eggers

thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into shield tactics abit more. I know that the spainish devised a shield so small, it was barely bigger then a clinched fists, used but troops trained to get inbetween a phalanx's pikes and could deliver a nasty punch, if used that way. But i still thinking (at the moment) that thats not the shields' primary function. Afterall if we are including anything which can be a weapon, then anything can count as a weapon, pens, keys, bread-knife and it makes the whole thing a lot more complicated. After all, discipine, ideaology and leadership can all be counted as weapons if u stretch the concept far enough. Alitte of topic i know, but i'm just sayin i choose spear on it's primary function, and although the shield can be nasty in the right hands (or wrong hands, depending on how u look at it), it's not primarily a weapon. Or am i alone on this one? True but they did face their fair share of quality bad guys too. Romans aren't the only empire to include highly quality troopers

According to the research i managed to couple together, the romans were relying heavily on mercenaries, as well as the federates. If u found otherwise, by all means show me the right direction and tell me where to look.

The Minoan Civilization fell because of a huge natural disaster that wiped out many of the Creten seaside cities and towns. Yep, u tell the truth my man, and im not disputing that. I was just illistrating that a dark age has happened before the famous middle ages dark age.

very true, "come home with this shield or upon it" is supposed a well known phrase that a spartan mother said to her son. And true the shield has had alot of changes in design etc, but its not really a weapon. Though in medievil germany, they did add spikes to the bottom and top of shield and had to duel it out, using only those shields. And if u hit or pushed someone with it, it probably would do a bit of damage anyway, but i still wouldn't class it as a weapon. So in the favourite weapon thread i would have to say a shield is

well the macedonians did have alexander the great and his amazing heavy cavalry though. And despite the points u pointes out, the roman only truely got that upper hand when they attacked from the flanks. They did have alot of trouble from the front still. The pila, although well designed and made, had a fatal flaw (until marius) when roman blacksmith had to be very highly skilled. This is because the head was made from iron, and was incredibly difficult to forge correctly. Often the pilum would bend to easily, not doing any damage, or not bend enough, allowing it to be pulled from a shield (i doubt anyone pulled it out of their body, they'd probably be dead or dieing!) Marius fixed this by using wooden pegs which snapped on impact. I don't know if post-marian pila where re-usable after the wooden pegs were replaced, but they were easier (and alot quicker) to make, so i doubt it. correct me if im wrong people, it's the easiest way to learn.

Well the romans, and the gauls when they leveled an roman army and sacked rome. This in turn caused the romans to adopt the maniple system of warfare. Maybe spear was a bit ambigous, after all if u modify any weapon past a threshold it'll become another weapon entirely. Tough cookie now i think about it. Bugger it, i'll stick with the spear at the moment. After all, in early republican army, if a roman solider lost his spear it was considered a huge dis-honour, and the chinese once called the spear the king of weapons. I'll stick with spear because of the sentimental value that many cultures placed on it.

without sounding boring, probably the spear. It is the oldest, and most wide-spread form of weapon and is very flexible. U can have long spears to use in a phalanx, or flag pole/standard, add an axe head on there and u get a halberd. Make it lighter and u get a javelin, or (with few mods) a pilum. Give it to a horseman and u end up with a lance. Add a sword blade to it and u get a Naginata. U can have smaller spears for use with one hand, or heavy long spears for use in 2 hands. They are the best weapon for cavalry (melee weapon, not including guns, bows etc). It is very easy and cheap to make compared to other such weapons like a medevil sword. Most of all they are still in use in the military today. A bayonet on a rifle makes a spear that can shoot. Don't believe me, do some research, and u'll find out that thats where bayonets came from, to protect musketmen from cavalry charge, as spears have done (mostly) in ages past. They are easy to use, as re-anactments have shown that random people have been taught to use a spear and form a sheild wall in about a week, or 2 part-time training.

