Imitation Legionaries

**JaM** · August 12, 2013, 01:39 PM

one last time... We are not talking about duel one on one... battles are not like that... We are taking about formation against formation, and Spear armed formation (Spear and shield) is extremely passive one. Its only chance is to fend off the enemy by the spearpoint, but handling spear in one hand, greatly reduces its effectivity. And once enemy unit close in, Fixes the spearpoints against their shields, they will get past the spearpoint up close, thrusting their gladiuses into spearmen holding their shields and spears...

Romans used spear during early republican era. Spear called Hasta (and men using it were called Hastati btw...) but they discovered soon enough how impractical spear is against shock infantry equipped with short swords and javelins. Greeks never had to fight against Spaniards, Carthagians, Gauls, they lacked the experience fighting against this type of heavy infantry.. When Pyrrhus met Romans first time in battle (He won), but after battle he said - "Alexander fought against women, i have faced real men..." He took considerable amount of losses, many of his veteran phalangitai were killed. (another his famous quote was "just another victory like this, and we are done..") anyway he started to use samnites, who fought using maniples. They were able to get in terrain that was impassable for his infantry, anyway even with them, second battle was close call too..

Anyway back to thrusting sword - it is superior weapon in close combat in combination with Scutum. Scutum was revolutionary shield, that completely changed the way how infantry fought. Instead of overlapping shields, its main purpose was to press the enemy with the shield and finish him off with a sword. Facing such tactics, and being armed with a spear and shield, you have no chance.. holding spear in one hand means you cant deliver enough of power to penetrate the scutum, so initial pressing against wall of spears, will end up with spears fixed and second line of men advancing forward bypassing the spears (exactly as demonstrated in the video i have posted). And once you are close, they are dead... their spears are too long to be anyhow useful...

But i dont doubt, you will dismantle this with single sentence about books you read somewhere (without actually mentioning the source)

**vietanh797** · August 12, 2013, 01:50 PM

Given a fight between Hoplite and Legion while Legion don't have pilla I can see Hoplite murder Legion.
You alway think about fix a spear point. It is not a spear, it is a human you are facing. You say so much about pushing yet the scutum is inferior to Hoplon when it come to pushing tactic. The way they operate Pushing tactic on Hoplite is attack from above the shield while having your entire weight behind the shield pushed by you shoulder which is way stronger than push a scutum with your hand. The scutum gave Legion a low center of gravity point which lead them to be easier to be overpower in a pushing match and in the end they are the one who will be killed. Don't say about you can stab, you can't do

if someone push you with such a big shield with his entire weight behind it, if you try do anything rather than try to keep your balancing you will fall to the ground before you know why

About Pyrrhus do you really believe that he can compare the Persian with Roman? His army was feed by Eastern rice and his elephant are Eastern too, he just try to make an excuse.

Also about Gaul, Greek fought and established colonies all over the med sea, The Massalia and Emporion are Greek colonies and Greek also fought the Thracian and Dacian. not sure which type of heavy unit you talking about?

**O'Hea** · August 12, 2013, 02:08 PM

The reason why the Romans were able to so consistently beat hoplites and phalangites is because their formations were fast and flexible and could easily break up or envelop phalanges that moved in deep monolithic blocks. Classical phalanxes were really only capable for the forward march and the Hellenistic phalanxes, while better-drilled, were still sluggish and dependent on keeping close order. Anywhere a gap appeared, a legionary could press forward and gain an immediate and serious advantage- once you get past the sarissas even the best-equipped phalangites were easy targets. The triumph of the Roman system was combining formidable individual fighters into a disciplined and versatile organization, where most of the armies they faced had just one or the other.

**vietanh797** · August 12, 2013, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Woodrow Skillson

Hellenistic pikemen did not use the hoplon, they used a 2 foot (.6m) shield that was smaller then the hoplon. Both the phalangite shield and the hoplon were worn strapped to the arm of the bearer. This significanlty reduces the ability of the bearer to use his shield offensively, and to parry with it. That is why the Romans used a center grip, so they can more effectivly use it as a weapon itself. The Romans did not try to get into a pushing match with a phalanx to begin with, they worked to disrupt its formation and force the individuals to fight in close. There the oversized hoplon and the smaller phalangite shield were inferior to the scutum. I'm not sure how you are classifying which shield is "weaker" then the other as well.

well I never said hellenistic pikemen use Hoplon, a argive grip is design to use the shield to it's full power in a pushing match or you can bash with it. Scutum is weaker because the construct is weaker

Originally Posted by Woodrow Skillson

Which professional armies are you talking about here? The Swiss also had swordsmen. The Byzantines used swordsmen. All of the European states used swordsmen. The Arabs used swordsmen. All of these different cultures had their best fighters using swords. Some used a spear sometimes too, but nearly all of these cultures used dedicated swordsmen. Knights overwhelmingly used swords. You have literally claimed that any "weapon master" would always pick a spear over a sword, so what do they know that the Vikings did not?

