Best weapon of ancient war

[Keevan_Colton]

Personally I love my calvary saber, length be damned

A well made sabre is a fine weapon...the fact that hits to the legs are disallowed with it is enough to show what use fencing and all that goes with it really is....

[The Yosemite Bear]

Exactly

mind you i'm and SCAdian and a civil warrior first, so that whole "simulated bayonette charge" and calvary swords still sticks in my head where that silly "fencing didn't" mind you fencing was one of the best work outs I ever got in PE.

[wolveraptor]

As a general question, how advanced were ancient navies? How did they fight other ships? Surely not arrows.

[The Yosemite Bear]

no fencing is not about effective combat, and by it's self it doesn't work.

That's why it was also taught in europe in unison with some other form of combat, until it became a sport. The French had their Savate, the english had their good old fashioned melee style. However it didn't work in actual combat. basically naval battles came down to the power of the all mighty belaying pin

[wilfulton]

For those who like to be able to thrust, but also like having enough of a blade to chop with, I recommend the Schiavona. It's got the long blade of a rapier, but it's much thicker, enabling you to deliver a pretty solid chop with it as well. Also includes a rather heavy duty basket hilt, which lets you deliver a rather heft punch in close quarters.

[General Brock]

As a general question, how advanced were ancient navies? How did they fight other ships? Surely not arrows.

Darth Wong has a section on naval combat on this site, somewhere, that gives a good primer. Peppering the other side with arrows would damage sails and injure and kill vital crewers. Burning arrows might also cause problems on a wooden ship with cloth sails. It would present a danger for both sides, though.

[Lord Revan]

The thing that has to be remembered in even with a "warrior caste" is that any realistic army need food, water(or an equilevant) and sleep and ancient world armies couldn't carry that much supplies with them.

[Ghost Rider]

Fencing Split

[wolveraptor]

Thanks for splitting the fencing, GR. I felt that was getting quite off-topic. Anyways...

The thing that has to be remembered in even with a "warrior caste" is that any realistic army need food, water(or an equilevant) and sleep and ancient world armies couldn't carry that much supplies with them.

I don't think water should really be a problem. Few towns or cities are built far from sources of water, and almost all have wells. My warriors prefer to take water directly from rivers or lakes, or the towns' own well.

I wonder, though, if ancient people had devices for purifying water. I had an idea where a pot of water would be completely sealed by a bulbous top of glass. The water would be boiled until it was completely evaporated, and then the pot would quickly be switched. Then, they'd wait for water condense and trickle back down in to the pot. I thought it was too time-consuming to work, and would be unrealistic given ancient people's knowledge, but it would be a massive advantage, as my warriors would seldom die from mundane things such as disease.

[wolveraptor]

I just thought of something else: what are the harmful effects of cannibalism(sp?)? I had an idea that my warriors could eat the roasted bodies of their dead opponents, but I'd heard it often created disease. On the other hand, wouldn't eating animal meat have similar risks?

[Master of Ossus]

I just thought of something else: what are the harmful effects of cannibalism(sp?)? I had an idea that my warriors could eat the roasted bodies of their dead opponents, but I'd heard it often created disease. On the other hand, wouldn't eating animal meat have similar risks?

No. Diseases that affect the central nervous system tend to be species-specific or very nearly so.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks for splitting the fencing, GR. I felt that was getting quite off-topic. Anyways...

The thing that has to be remembered in even with a "warrior caste" is that any realistic army need food, water(or an equilevant) and sleep and ancient world armies couldn't carry that much supplies with them.

I don't think water should really be a problem. Few towns or cities are built far from sources of water, and almost all have wells. My warriors prefer to take water directly from rivers or lakes, or the towns' own well.

I wonder, though, if ancient people had devices for purifying water. I had an idea where a pot of water would be completely sealed by a bulbous top of glass. The water would be boiled until it was completely evaporated, and then the pot would quickly be switched. Then, they'd wait for water condense and trickle back down in to the pot. I thought it was too time-consuming to work, and would be unrealistic given ancient people's knowledge, but it would be a massive advantage, as my warriors would seldom die from mundane things such as disease.

When the water quality was bad, ancient people drank wine. They didn't understand water distillation.

[Sea Skimmer]

As a general question, how advanced were ancient navies? How did they fight other ships? Surely not arrows.