Probably just after marian reforms, as this could quickly produce a large army, and the romans begin implimenting auxillias. Although whether or not having foreign people fighting for is a good idea or not, it meant that the romans could concentrate on being heavy infantry (which they had to a fine art) and getting auxillia to fight with skills they were famed for using. Like using sarmatians or numdians etc. In effect attempting to create an army that can deal with almost anything (in theory)

Besides, this stuff happens. When the minoan civilisation fell, it brought around a dark age in greece a couple of centuries before the roman empire, when rome was a farming community with a few wooden huts. history repeats itself. It'll most likely happen again.

Taken from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_battle_tactics There are other tacticts if your interested to read, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpet...chiliarchy.html It's a military manual written by Nikephoros Phokas and Nikephoros Ouranos, the Praecepta and Taktika during the Byzantine Era, really shows the Byzantine disciplines on organizing an army. For knights, yes they were formidable, but hardly disciplined. The Lombard knights which were used by the French back then were highly undisciplined. This was caused by their selfishness, rivalry between themselves and lack of patience. And btw, in those battles, most of it, the knights lost greatly. The provision of English Longbowmen and the stupidity of the French to fight in muddy fields while raining led the Lombard knights to their death. Most importanty those knights weren;t killed by English knights, but rather by infantrymen, men-at arms, plus English Longbowmen who used mace and pole-axes in hand-to-hand combat giving a heavy-shock to the heave-armoured Lombards. So the French weren't actually a very good example. The Black Prince of England was far more capable. Yep your right, plus the english dismounted their knights to stop them charging off too, so the english knights were acting as heavy infantry.

They would also have to understand what electricity was, after all the (very) ancient mesopotamians could create electricity. Wanna know how? easy, get a large clay vase, with a wooden top. In the exact centre put an iron nail (doesn't matter waht kind of iron, but in those days only soft iron would be availible). Then put a copper tube around the iron( but not touching, maybe 1-2cm in diametre, with the iron nail in the middle so it doesn't touch). Then fill the jar up with vinegar, put the copper tube with iron nail in the middle in the vinegar, and hey press-toe, u get a constant (but tiny) electrical charge where the copper copper-plates the iron. The point of that is, the mesopotamians had absolutely no idea what electricity was, so couldn't use it. No one really knows what they used these vinegar "batteries" for, but u can hook they up in series and shock people, which is always fun. If the roman invented it, they would have no use for it, and it sure as hell wouldn't keeps the barbarians out.

D'oh! my bad

Ok so starting my lil bit saying "If we are talking the best possible ancient greek style army versus best roman cohort style...etc" was maybe a stupid thing to say, but i was just checking before i rattled one off! i never said the legions of rome won just because of terrain, i was trying to illistrate that nothing is ever as simple as it sounds. To say that the romans purely won because they were more flexible is missing huge chunks of a complicated thing, which is war. There are loads and loads of reasons why wars go the way they go, but yeah the roman system was better. Battle of pydna is alil different from AFC championships tho. "The main problems with the phalanx was that it was very vunerable from the flanks or rear, so the greeks did have light troops to guard against this (and against enemy troops getting into any gaps in the phalanx lines). They also should have used the phalanx to pin an enemy in place, while heavy cavalry moved round the back of the enemy and charge their rear, both perseus (the knob-end) didn't bother to do!" when i said this i was trying (not very well i think) that the phalanx was only one part of the mechanism of greek warfare! When people talk about ancient greek warfare the first thing u think is phalanx. Beside im not very convinced that the early roman army would have coped very well to a cavalry charge. But like you say, he never did it, so we will never know. True the phalanx is very boring, i just like to make ripples. I love roman system, it's coz of the romans i have an interest in history. And yes we can only argue about terrain, weather, leadership and the prostitutes the trooper slept with after so much, but they are not factors to be overlooked! But i didn't think the roman and phalanx systems of war crossed paths very often. I think i got my words mixed up! i wasn't trying to say that the romans had a far superior commanders breed into them, and that the greeks were lazy or anything, i was trying to say, when an opportunity arises, how quick were they to take it! After all, although Paullus claimed victory over the macedonians, he was actually off with the elephants and some cavalry routing the macedonian left (i think it was the left!) while a quick witted captain noticed he was in a postion to flank the macedonian lines, and took matters into his own hands. He ordered his maniple to charge in and shattered a phalanx unit, allow other roman troops to finish the fight quicker and with fewer losses (i think everyone agrees on the outcome was bound to be victory over macedonians anyway!)

