Use your common sence. Ancient or any warfare and how men fought them.




 
--
 
November 23rd, 2009  
Riddell10
 

Topic: Use your common sence. Ancient or any warfare and how men fought them.


Have you ever bin in a fist fight? Its safe to say most people put most of there efforts into defending themselves. The roman scutum for example was huge, and offered maximum protection. This implies that the romans maintained defence positions, at almost every point of the battle. Most battles would not have had many casualties until the route/retreat of the enemy. Most armies, most likely advanced but checked their pace due to how fast the other army was going, due to the fact that most lines probably met at a slow pace, due to human nature. In all seriousness how long do you think you could melee? The romans carried 2 pilum for one reason, the fact that when both lines back off they could effectively disable other mens defence armor, shield ect. most missile weapons weren't exaclty for killing, they were designed to make it impossible to hold your shield, because of the irregular balance of weight do to missiles, to make you drop your shield and make infantry engagements go quiker.
The real casualties unlike hollywood probably wouldn't happen until one side turned and ran.
I got all this info from a book called Canae, i read up on all this stuff alot, I just don't understand why some people not accusing anyone but some people think back then their human morals were any different then ours, people value their life even the 300 spartans did, not every battle is one you need to die in and im sure there is a ton of people who would die for there country, but I have a hard time believing that people would run straight at the enemy, trying to knock him over at the beginning. Its easier to picture officers urgering scared soldiers to engage again, and trying to get fresh bodies at the front line

I think thats a fair statement?
November 23rd, 2009  
Yin717
 
 
I would totally agree with you. When you watch movies you want the blood and gore. But I must agree with you, armies were well mobilised and I think they spent most of their time trying to cause the army to rout. This is what I have noticed when playing Medieval Total War II. Fair enough, not a reliable source yet when you fight all the advice you given is to cause the army to rout before you you charge in. And that way you do get less casualties. Isn't this what happened at the Battle of Hastings? William tried destroying the shield wall to rout the enemy, with arrows and occasional waves of troops. Harold tried routing William's men by holding the line and letting his men kill themselves in their waves. In fact Harold nearly won this way, his troops just charged after them a bit too early! So yeah, I would agree with your idea.
November 23rd, 2009  
Riddell10
 
Exactly, my overall point right there is that they weren't super humans. Everything like hollywood makes things so dramatic when realisticly they were all human and faced the same feelings you might go through while in battle. A small minority of men can truly staight that they would charge and wouldn't stop its rare and probably because they weren't taught the morals we have or were brain washed with the idea that this sacrifice is somehow in the name of their god
--