It depends by what you mean by ‘ancient’, I could tell you more but it’s a pretty broad topic and you need to specify..

But basically, until cannon got invented, warships ) did normally carry significant detachments of troops. They would be armed with bows among other things, and spears and other such weapons, sometimes galleys would also mount small catapults or ballista on deck as well. The exact armaments and how many troops where carried depended on who was fighting and when, some navies perfered ramming to sink enimies and carried fewer troops then those which wanted to capture enemy ships via boarding. Many medieval naval battles where little more then land battles fought across the decks of tightly packed ships.

Ships continued to carry large numbers of soldiers for boarding actions, with a range of weapons, basically until steam engines and shell-firing guns became common in the 1840’s. The United States navy only ceased training its crews to repel boarders in the 1920’s, though there was one case in WW2 though when a U-boat crew attempted to board a US destroyer escort, only to be repelled with hand grenades and rifles)

[LadyTevar]

Thanks for splitting the fencing, GR. I felt that was getting quite off-topic. Anyways...

The thing that has to be remembered in even with a "warrior caste" is that any realistic army need food, water(or an equilevant) and sleep and ancient world armies couldn't carry that much supplies with them.

I don't think water should really be a problem. Few towns or cities are built far from sources of water, and almost all have wells. My warriors prefer to take water directly from rivers or lakes, or the towns' own well.

I wonder, though, if ancient people had devices for purifying water. I had an idea where a pot of water would be completely sealed by a bulbous top of glass. The water would be boiled until it was completely evaporated, and then the pot would quickly be switched. Then, they'd wait for water condense and trickle back down in to the pot. I thought it was too time-consuming to work, and would be unrealistic given ancient people's knowledge, but it would be a massive advantage, as my warriors would seldom die from mundane things such as disease.

When the water quality was bad, ancient people drank wine. They didn't understand water distillation.

Wong is right. Most of Europe's population drank ale, beer, or wine, because water wasn't safe to drink. Ale was even given to children.

[wolveraptor]

No. Diseases that affect the central nervous system tend to be species-specific or very nearly so.

Yes but is the risk of disease alleviated if one cooks the meat? Surely viri or bacteria couldn't survive that. I thought it would be an incredibly cheap and easy source of food after a battle. The less the Empire has to pay for these warriors, who otherwise contribute nothing else, the better.

I was also thinking they could boil and drink their enemies' blood, if they had a captive. This wouldn't really help their PR with the peasants, who might've otherwise surrendered to them, though.

For water: don't plants contain a lot of water? Couldn't they be chewed to help thirst?

Also, by Ancient, I mean well before the rise of Rome.

[Shortie]

No. Diseases that affect the central nervous system tend to be species-specific or very nearly so.

Yes but is the risk of disease alleviated if one cooks the meat? Surely viri or bacteria couldn't survive that. I thought it would be an incredibly cheap and easy source of food after a battle. The less the Empire has to pay for these warriors, who otherwise contribute nothing else, the better.

It's somewhat reduces the danger (a few organisms and quite a few toxins can survive cooking), but firstly your warriors aren't going to be the most conscientious cooks around, and secondly you're not going to reduce costs by all that much. Humans aren't very efficient food animals.

I was also thinking they could boil and drink their enemies' blood, if they had a captive. This wouldn't really help their PR with the peasants, who might've otherwise surrendered to them, though.

No, really? And I can't imagine that boiling blood will leave you with an especially potable residue. Try tea (or alcohol as others said). Healthier, more realistic, more practical, and not randomly evil for the sake of it.

For water: don't plants contain a lot of water? Couldn't they be chewed to help thirst?

Depends on the plant. Very few have enough to make the effort worthwhile. Try chewing on some grass sometime.

Seriously, it's nice and all that you're trying to create a pre-historic Draka, but surprisingly few societies are either evil for the sake of it or deliberately plan to be evil, and those that were\did haven't actually done that well in the long run.

[wolveraptor]

How is it more evil to be cannibalistic than it is to just kill your enemy? You already offed the fucker. What difference does it make what you do with its body? My society is no more evil with cannibalism than it is without, because they are already killers, who are willing to kill incooperative civillians.

...your warriors aren't going to be the most conscientious cooks around...

