FrisianDude
Archduke
ealabor said:
the roman army. little question.
- Thread starter Kmovies
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Archduke
Kmovies
Knight
and by blank i mean "empty" of things. i don't say the colour, just the lack of symbols.
the face of the principe says "i'm between a tiger boy and a die-fast first line newbie. huzzah for veterans, they said... you'll earn for retirement, they said..."
it's a fail to have the armoured leg on the same side of the shield? i see it a bit "useless", the other side is very unprotected in that pic.
the face of the principe says "i'm between a tiger boy and a die-fast first line newbie. huzzah for veterans, they said... you'll earn for retirement, they said..."
it's a fail to have the armoured leg on the same side of the shield? i see it a bit "useless", the other side is very unprotected in that pic.
Kmovies said:
Actually you can see them for yourself when the mod is released
Kmovies said:such as the faces on the metal round piece. (goddamn, being crushed by that smiley...) or the others.
Again that's Angus' imagination at work. The white is inspirational and a color I choose to use to represent other Italians or Samnites. I think I have a total of 1 white shield spawning on hastati/principes out of a total of 6 at the most.
Kmovies said:
Thats either Etruscan or early Roman.
You're not going to get very far in a debate over Roman equipment if you don't realize why the shield leg is armored.
I'm sure It's not really to do with formations, so much as martial balance.
The left leg or shield leg is brought forward, and the right leg brought back to assist in position bracing.
If you're fighting with both your feet parallel, you're going to get knocked on your ass by someone applying forward pressure on you, let alone how messy it would get if both sides turned into a pushing match, and folks on one side all had a parallel foot postures.... you'd call that side grass and the other side lawnmower.
So with one leg held in reserve and not so exposed, then it was really cost efficient to just buy protection for only the one exposed. And if you were fortunate enough to afford it, or they were provided, you'd spoil yourself by armoring both of them
The left leg or shield leg is brought forward, and the right leg brought back to assist in position bracing.
If you're fighting with both your feet parallel, you're going to get knocked on your ass by someone applying forward pressure on you, let alone how messy it would get if both sides turned into a pushing match, and folks on one side all had a parallel foot postures.... you'd call that side grass and the other side lawnmower.
So with one leg held in reserve and not so exposed, then it was really cost efficient to just buy protection for only the one exposed. And if you were fortunate enough to afford it, or they were provided, you'd spoil yourself by armoring both of them
SwissHalberdier
The silver guy is a Samnite spearman, according to the book.
Anyway, the formation doesn't really do much for it because the Romans fought in relatively open order:
[quote author=Polybius - Histories, Vol. 2]
Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.
[/quote]
Anyway, the formation doesn't really do much for it because the Romans fought in relatively open order:
[quote author=Polybius - Histories, Vol. 2]
Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.
[/quote]
SwissHalberdier
I have no idea what you're trying to say, no offense.
SwissHalberdier
It worked fine for them, apparently. I'm still not seeing the problem. Why is it only useful in close formation?
Jurikles
Sergeant
Even in open formation you only need the forward leg covered, seeing as in a battle you usually try to keep the enemy in front of you. If you fail in that, the unprotected behind leg will be the smallest of your problems...because even if an enemy will get around you, he will unlikely attack your leg, because he has much better options like hitting more vital areas, no matter armored or not, as he will usually stab anyway if you think about the weapons used in that time period. Mostly spears actually, wich tend to slide off small bodyparts like the leg, wich can also be in heavy movement, making it hard to hit. Why not stab him right to the chest?
Of course, more armour is usually better, but those poor guys needed to be some kind of cost effective having to provide for their armours themselves and not actually being paid riches for their job...Also, you have to carry all that crap around when marching through entire europe, so you want to keep the weight as low as possible. Better investment to go for a better helmet actually...
Of course, more armour is usually better, but those poor guys needed to be some kind of cost effective having to provide for their armours themselves and not actually being paid riches for their job...Also, you have to carry all that crap around when marching through entire europe, so you want to keep the weight as low as possible. Better investment to go for a better helmet actually...
SwissHalberdier
lawl, kmovies, remember when you used wikipedia as a source? here's a good one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greave
[quote author=The Almighty Wikipedia]Triarii, the better equipped soldiers of the pre-Marian Roman Republic, wore greaves on both shins reminiscent of the Ancient Greeks. Principes and hastati often only wore one greave (on their left leg) or none.
[/quote]
So sayeth the Good Book.
On a more serious note though, it's a pretty widely known fact so it's going into the mod. For the Romans, the shield side was the weak side, the side most likely to be attacked because your shield side was your enemy's sword side. This is why they had a tendency to prefer flanking maneuvers from the right side, because it's the enemy's left, or shield side. That's the side where all you can really do is defend. It sucks. This, coupled with the left leg usually being the front leg, made it logical to prefer covering it rather than not. The right leg wasn't as much of a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greave
[quote author=The Almighty Wikipedia]Triarii, the better equipped soldiers of the pre-Marian Roman Republic, wore greaves on both shins reminiscent of the Ancient Greeks. Principes and hastati often only wore one greave (on their left leg) or none.
[/quote]
So sayeth the Good Book.
On a more serious note though, it's a pretty widely known fact so it's going into the mod. For the Romans, the shield side was the weak side, the side most likely to be attacked because your shield side was your enemy's sword side. This is why they had a tendency to prefer flanking maneuvers from the right side, because it's the enemy's left, or shield side. That's the side where all you can really do is defend. It sucks. This, coupled with the left leg usually being the front leg, made it logical to prefer covering it rather than not. The right leg wasn't as much of a problem.
