000 crossbows. That is why the elite warrior class in asia could be counted in 100s of footsoldiers while in europe it could be maybe be 10s.

Why your idea of wiping out willages is countereffective in europe and egypt is because normally the population wouldn't care who ruled them. They where also quite used to hunting and knew the use of weapons. But if you did something stupid like that the rumor would move fast and then they'd either flee and take your potential foodsource with them, or they would start defending themselves. Unless you have a huge army you'd start caring if you lost 10s of troops in every one of the 1000s of villages along the way.
Rome became a superpower not by its troops but by its merchants.

[tharkûn]

Actually, I've a lot of time to burn, so conquering the lands from India to Greece within a single king's short lifespan is unnecessary. Besides, I had been hoping for physical characteristics of my people to slowly but surely build up over the generations so that 1000 years later, they were slightly stronger and faster.

Give them a superior diet rich in meat, fish, dairy, fruit, and vegetables and they will easily be larger and stronger. Of course finding a superior food supply is its own challenge.

They'd hunt their own meat, so the main expense would be grains and other vegetarian foodstuffs

The size of your hunting grounds will have to be huge. Supply thousands of men with enough meat without using agriculture is quite problematic. Further the more time they spend hunting, the less they have to practice warfare. While some hunting skills cross over to warfare, the elite skills are not in common (for instance hunting with a broadhead requires lower draw weight and has slightly different aiming characteristics than an armor piercing chisel tip).

It's unlikely that I'd have my warriors fighting real battles at night: I'd rather have them burn the enemy camp and leave real quick-like, perhaps in the wee hours of the morning, so that by the time they reacted, it was daybreak, and people could see who they were fighting. If anything, the latest battles would occur at dusk.

Burning the enemy camps sounds nice and all, but frankly was ridiciously hard as few warriors even had tents and it was quite easy to smother bedding.

Such cities would not be the targets of raids, but rather miniature sieges.

Bad, bad idea. Small burgs could hold out for months each. Detaching small forces to keep up the seige is just inviting the enemy to defeat you in detail. Not to mention that you will have trouble feeding the besiegers. Food a disease are going to be huge issues.

Small walls, one which require at worst short ladders to get over should be assualted, or better given favorable terms of surrender.

Well sure. Hell, it could be done just to make a point: we're in control bitches; surrender now, and we might not tear your wife's breast off.

Being a bastard to those who did not submit inspired fear. Being a bastard to those who did quickly spread word that surrendering was not in their best interest. This then leads to people fleeing (and taking the food with them) or killing any of your men who happen to be alone.

Eh, if he really demands it, it shall be done, but destroying the children of a village really freaks the enemy out. My warriors would be one step closer to modern, annihilate-it-all warfare. Think Assyrians, only meaner.

Yeah so much that they burn the crops, back up the food they can carry and get the hell out of the way. Your men will starve and your employer (or your own king) will not be happy that you have converted rich territory into abandoned wilderness.

If spears can function well at only 8 ft long, then I see nothing stopping warriors in the back from simply sticking out their spears as soon as they see cavalry starting to attack from that side. Also, my lines could be spread widely to prevent a massive flank by cavalry; besides, I like to keep a small but effecitve part of my army slightly behind the main body when I think my opponent is going to make full use of mobile units.

It requires very good training to reverse the direction of your spears without braining the guy in front of you. Remember there is going to massive noise (and helmets will make your troops close to deaf), lots of dust, and chaos. First you have to detect the approaching flankers, then you have to pass the word among the spearmen, then you have to have them move in close to unison, change position, and brace (all while holding up dozens of pounds of armor and weaponry). In many cases a cavalry flank will move faster than you can reasonably expect that sequence to come through.

A question about facing the Macedonian phalanx: since the spears were ridiculously long, couldn't my warriors sort of push the pikehead aside with a shove of his shield and cut it off? Only one man needs to succeed at this, and my warriors can stream in through the gap. Of course, it might be easier to try to break up lines and then attempt this.

The phalanx was several ranks deep, even if you destroyed one man you had several more ranks before you go to the shield wall. Aside from this many armies had a surplus of spears at the back which could be handed forward to keep the front rank strong. You can play the break the spears game, but it ain't simple. Do recall that while you are breaking the spears the phalanx will be moving forward and skewering you spear breakers.

The big thing to think about is that first and foremost an army marched on its stomach, if you can't secure food during the campaign you die. Secondly an army was built and marched upon money. If you can't feed your elite warriors in both peace and war, they will not be elite. If you can't afford their training, equipping, campaigning, and any incidentals you are going to be screwed as well. Priotiy one is always securing food, priority two is securing money. Only after that do you even begin to talk about weaponry, tactics, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Imagine what walkie-talkies could have done for battle tactics in the ancient era. Not that I'm seriously suggesting that you put walkie-talkies into your fic; it's just an amusing idea. The difficulty of co-ordinating large armies and issuing orders was a serious tactical issue.

[Gunhead]

Here's a walkie talkie alternative that's not too far fetched. Signal flares. Those can be seen far away, and can transmit fairly complex (although pre-arranged) messages. They're a lot faster than messengers and the signaller doesn't have to be on high ground to be seen.

-Gunhead

[Akhlut]

Here's a walkie talkie alternative that's not too far fetched. Signal flares. Those can be seen far away, and can transmit fairly complex (although pre-arranged) messages. They're a lot faster than messengers and the signaller doesn't have to be on high ground to be seen.

