|
uPen posted:By 14 AD Romans were fighting in maniples rather than phalanxes so they didn't interlock shields like that and there was several feet of space between each individual soldier. You'd have to go back to the 300's BC to see Romans fighting with a shield wall. I thought tortoise formation was still in use during Caesar's days at least in sieges, Goscinny why hast thou forsaken me???
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Well the idea of the greek Phalanx was pretty much taken and developed on by the romans into the three-rank system of Hastati, Principes and Triarii, and if poo poo ever got to the Triarii it was esentially a phalanx But the idea of the Greek Phalanx in it's classical form was ended by the time the Romans entered Greece and utterly trounced it. From what I've read (The Rise of Rome by Anthony Everitt talks about it some) The Roman Legions came across military forces from several Greek city states and exploited the inflexibility of the phalanx and it's weak flanks to basically rout them all. Magnesia is a good example of such a battle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
e:Wrong page
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Well the idea of the greek Phalanx was pretty much taken and developed on by the romans into the three-rank system of Hastati, Principes and Triarii, and if poo poo ever got to the Triarii it was esentially a phalanx Personally I feel like the phalanx is underrated. The roman defeats of phalanx armies tend to be due to combinations of bad terrain, inexperience, impetuous commanders, or the failure of the rest of the army to support them. Whereas effective phalanx use required high levels of discipline, and strong supporting forces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Marlows posted:I can see your point, but I would argue its an overly narrow perspective on the war. We focus a lot on the major engagements of the Continental Army, but they were only a small minority. An important minority, but it misses just how important the patriot/Loyalist civil war was. Does this guerrilla conflict not count as a "real war?" If you really want to make this argument, look at the career of Nathaniel Greene, aka the best US General to have never won a battle. He lost every major engagement he fought against the British, but through a loving masterfully conducted Fabian campaign essentially drove them from the southern colonies, to the point where they were reduced to very small costal enclaves by the time of the war's end. It wasn't just a matter of the British tiring themselves out elsewhere in the world, either - he turned the Carolinas into an early alpha of Vietnam. If someone were to write a book about anti-colonial asynchronous warfare Greene would be a pretty reasonable first chapter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:People mentioned the modern military propensity to use hugely outdated equipment a few pages back. I remember when I was enlisted that we used some devices that had designs 50+ years old (though thankfully most of them were around a more reasonable 30 or so). What's the most egregious case of outdated equipment the experts in this thread know of? I don't necessarily limit the question to modern cases, though I find it hard to imagine a greater recorded tech gap than that between the 60s and now I remember in a thread on SA (this thread?) where someone posted records from Soviet supply depots in the middle of Siberia or something. Things of note were how the units stationed there had to oil smooth bore cannon balls to keep them ready, and that the only thing of value in the actual depot for the officer to take was some silk rope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I remember in a thread on SA (this thread?) where someone posted records from Soviet supply depots in the middle of Siberia or something. Things of note were how the units stationed there had to oil smooth bore cannon balls to keep them ready, and that the only thing of value in the actual depot for the officer to take was some silk rope. Why on earth would you oil them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Why on earth would you oil them? Corrosion control would be my guess. I also suspect that it wasn't oil like you're thinking, but probably more a grease that they slathered around the balls, probably some kind of cosmolene derivative. I'm further going to put  on the person who originally came up with the document being Ensign Expendable just because that's the sort of thing I'd expect him to dig up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I kind of love that Ensign Expendable's blog of translated Soviet military documents started so he could troll people on the World of Tanks forums by blindsiding them with citations from primary sources that they literally would have had no way of obtaining or reading before Ensign posted them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Personally I feel like the phalanx is underrated. The roman defeats of phalanx armies tend to be due to combinations of bad terrain, inexperience, impetuous commanders, or the failure of the rest of the army to support them. Whereas effective phalanx use required high levels of discipline, and strong supporting forces. Inherently the phalanx is limited to even terrain. The Romans abandoned it after fighting the Samnites who kept forcing them to fight in hills instead of cooperating and fighting it out on the plains. The Romans never did face an Alexander level phalanx yes, but they knew how phalanxes work extremely well, and would have most likely forced even highly trained and elite phalanxes to fight in inopportune terrain where the legions would win. It may have been bloodier if the Seleucids or Macedon had better phalangites, but I do not think it would have changed history all that much. If I recall correctly, the Romans toyed with bringing the phalanx back multiple times, with various legions having a division of macedonian style pikemen at different times. As for the shield wall thing, the Romans used shield walls all the time, not just in the testudo. They used a shield wall in a wedge formation against boudicca and used a variation of it when defending against cavalry, the pila functioning as normal spears in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Whenever a wedge formation for anything is used, is there any special way they pick the guy who's at the tip of the wedge? Because thinking about it, it would really suck to be that guy since you're the most obvious target and the most exposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
In the case of the Romans, you're also the guy that gets the most glory. People do lots of stupid things in battles; it still baffles me that reasonable people could be coerced into being the front line in any formation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:In the case of the Romans, you're also the guy that gets the most glory. People do lots of stupid things in battles; it still baffles me that reasonable people could be coerced into being the front line in any formation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:44
|
|
