|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Though I do not believe this skittishness applied to warhorses in the middle ages (an admittedly controversial opinion), I could see it applying to classical cavalry. However, these cavalrymen would, with their longer spears, at least be trying to score hits on the men on foot, and a thin, and bendable head is much more difficult to fight with than a plain spear, especially if the latter is a good 3 feet longer. I have never been too swayed by the 'also a pike' theory of the pilum. It's not great for that purpose, and the Romans used both concurrently in the era of the manipular legion. I don't believe there's any direct explanation in literature, but I see the elimination of the triarii and their Etruscan hoplite influenced pikes as a sign that disciplined heavy infantry just aren't that vulnerable even to heavy cavalry from the front and with secure flanks. The theory goes that the legionaries would brace against the initial shock of the charge, and then have a bunch of horsemen in front of them. It takes time to recover from the charge and retreat, and during the time the front row of horsemen are pinned against the legionaries by the horsemen behind them, the horses have very vulnerable tendons in their legs. At the very least, the Parthians showed no interest in charging a square of prepared legionaries, despite having the heaviest cavalry available at the time. So as a 'and if you absolutely have to, you can poke at cavalry with it' I think one might make a point. As a 'and this is how we deal with cavalry' I think it makes no sense. If heavy infantry needed pikes to deal with cavalry, the triarii would not have gone away. The 'stiff and soft necked' theory makes some sense tactically, but doesn't have overwhelming archaeological evidence to support it. There are certainly both varieties attested to in the same time period, but my memory is no finds have been make of both in the same place. Since we don't exactly have a dig on Pompey's armory, it could be that both existed without a determinate pattern, up to conditions, or even the opinion of particular generals or legions, etc. Edit: Later equipment changes seem to back this up. In the face of increasing cavalry attacks, the Eastern Empire turned to making their own heavy cavalry. The Western Empire (at least for a time) reacted by substantially increasing the number of slingers in armies expecting to deal with large numbers of cavalry. There weren't any returns to phalangite formations or anything like them that I can think of for a long time. Centurium fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Nov 14, 2013 |
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:No, I'm reading King Leopold's Ghost right now and sometimes I have to stop because people suck sometimes. The psychological impact of dealing with the enormity of human evil is not a trivial matter. I know a professor at American University who works extensively on the bomb. He has a preemptive talk with graduate students doing archival research on the subject after several students felt suicidal after spending days in small archives reading rooms examining the calculations around ending the world. Apparently the papers considering countervalue targeting (screw military units, command structures, and missiles, just explicitly try to annihilate as many population centers as you can) are particularly noxious to mental health.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Yeah count me in as well, the actual targeting mechanics haven't been that well documented AFAIK. Yeah, friend of mine has had to do some serious digging. I think his paper is being presented at the OAH meeting. I'll ask him about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 06:12
|
|