-Gunhead

They could also do semaphore signalling, right? I don't see any reason why they should be unable to do that. Plus, it'd be a whole hell of a lot easier to do if one doesn't have something to start a fire.

[General Brock]

On winter fighting: I forgot that during this period, there were no major civilizations whose centers were in places where the snow was deep and cold. I figure all I need to do during the winter is hold whatever ground I've already gained and perhaps send out an occasional raiding party, if I can.

I don't have the links on this comp., but there were large centres in northern Europe and Siberia during the bronze age. The one in Europe was probably mentioned here not long ago, describing large centres with monumental buildings constructed with wood about the same time Mesopotamia was refining its own monumental structures in stone . The one in Siberia had large buildings constructed of whale bones, and appeared to be a thriving trade city. A lot if major civilizations are like that of ancient Crete; dead to living and surviving recorded memory, their artifacts long buried or destroyed, until someone happens on them by accident and is surprised at how sophisticated they were.

[General Brock]

Messed that quote up. Guess I should have previewed like I usually do...

[Gunhead]

Here's a walkie talkie alternative that's not too far fetched. Signal flares. Those can be seen far away, and can transmit fairly complex (although pre-arranged) messages. They're a lot faster than messengers and the signaller doesn't have to be on high ground to be seen.

-Gunhead

They could also do semaphore signalling, right? I don't see any reason why they should be unable to do that. Plus, it'd be a whole hell of a lot easier to do if one doesn't have something to start a fire.

I just didn't think bringing up signal flags/mirrors was worth the trouble as ancient armies could already do that. My idea was inspired by Wong, and I wasn't suggesting it as the only mean of communication. Semaphore signalling can be blocked by terrain (hills, woods, etc), while a flare can be seen even if there's no direct LOS to man doing the signalling.
Ancient flares propably wouldn't work in rain all that great. Then again, ancient armies are badly hampered by rain anyway.

-Gunhead

[Akhlut]

They could also do semaphore signalling, right? I don't see any reason why they should be unable to do that. Plus, it'd be a whole hell of a lot easier to do if one doesn't have something to start a fire.

I just didn't think bringing up signal flags/mirrors was worth the trouble as ancient armies could already do that. My idea was inspired by Wong, and I wasn't suggesting it as the only mean of communication. Semaphore signalling can be blocked by terrain (hills, woods, etc), while a flare can be seen even if there's no direct LOS to man doing the signalling.
Ancient flares propably wouldn't work in rain all that great. Then again, ancient armies are badly hampered by rain anyway.

-Gunhead

Ah, true, true. It'd definitely be good for any ancient army to have numerous methods of signalling each other, though. Semaphore/mirrors for relatively flat positions, flares for across hampering terrain, things like that.

Also, if ancient armies didn't have them, it'd probably be a good idea to have a few dozen/hundred (depending on army size) people trained in the arts of signalling so one could send detailed messages with relative ease without having to worry about enemy deciphering.

[Gunhead]

If someone here could give me some info on how sophisticated semaphore signalling was in the ancient times, that would be great. Today we can send complex messages by flags etc. So good communications could prove a real war winner in the ancient times.

-Gunhead

[LadyTevar]

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.

That does not make it superior... just easier for raw recruits to learn. Same with a spear, it's easier to learn to poke someone than to learn proper sword skills.

[brianeyci]

That is why the elite warrior class in asia could be counted in 100s of footsoldiers while in europe it could be maybe be 10s.

Uh, is that supposed to be, "That is why the elite warrior class in Europe could be counted in hundreds of footsoldiers while in Asia it could be in the tens."?

Brian

[LadyTevar]

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.

You don't, unless he's a Huge D&D Barbarian with STR:20/80.
Most shields are wood, banded with metal, sometimes covered with leather. Why? Because they're Lighter and Easier to Carry In Battle.

[Akhlut]

That is why the elite warrior class in asia could be counted in 100s of footsoldiers while in europe it could be maybe be 10s.

Uh, is that supposed to be, "That is why the elite warrior class in Europe could be counted in hundreds of footsoldiers while in Asia it could be in the tens."?

Brian

Asia had the population to support large numbers of elite troops; Europe didn't.

[CoyoteNature]

You might want to consider using auxillaries as support, certain conquered people's might provide you with cavalry, better bowmen, etc.

Otherwise you might have to sacrifice some of the benefit acrued from specializing in close combat infantry, and try and train replacements, of course if your willing to lose enough men, specialization is fine.

Plus auxilaries give the opportunity to learn about the territory you are conquering assuming they are some variety of disaffected people in that region (more modern example Cortez was only able to conquer the Aztecs with the assistance of a disaffected tribe of the Aztec empire).

They also allow you to adapt better to the environment you are fighting in, which is always important.

Also a reasonably strong navy would aid in transporting troops, assisting in logistics, as well as harrassing trade lines.

The Roman navy to use one example sucked the big one initially, in naval battles against the Carthragians they lost at least in the beginning. They learned that a navy was reasonably important even if you are good at infantry.

Actually if you go back far enough Romans sucked at infantry too, but they were practical and learned from their mistakes soooo. Actually I think they sucked also when fighting against Hannibal. ehh ancient history.