Koramei posted:In the case of the Romans, you're also the guy that gets the most glory. People do lots of stupid things in battles; it still baffles me that reasonable people could be coerced into being the front line in any formation. Being the first man over the wall in a famous siege or risking your life to take a standard from the enemy can really advance your military career and well your whole life as a soldier of the past. Considering you'd face mostly the same risks of being horribly injured in a battle or possibly dying of disease in camp why not go for it? HEY GAL posted:You know what sucks worse than death? Letting down the people you eat with. You'll still die, since if you're kicked out of your mess you'll have more trouble getting food/a place to sleep, but you'll look bad while you're doing it. Soldiers of the past can be hilariously bitchy at times of such things.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Being the first man over the wall in a famous siege or risking your life to take a standard from the enemy can really advance your military career and well your whole life as a soldier of the past.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Whenever a wedge formation for anything is used, is there any special way they pick the guy who's at the tip of the wedge? Because thinking about it, it would really suck to be that guy since you're the most obvious target and the most exposed. In the Roman army, that guy is basically guaranteed a shitload of decorations, money, honors, and booty and his family would increase in respect for it. The Romans had a specific award for the first man over a wall or palisade, and men would line up to be that guy, it would not be all that different for a wedge formation. Being seen as the bravest guy in the legion was something many of these dudes aspired for. Honor and glory was really, really important to a lot of people back then, and they took it very seriously. In phalanxes, the front line was basically the worst place in the world to our eyes. 2 rows of shieldwalls bristling with spears, men from 5 ranks over trying to spear you in the throat or side or your legs when you are not looking, your own army in 6-10 ranks behind you pressed close enough that you could not run away even if you tried. Yet you had people fighting over who got to be in the front at the start of the battle, specifically because that's where the honor and glory were won.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Marlows posted:I can see your point, but I would argue its an overly narrow perspective on the war. We focus a lot on the major engagements of the Continental Army, but they were only a small minority. An important minority, but it misses just how important the patriot/Loyalist civil war was. Does this guerrilla conflict not count as a "real war?" OK, that bit about "real war" was badly worded, since I do think that insurgencies should count as real wars. My point was that yes, the American civil war was a guerilla conflict and an insurgency, not a conventional war. I disagreed with FAUXTON in that point. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
People tend to forget that the classic greek phalanx is long dead by the time Rome come poking around. Even by xenophons time the regular (citizens) phalanx is just a mass of guys with maybe a single officer saying "ok point this way and charge". Part of what made the Spartans so formidable was their system of junior officers, and it was the increased use of professional mercenaries that led to the greek phalanx becoming more open and combined arms oriented/dependant. This led to the Macedonian phalanx with the file officers keeping it all tightly controlled. By the time the Selucids and Ptolemies are fighting Rome the sarissa phalanx had swollen to be huge and unwieldy unlike their predecessors. The Hellenic states were tactically bankrupt by their need to stick with Alexanders innovations while forgetting what made them world beating to begin with. Apologises for wall of text, phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Corrosion control would be my guess. I also suspect that it wasn't oil like you're thinking, but probably more a grease that they slathered around the balls, probably some kind of cosmolene derivative. Anyone that's ever bought a Russian rifle knows those Russians really, really love their cosmoline. Koramei posted:In the case of the Romans, you're also the guy that gets the most glory. People do lots of stupid things in battles; it still baffles me that reasonable people could be coerced into being the front line in any formation. Much like being a flag bearer during the US civil war. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:People tend to forget that the classic greek phalanx is long dead by the time Rome come poking around. Even by xenophons time the regular (citizens) phalanx is just a mass of guys with maybe a single officer saying "ok point this way and charge". Part of what made the Spartans so formidable was their system of junior officers, and it was the increased use of professional mercenaries that led to the greek phalanx becoming more open and combined arms oriented/dependant. This led to the Macedonian phalanx with the file officers keeping it all tightly controlled. By the time the Selucids and Ptolemies are fighting Rome the sarissa phalanx had swollen to be huge and unwieldy unlike their predecessors. The Hellenic states were tactically bankrupt by their need to stick with Alexanders innovations while forgetting what made them world beating to begin with. The bigger problem was the lack of supporting units. Alexander's army operated completely on the principle of combined arms. Phalanx in the center, skirmishers/assorted infantry on the wings, heavy cavalry in the wings used to route opposing cavalry and then hit the rear of the enemy infantry. The successor states were locked ina drag out wars that had depleted their reserves of properly trained phalangites and had decimated their cavalry. Instead of the phalanx being a part of the army, it often was the army. Whenever the legions hit one of the successor phalanxes dead on they got theit poo poo wrecked. They were only doing so as part of a larger force though, and normally it was a temporary situation until the phalanx was flanked and fell apart. With supporting units, even the successor phalanxes of the 100's BC could have stood up much better against the legions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Speaking of Rome and Fabian tactics, Extra History: The Punic Wars I like these videos a lot, I really hope they do more for some other conflict; perhaps the American Rebellion? Greene sounds really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's only because you don't know enough chemicals! In terms of poo poo that gets played with in rocketry, Hydrazine is downright safe. I can't recommend this book enough. It's free: go and get it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Soldiers of the past can be hilariously bitchy at times Take a look at GiP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Speaking of grognards, here's some photos of Napoleonic veterans in their old uniforms (or part of their old uniforms--a number of them have mid-19th century pants instead) taken in the 1850s. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72496
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
I've seen that one many times, but every time it still amazes me. My favourite is the old Hussar. The one sitting down to clarify.
SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
They're adorable old fellows, and I want to have a tiny coffee and a strong cigarette with each one of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Just don't get them started on Napoleon III. If we're sharing cool links, NoHitCharlie found this one showing pretty much the contents of the average English soldiers kit from 1066 to the First World War.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Just don't get them started on Napoleon III. Find the spoon is a fun game for those pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Just don't get them started on Napoleon III. I just saw this on Imgur and I wanted to link it but you beat me by a mile.  One of the commenter's has a good idea, it'd be cool to see the kit of their antagonists for those battles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Just don't get them started on Napoleon III. Hot drat this is neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Just don't get them started on Napoleon III. That is  man, thanks for sharing. Once I make all my own poo poo, I should do that for the reenactment stuff required to get one HEGEL from point A to point B. The pike could be out of picture or broken like the longest bar on some graphs. Or "Pike (not to scale)" I imagine y'all would find it interesting because I'm deliberately going for a mismatched appearance: my stockings, belt, and wallet are English; my hose are English or possibly Dutch (the pattern just said "1630s hose," but it had Dutch and English example images); my cap is northern English/Scottish; my neck cloth is Italian; my shirt is either Italian or Spanish (the source image for the embroidery was unclear on this point); and once I'm done with the shirt I'm going to make myself a jacket from a Hessian pattern. uPen posted:Find the spoon is a fun game for those pictures. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Here is the gallery from the Telegraph where that person got those pictures, in case you don't like being on imgur's site. Those are dice and a cup in the 1066 picture, correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Here is the gallery from the Telegraph where that person got those pictures, in case you don't like being on imgur's site. Yup. And you can buy some just like them if you want, either cast out of resin or hand carved out of bone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Being the first man over the wall in a famous siege or risking your life to take a standard from the enemy can really advance your military career and well your whole life as a soldier of the past. The Pazzi family basically earned their place for this right? Or am I confusing pop history for real life?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:walle Do you have a sword yet? What kind would you want/have based on your motley approach?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Just don't get them started on Napoleon III. "Each kit represents the personal equipment carried by a notional common British soldier at a landmark battle over the past millennium." 1485 Yorkist has some pretty baller armor for a notional common British soldier, no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Flooger posted:The Pazzi family basically earned their place for this right? Or am I confusing pop history for real life? All I can think of regarding "Pazzi" is the scene from Hannibal where Lecter tosses (Carabinieri Detective?) Pazzi over the wall after slitting his abdomen open and slipping a noose around his neck. "First over the wall" indeed (Lecterchat: I think Moore's Starling was better than Foster's, but considering they were two different phases of the same character separated by a decade of events it may easily be apples v. oranges in comparison) FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
The archer from Agincourt has a cheery little pointed hat. Does anyone know of a good source for the evolution of uniforms? I'm particularly curious about non-functional stuff, like that guy's Link-style hat or those giant bearskin ones for grenadiers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
MrMenshevik posted:The archer from Agincourt has a cheery little pointed hat. Does anyone know of a good source for the evolution of uniforms? I'm particularly curious about non-functional stuff, like that guy's Link-style hat or those giant bearskin ones for grenadiers. My guess is that that early those are more "typical clothes for someone who would have been an archer" and less any kind of real uniform. You really don't start seeing truly standardized uniforms until later on, mostly with the rise of standing armies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
MrMenshevik posted:The archer from Agincourt has a cheery little pointed hat. Does anyone know of a good source for the evolution of uniforms? I'm particularly curious about non-functional stuff, like that guy's Link-style hat or those giant bearskin ones for grenadiers. Bearskins and other tall hats were designed to make the guys look even taller and more intimidating (already typically pulled from the tallest soldiers), and so that officers could easily identify Grenadier companies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:12
|
|