Spears are very very good if used in formation by a lot of people. They stop being good in close combat. That is why all of those spearmen who could afford it carried swords or other one handed weapons as backup.

because European guys only know how to use brute force may be. But I seen quite a lot of guys in mock combat use spear beat the sword guy.
And honestly why you avoid my example? I said swiss pike formation beat men at arms, I never said swiss don't have swordsman., Knight use lance and blunt weapon, they only use sword if they facing bunch of peasants, yes they have sword technique to kill another knight but is is hard to pull off those technique so a blunt weapon is much more effective

**High Fist** · August 12, 2013, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by vietanh797

well I never said hellenistic pikemen use Hoplon, a argive grip is design to use the shield to it's full power in a pushing match or you can bash with it. Scutum is weaker because the construct is weaker

because European guys only know how to use brute force may be. But I seen quite a lot of guys in mock combat use spear beat the sword guy.
And honestly why you avoid my example? I said swiss pike formation beat men at arms, I never said swiss don't have swordsman., Knight use lance and blunt weapon, they only use sword if they facing bunch of peasants, yes they have sword technique to kill another knight but is is hard to pull off those technique so a blunt weapon is much more effective

What shite are you on about?
As said earlier a Swiss pike is not the same as the spear we are - or were - originally discussing. Neither is a sarissa pike. As if any "weapon master" would use either weapon against a man with a sword + shield. What are they gonna do once you get past the point? How are you gonna block the sword now? By blurting out "The spear is better than the sword!"?
"because European guys only know how to use brute force may be." Every example of fighters so far have been European.

If spears were so superior to swords, then how in the world did the Romans manage to conquer all of the Mediteranean? Oh, they cheated by using pila, you say. The pila didn't do horrific damage to enemy ranks, the main effect of it would be to cause disorder and render a few shields useless. Sword did the dirty work.
If spears were so superior to swords then how in the world did the Roman Empire collapse with all of their spear wielding soldiers? (Granted there are other reasons for that but the fact stands that the Roman armies were a shadow of the past)

This is getting way off topic.

**Sandraker** · August 12, 2013, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by vietanh797

well I never said hellenistic pikemen use Hoplon, a argive grip is design to use the shield to it's full power in a pushing match or you can bash with it. Scutum is weaker because the construct is weaker

I'd disagree. The Hellenes certainly saw the worth of Scutum-like shields, leading to the widespread adoption of the thureos.
Ever tried to bash someone with a massive, arm strapped shield? You won't get much force from that. It weighs down your arm quite a bit, and it's generally awkward to use. You'll get a far more forceful blow with both a "punch "or a rim attack using a center-gripped shield. Generally, arm strapped shields are horrible for single combat. You lose agility, you lose offensive power, but you do gain stability to a degree that is only really significant when in tight order. Besides, you can still put your arm and shoulder into a pushing match when you use a center-gripped shield. You don't need a strap for it.

because European guys only know how to use brute force may be.

This bit here really irks me. Let me set this straight:

The stereotype of the brutish, lumbering European and the agile Asian is a myth.
No melee weapon used by serious, trained fighters anywhere, in any time relied on brute force. This is especially true for ancient and medieval Europe. With the exception of weapons designed for very specific situations, there is no European melee weapon, not even the big nasty ones such as the poleaxe or the halberd that wasn't designed to be used with extensive technique. Even the largest of swords are actually lighter than you'd think, and in the right hands they were still agile and precise weapons. In fact, some weapons like the longsword and the rapier relied almost entirely on agility.

The same can be said for ancient weapons too. The gladius was certainly a quick weapon. Even Celtic longswords despite their considerable size weren't sluggish.

And the same thing goes for today. Any combat reenactor/HEMA practitioner worth his salt will know a whole lot about fighting technique.

But I seen quite a lot of guys in mock combat use spear beat the sword guy.
And honestly why you avoid my example? I said swiss pike formation beat men at arms, I never said swiss don't have swordsman., Knight use lance and blunt weapon, they only use sword if they facing bunch of peasants, yes they have sword technique to kill another knight but is is hard to pull off those technique so a blunt weapon is much more effective

The Swiss didn't just rely on pikemen, especially in their early times where they faced armies that were very feudal in style. Early on, their principle infantry weapon was the halberd, which at first was very similar to a voulge in design. The secondary weapon of choice was always a shortsword/long dagger (Baselard or Katzbalger) or, if the guy got access to it, a longsword or a more crazy weapon like a Swiss saber.
The medieval Swiss are not a good example of very powerful spearmen. However, they are a great example of a force capable of wrecking the hell out of armies that included lots of spearmen.

Knights didn't aim to kill other knights in most situations, they aimed to capture and ransom them, the less harm done the better. Swords, especially the longswords that became highly popular with the adoption of plate armor were very useful for subduing other knights.
In dismounted combat, "plate-era" knights generally preferred to use poleaxes and other polearms in melee. These were usually very versatile in design, capable of very lethal attacks while still having many options to non-lethally take down an opponent as well.

Anyway, we've gone waaay off topic.

But no, spears generally weren't the ultimate melee weapon. Swords didn't see widespread use just because they look cool.

**Woodrow Skillson** · August 12, 2013, 02:40 PM

That is not even an argument, that is a ad hominem with no content.

**vietanh797** · August 12, 2013, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Woodrow Skillson

That is not even an argument, that is a ad hominem with no content.

My point is Sword not superior to Spear so any so call "Imitation Legionaries" that using spear isn't inferior to the real one. In some aspect like anti cavalry they are even better.