tactics on the battlefield depends on alot, not just how many troops u have! Terrain is important, and believe it or not weather. Napolean, for example, lost the battle of waterloo, partly (remember i say PARTLY) because it rained. Beeecause, when he used his famous artillary to bombard the allies, the explosive cannon balls just slopped into the mud, exploded and did absolutely no damage at all because all the energy of the explosion was absorbed by the thick mud, while the allied cannon fired small balls much like a shotgun, up close and personal. Terrain: Terrain is a bitch, because it can desrupt formation, and/or slow units down. If u study the terrain on the battle of agincourt, u'll notice there is a slightly raised ridge leading up to the english postion on top of the hill. When the french tried storming up there, it effectively caused a bottle neck (because the french wanted to get as high as they could before charging) and if u ever been in a bottle neck in the middle of a people stampede u'll know that things get alittle tight. If someone falls over, everybody behind and around falls over too. Except in battle, no-one helps u up, and instead tramples u into the dirt. And not to mention one big mass of french troops falling over each other and trying to squeeze through a bottle neck is just asking to be shot to pieces by longbow men. That and that it was wet and alot of people drowned in puddles because they were constantly being trodden on. Charming. Formation is important (and ablility to hold formation): phalanx's (for example) are good from the front, but poor on sides and rear. They are good for pinning enemy troops in place, crap at killing. Ideally u need someone to go round the back of an enemy and hit them hard and fast from the back, like cavalry. Hammer and anvil study by alexander the great, nuh said. Commication and damn fine leadership (obviously): Like the battle of pydna between roman and macedonian (macedonians baaad leadership, romans good) aaaaaaaand know the limits of ur army: romans were heavy infantry. They knew they were heavy infantry, not gods. Sooo they weren't good archers, or cavalrymen. They guessed this and knew something was wrong, solution? find somebody who is a good cavalryman, or archer, which they did. They found mercenaries, like sarmatians, or used the skilled of conquered people who were famous with a required skill, like the numidians. And other reasons too.

probably when Emperor Diocletian divided the empire into 2 halves round about 285 A.D. This, afterall, effectively divided the greek and roman parts, and gave the greek part an empire. Only a matter of time when a different culture is given back it's own affairs after so many years of "foreign" rule, i guess.

1) Roman army used more and more mercenaries/ barbarian troops, which once their tour of duty was done, they went back home, taking the roman system of war with them. This gave the barbarian a chance to study and overcome the best of roman stratergies. 2) Introduction of christianity (or more precisely, 1 supreme god). With paganism, there are alot of different gods, so all the different cultures within rome's border could intergrate easier. (romans did incorp. some gallic gods for example), so when one more god appeared, no-one really noticed. Then, all subjects within the empire could all then share a common goal and belief system without really changing a thing. This also made war and extermination of a group of enemies/people without causing sin easier. 3) The overall belief that rome could never fall. When you grow up in a culture, which has a long a spectacular history, you don't expect anything to change. So when some people get greedy and corrupt, they don't exactly expect the world to collapse around them. Once some people get greedy, others do too. So there is a vicious circle of greed corruption and victims (urban poor) of that corruption. Eventually mismanagement sets in, money goes missing, building get repaired less and less frequently. Eventually the system gets so weak through human nature, and enemy takes notice, and storms the place. Just like the visigoths. In effect, human nature + the fact that empires fall.