You need to be a "conscientous cook" to know to cook your goddamn meat? I don't think so. No one in a civilized society ate raw meat if they didn't have to (excluding sushi, of course).

[Gandalf]

As a general question, how advanced were ancient navies? How did they fight other ships? Surely not arrows.

Greek Triremes had a sort of brass "knob" on the front, designed to punch holes in other ships. Triremes were also well streamlined so they accomplished this task well. As an example, look at the Battle of Salamis.

[Beowulf]

How is it more evil to be cannibalistic than it is to just kill your enemy? You already offed the fucker. What difference does it make what you do with its body? My society is no more evil with cannibalism than it is without, because they are already killers, who are willing to kill incooperative civillians.

Many societies had funeral rites that had to be observed to avoid having the dead coming around and haunting the world. Not allowing these rites to be observed (by eating the body) will get the societies you conquer fairly pissed at you.

Something else to note is that you'll eventually end up speciating your warrior caste away from humanity. It'd take a while to occur though.

[Shortie]

How is it more evil to be cannibalistic than it is to just kill your enemy? You already offed the fucker. What difference does it make what you do with its body? My society is no more evil with cannibalism than it is without, because they are already killers, who are willing to kill incooperative civillians.

Well, I'd say that killing people just to eat them is fairly evil, and while there have been some societies that support it (almost always in rituals IIRC), the vast majority have considered cannabalism pretty taboo under any circumstances.

...your warriors aren't going to be the most conscientious cooks around...

You need to be a "conscientous cook" to know to cook your goddamn meat? I don't think so. No one in a civilized society ate raw meat if they didn't have to (excluding sushi, of course).

Yeah, they'll just put their ovens to Gas mark 4 and leave it for 45 minutes. Raw\cooked isn't a binary state, and then you've got the whole problem of storing it (raw meat + cooked meat = bad). Food poisoning was hardly unknown in history anyway, but there's no point in adding to the danger.

Anyway, I'm more intrigued by how you're going to control your happy little band of psychos. Slave soldiers and mercs tend to be either crap or rebels\turncoats in the making (with a few notable exceptions granted, but those exceptions normally had some serious discipline).

Even in the Bronze Age discipline > savagery.

[Shortie]

Correction: Checking the last couple of pages I see you've moved from slave soldiers \ mercs to a warrior caste.

Off-hand I can think of cases where you had warrior tribes\races seperate from peasants and administrators, but only with the warriors as those in charge (the Mongols being the classic example). As a general rule, might makes right. Thus they need some sophistication at least to keep their empire functioning.

Oh, and trying to selectively breed for super humans is really not worth the effort. Humans have a very slow reproductive cycle, and combat ability is a pretty complex thing to select for.

Try selecting the dangerous ones as they grow up, and\or give your chosen ones a relatively abundant high protein diet through puberty. A good big one will beat a good small one.

[Elfdart]

Large, two-handed swords were good at cutting the heads off of pikes (18 foot spears that you can't really wield very well in close combat, but was the most powerful deterrent to cavalry until the development of the rifle).

That's a silly myth, as anyone who has tried to cut or chop through a 2" hardwood pole (with any sword or axe) knows. The pikemen are going to grow somewhat impatient waiting for his opponent to hack away on his 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.

The Falx was a Dacian weapon that resembled a scythe blade on a short handle and straight -not a "L"-shape. The Romans reinforced their standard helmets because of this weapon.

The Sax or seax was a single-edged blade ranging in size from a large knife to a sword. The Sax was to the Germanic peoples what the Kukri was to the Gurkhas. It wasn't so much a weapon (though it was commonly used as one) as an all-purpose tool. In size, shape and function, it was very similar to the Bowie Knife.

Some lances did have longer blades for cutting, like the Parthian kontos. This weapon was also used by their cousins, the Scythians.

The so-called "Ice Man" was found with a a yew longbow -not much different from those used by the English at Agincourt. The Goths used them at Adrianople in AD 380. So the longbow could be available.

For my money, the composite horse bow is the best weapon of the ancient world. Its range and power were comparable to larger bows, yet it was compact enough to be worn in a holster. The various horsemen of Central Asia used this weapon for almost 3000 years.

