what was the ancient battle really like?????

vargsriket said:
I think its the technology to 'blame', because soldiers still must be very aggressive and bloodthirsty in a battle. I mean, you're fighting for your and the life of the guys around you in a firefight, politics and shit don't matter at all, so those violent ancient instincts surface.
yes, but every move you make on a battlefield these days, if you shoot a man a second after a truce has been declared or the war has ended, and you are likely to be put in prison for the rest of your life. these days war is more complicated. it is not war anymore, but closer to politics.
 
Blixs said:
No.

I believe that ancient battles really took hours rather than minutes.I think the scientists who came up with these theories didn't really look into the evolutionary process.

You see humans back then were a lot stronger than they are now.Humans as we evolve into more intelligent beings,our bodies become weaker.

So it would be pretty difficult for modern day man to fight a battle carrying armor,shield,and weapon.And be expected to last several hours,let alone several minutes,but to ancient man this was nothing.

damn right!these men probably grew up training top carryu sword and shield, and anything else burdened on them. men would often carry things heavier than 21 kilos (considered a heavy load) and not complain at all.
 
Blixs said:
No.

I believe that ancient battles really took hours rather than minutes.I think the scientists who came up with these theories didn't really look into the evolutionary process.

You see humans back then were a lot stronger than they are now.Humans as we evolve into more intelligent beings,our bodies become weaker.

So it would be pretty difficult for modern day man to fight a battle carrying armor,shield,and weapon.And be expected to last several hours,let alone several minutes,but to ancient man this was nothing.

Do you have some evidence to back up this claim? I'm highly sceptical to say the least.
 
You see humans back then were a lot stronger than they are now. Humans as we evolve into more intelligent beings,our bodies become weaker.

A quick search could find surprisingly little information on historic trends in human strength or Physiology. Height reached a peak around the Middle ages and reached a minimimum in the 19th century before reversing according to one source! I have always assumed it to be constantly rising. I recall it being suggested that the strength of English Archers may have been greater than modern man based on the drawing load of longbows found on the Mary Rose (or the design of them).

Height which is often used as a proxy for strength depends on genetics, diet, fitness and general health. Diet should have improved strength but I suppose the move from agriculture to industry, especially modern power assisted industry may have reduced it.

Genetic trends have complex causes. Fashion is important, look at the peacock for example! In modern society, a fashion for females to favour larger, stronger males will have a tendency to produce more of them, irrespective of any physical advantage this gives them. In times of food shortage perhaps the opposite might occur.
 
Last edited:
hardcore_idiot said:
damn right!these men probably grew up training top carryu sword and shield, and anything else burdened on them. men would often carry things heavier than 21 kilos (considered a heavy load) and not complain at all.

troops these days carry much more than 46 lbs these days though...
 
many battles lasted a whole day, some even lasted into the night. these have been recorded numerous times in too many cultures to count so it has to be fact. remember people back then were raised to carry the weight of the weopen from an early age. they would know how to use it without tiring. life back then was alot harder so they were more suited physicaly for fighting than the average guy these days.
 
i think an aincent battle would rage for hours, as people have devolved over the years into a much smaller, less violent race of people. this author may have depicted what would happen in modern day "ancient" warfare (if you understand that, you're a genius) but back then they would have just raged at it.
 
One has to take into account that not very long ago mass formations of Troops in the open stood opposite each other and exchanged volleys of gunfire, something that would be very hard to talk people into now days.

So, I can see Armies of people fighting day long battles back thousands of years, it's not like they had a lot to look forward to if they lost, seeing how they would be sold, or killed anyway, and their families taken as slaves.
 