I wanna clear something up, are we talking about the best possible ancient greek army style against the best possible roman (post marian) style army, or 1 phalanx unit versus 1 roman cohort? If we are talking the best possible ancient greek style army versus best roman cohort style, then it depends on a hell of a lot. Terrain, leadership and soldier quality are probably the most important factors. Remember a phalanx is best on flat, open and undisrupted ground and they are great for holding an enemy in place. An example of the short-fall of the phalanx is often the battle of pydna, where the macedonian phalanx crumbled against the roman legion. Great, but 3 problems with this: 1) The romans were using a pre-marian (early repulican army), which uses different princples and techniques in fighting (slightly, but does effect the outcome, as triarii also fought as a phalanx). "When the Principes and Hastati of Republican army were rearmed with javelins, the Triarii retained their long spears and scutums and continued to fight as a phalanx."taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarii) 2) initially the macedonians had the upper hand until they pushed the romans onto more rugged ground where the phalanx is less effective, and eventually lost tight formation. 3)Perseus (leading the macedonians) was either a coward, or just a complete moron, having noticed that the battle was going badly due partially to rough ground, just buggered off, with his heavy cavalry, leaving the macedonian phalanx in, well, between a rock and a very bad place! The main problems with the phalanx was that it was very vunerable from the flanks or rear, so the greeks did have light troops to guard against this (and against enemy troops getting into any gaps in the phalanx lines). They also should have used the phalanx to pin an enemy in place, while heavy cavalry moved round the back of the enemy and charge their rear, both perseus (the knob-end) didn't bother to do! "Although the battle (of Pydna) is often considered to be a victory of the Roman legion's flexibility over the phalanx's inflexibility, some argue that the loss was actually due to a failure of command on the part of Perseus. The legion's move into the gaps on the flanks of the phalanx should not have been able to take place, since the Macedonian version of the phalanx had light troops to guard against just such a problem and Perseus had them on the field at the start of the battle. The phalanx had also clearly been doing what it was designed to do, hold the enemy center while the cavalry and other light forces form for a flanking attack. However, this attack never came, and Perseus' splitting of the cavalry to both flanks may have suggested it never could have." (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna) This is not to say the romans had a crap system! in fact it was still an excellent method of fighting, well planned and thought through. I'm just blowing the trumpet of the phalanx slightly because no one else seems to be in here!!! Safe to say, its not just about how flexible or inflexible a system is, is how you use the strengths of that system and hide, or cope with the weaknesses of that system. Remember folks, the roman system eventually fell too, just like the phalanx, except the phalanx was re-born (modified slightly though) during the middle ages by the swiss for example.

hey peeps after reading the threads i thought of something. The medieviel knights where from the richer classes of men from most countries, and governed by their sense of honour (honour to themselves and other rich men, as they often cared little for poor people, damsels in distress opposite to how myths protray them!). They spent their lives from childhood learning to fight and ride effectively on horse back, starting as children. They were head strong and cared nothing for anybody else, just to fight and win. A good example is in the battle of agincourt where the french knights, so determine to charge in and slaughter the english charged through, killing, most of their own mercenary crossbow men (who were just in the way, and no other reason, between the french knights and english) The byzantine cataphracts, as far as my research goes, didn't have such a long time of constant training. Also they were limited by horse breeds. It wasn't until later in medievil times that breeds of horse appeared which were actually able to don heavy armour (and riders obviously) and still effectively fight/charge. As larger and larger chunks of the empire fall to the arabs, they lost massive amounts of trade, which paid troops wages and traditional recruiting grounds for horses and riders. This meant quality mercenaries (to make up the shortfall in quality soliders) could not be paid very well, and they went elsewhere for work. Even on the rare event they actually reclaimed ground from the arabs, the infrastructure and landscape was destroyed by fighting, becoming mainly useless. Also by the time of the downfall of the byzantine empire, they were in no better shape then the western part of the empire 1000 years before (just before rome fell), being in a bad shape of mismanagement and poor trade (i.e. money to go into the coffers and eventually pay soldiers). Also, having lost all but constantinople and a small part of western greece, they could no longer field large cavalry units or any other form of effective military, relying on mercenaries.