On the excellent show Weapons that Made Britain, the host made a replica of a Viking shield out of limewood, which is very light. When it was hit with arrows, axes, spears, swords or other weapons, it shattered like cheap glass. But when they glued rawhide to the limewood, it stopped the arrows from an English longbow COLD, even at point blank range. Only a direct hit from a Danish War Axe could break the shield.

[aerius]

Large, two-handed swords were good at cutting the heads off of pikes (18 foot spears that you can't really wield very well in close combat, but was the most powerful deterrent to cavalry until the development of the rifle).

That's a silly myth, as anyone who has tried to cut or chop through a 2" hardwood pole (with any sword or axe) knows. The pikemen are going to grow somewhat impatient waiting for his opponent to hack away on his weapon.

2" is dead easy to chop through with an axe as long as you're not cutting perpendicular to the length of the shaft. Angle the cut at 30°-60° and it'll go clean through. I've done this to lots of branches up at my friends cottage every spring when we're clearing fallen branches & trees off the trails. All you need is a good sharp axe that actually cuts instead of just mashing the wood.

[wolveraptor]

Well, I'd say that killing people just to eat them is fairly evil, and while there have been some societies that support it (almost always in rituals IIRC), the vast majority have considered cannabalism pretty taboo under any circumstances.

You misunderstand. My people have no mysticism concerning cannibalism. They don't kill for the sake of it. They kill for the sake of victory, and eat for the sake of practicality. After a battle, dead humans are plentiful. They'll eat their own dead as well, because their belief system has no traditions concerning a the body. They believe the spirit or sould is the man, and the body is merely the meaningless shell.

Know that in this society, the warriors generallly are in charge, as in military decisions they don't agree with get shot to hell. They are wholely unconcerned with the economic decisions of the Empire, such as peasant land rights, guilds, etc.

Yeah, they'll just put their ovens to Gas mark 4 and leave it for 45 minutes

They have fires you idiot. Every army used fires for the night until after the Civil War. People estimated troop number based on fires, sometimes. All they need to do is leave the meat over a spit 'till it's well-done and chow down. Nor would they need to store it. You simply don't understand that cannibalism is not a common thing for them. It's simply what they do when it's economical after battles. There is no storing. Drag what you want back to camp, skin it, gut it, roast it, and eat it. What's so hard about that.

Oh, and trying to selectively breed for super humans is really not worth the effort. Humans have a very slow reproductive cycle, and combat ability is a pretty complex thing to select for.

Yes but keeping them in a homogeneously war-like culture is worth the effort. The husbandry is simply a small but useful side-effect. Furthermore, combat ability is easy to select for. Send your men off to war. Whoever survives gets to breed. Whoever doesn't, well....duh.

Many societies had funeral rites that had to be observed to avoid having the dead coming around and haunting the world. Not allowing these rites to be observed (by eating the body) will get the societies you conquer fairly pissed at you.

Did ancient armies really let their opponents drag their dead off the battlefield? I thought that was romantic bullshti from Hollywood. I figured a prudent commander would run the enemy back to whatever hellhole they came from. Fighting battles without gaining land would be pointless. If you let the enemy drag their dead, they're obviously not going to be able to drag them far, and so will not be retrating. Ideally, my army would route and destroy every possible enemy soldier. Complete obliteration of the army, while exhausting, might prove a point, if it didn't backfire in PR.

So are there any other naval weapons I should know of besides boarding, ramming or setting fire to?

[Ypoknons]

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.

To clarify: Roman Hoplites were quite poor infantry, (not just less flexiable than legions - Hoplites defeated Gauls too, so Roman Hoplites must have been poorer in quality than those hoplites). But the Roman legionary infantry that followed it did beat Phyrrus (with a class-Macadeonian style army) at their last battle (Beneventum). Part of their victory over Phyrrus was due to the excellence of their political system that kept most of Italy on Rome's side, but certainly the fact that they did eventually beat him attests to the quality of infantry before the Punic Wars.

In the Punic Wars Roman ground forces (ie, infantry) usually bested the Carthagians until Hannibal's father came along, and he turned things to a stalement. Both the Spartan mercanary general and Hannibal himself regarded Numidian mercanary cavalary to be amongst Carthage's finest and used them when they demolished Roman armies. Even early (Polybian) Romans did not perform poorly against the Carthagians in infantry-infantry combat (and suck is a relative word) - rather Hannibal out them in impossible situations.