This is one fascinating subject indeed. I am not an expert in this field, but what little knowledge I have, I will share - One must never think that an old (pre gunpowder) battle is a single, huge, bloody fight, that can be resolved quickly, no - it is more like 20, 100, 1000 small fights, 2 - 10 minutes long. The big picture, battle, can easily rage on an area of several square miles (I don't know the accurate figures, maybe much bigger areas) and take (if lucky) hours, or days to finish. Usually, a meleé (a fight, of, say 1000 men) ends when one side simply breaks off, and retreats in order to fight another round: this happens normally because the enemy formation can't be broken at the moment, and prolonged meleé would only result in casualties and fatigue. Meleé combat is seldom conclusive, and retreat maneuvers are carefully drilled, and normally the enemy can't give a chase without breaking their own formation, or giving away their strong position (high ground, a chokepoint, etc.). Ancient battles are mostly just a matter of which side can keep their formations together, and break their enemies formations, after which, they can be chased and slaughtered by cavalry or such. Once broken, a formation is simply said: broken! Useless. If an unit can't hold it's formation, it is next to worthless, no matter how experienced the soldiers are. It is ironic, indeed, that many cultures used to fight in "broken" formation. Imagine a broken mob (gauls, germans and such) of 1000 against a shield wall of 200. Assuming that the shield wall isn't flanked, and that the soldiers are well trained, well fed, well paid (<--IMPORTANT!!) and not too tired, they are quite likely to hold, and when the frustrated mob notes, that they can't break the wall, they retreat, and try take a breahter, then rush in to the fray again. If they are chased by cavalry, they are likely to panic, however. The controlled retreat turns into a panic. The panic spreads, and soon the whole enemy army is on the run. Light cavalry is generally used to chase down these routers, and capture or slaughter them. This is where most of the casualties are inflicted upon the enemy - after the formation is broken. Battles themself are normally inconclusive. Imagine how hard/slow it is to actually to kill a man with a sword, spear or a greek pike or such - from the front, that is, and as a part of a battleline. A sword, a sharp piece of metal, that is as fast as your arm is, and as strong as your technique, training, and yes, your arm is. Now imagine, that there are, what, 3 spots where your opponents armor can be pierced, and without letting your own defense down. Imagine, that you can't move, because you are flanked by friendlies from sides and behind, and the enemy in front of you is equally stuck - neither can do what they want. They can only stand still, and wait for the order to retreat, and see if the enemy is stupid enough to follow. Killing? Hard. Imagine the same scenario when your enemy has turned his back, and possibly dropped his shield and helmet in panic. Something has happened, perhaps the stench was just too much? Just make sure you don't see his eyes, or you might pity him. Killing? Easy. It is the rout that is bloody, but many examples exist of battles, where ground and maneuver were beatifully used in order to deny opponents ability to fight in a formation, and great many casualties were inflicted upon the enemy without a rout. (Gaugamela and Cannae, two battles that are always worth studying). And this talk about people being physically different 2000 years ago? True. But it's not the genes, but the fact, that many people worked in the fields and otherwise, with their bodies, rather than their minds. They were used to being cold, hungry, scared and frustrated, and yet do heavy work or risk a beating or mutilation from their superiors. Average day in the legions was mild compared to average day in the fields, or such - hard work, harder discipline, no food. Hard drills, harder discipline and reasonable food, in the legions. In the few battles (if any, many soldiers never saw a major battle, or a battle at all) they participate, they would mostly march around and hold the line, and when the enemy is tired enough, attack in force along with cavalry and missile support.

It is no surprise, really, that a soldier who is trained in modern, western mobility and "press button" warfare has trouble understanding how old warfare works.

(This is only my vision of how old battles were fought. If you see anything to correct or add, please do. I'm quite interested in the subject myself, and would love to see some conversation.)
 
First, humans have not devolved into a smaller and weaker species over last 4000 years or so, evolution takes much longer time for any such dramatic effect.

It is known from historical records, that hoplite battles took about an hour, while roman legionaries could fight for a whole day. This difference was caused by two things - Romans relied more heavily on missile troops (each soldier in first two lines had two pila) AND roman legionaries in the front line of the manipul didn´t stay there for more than few minutes, then they were relieved by another man. So they basicaly tired the enemy until they broke.¨

About Rome: Total war, its a wonderfull game and I love it. Though I must note, that it does not portray battles entirely accurately (though its is probably the best one on the market). Apart from Rome, it would not be possible to control individual units, rather the whole formation would move without splitting. This was especially true for phalanx formations. Of course, the game would suck that way, so its good we can control each unit separately.
 
No, we haven't evolved into a weaker species, but we have invented a vast array of labor-saving devices.
Pre-industrial daily life was much more physically demanding. The average man in, say, 50 BC would be much more physically strong than the average man today, simply because he would have had to do things himself, without the aid of power tools and the like.
An earlier poster mentioned the Theban Sacred Band. This elite unit was made up entirely of pairs of gay lovers. The idea behind this unusual arrangement was that a warrior would fight harder and not act in a cowardly way, because he didn't want his lover to be ashamed of him (or be killed because of him). :love:
Definitely a far cry from Don't-ask-don't-tell!
 
lol, another ROme total war fan? maybe we can play a couple games together sometimes.

Rome total war is by far the most accurate re-enaction of ancient warfare among all other games and movies made (this game is even used by History channel for the programs talking about ancient wars).

but I still have doubts about how is it possible that my legionaries running around and fighting for whole day without exhausting themselves to death.
I'm not too fond of Rome total war.....I can have maybe four armies at maximum for my entire nation....and the enemy can have four armies for the defense of a small city!?!????? What the hell?
 
Back
Top