Things you have discover that nobody else seems aware of

[bless 'em all]

I agree entirely with EO.

The Romans fought as an entity, and thus, the sword they used ( bit phissed forgot the name ) was used to stab the enemy in a thrusting ( steady Wim ) motion. Here's the rub. They didn't stab the attacker in front of them, but rather the attacker to the right of them.

Raise your right arm to swing a sword. If you've a shield held in your left hand then the person directly ahead of you cannot get past your defense, but anyone to your right has immediate access to your right hand side, beneath you sword arm and straight into your rib-cage.

Team-work and strong organisation was the key. Not how big is your sword.

[bless 'em all]

NLUK is a computer in training for the Turing prize.

[EternalOptimist]

I agree entirely with EO.

The Romans fought as an entity, and thus, the sword they used ( bit phissed forgot the name ) was used to stab the enemy in a thrusting ( steady Wim ) motion. Here's the rub. They didn't stab the attacker in front of them, but rather the attacker to the right of them.

Raise your right arm to swing a sword. If you've a shield held in your left hand then the person directly ahead of you cannot get past your defense, but anyone to your right has immediate access to your right hand side, beneath you sword arm and straight into your rib-cage.

Team-work and strong organisation was the key. Not how big is your sword.

The Roman swordsman(legionary) was a direct solution to a direct problem
the problem was the Greek phalanx, (a big block of pikemen)
and the solution was thinner formations of mobile swordsmen


which worked nicely until someone came along with massed horsemen, and so it went on.

What is truly interesting, is that these solutions and innovations were national doctrines, or characteristics. It wasnt until the Byzantines, under Belisarius, that someone said
'hang on a minute, I wont take my national characteristic and use it to my best advantage, I will see what the other guy has, and recruit whats best to defeat him'

now THAT was a huge breakthrough.
the understanding that its not individuals, but tactical systems that matter

[MyUserName]

The gladius WAS the prime weapon, you information is faulty.
The legionary carried two pila, a shield and a gladius, plus a wooden stake for making a camp.

They carried more than that, your information is faulty. Especially if you include armour which was directly useful on the battlefield. I believe they also carried some kind of heavy darts but I cannot remember the name in addition to standard kit.

The weapon they hit with first (primarily) was the pilum, it caused a shock and awe impact as well as casulaties. When they closed on their distrupted enemy they kept in formation and used their shield and momentum as much as (if not more than) the galdius.

You keep failing to understand that the gladius is not what won those battles. It was the well organised and disciplined approach of a professional and well trained army against enemies who were often numerically inferior (but not always) and were inferior quality troops.

The pila were what we would call heavy throwing spears. In other words, they were not thrusting spears (like the egyptians or early greeks would have used), they were not anti-cavalry spears, like Alexanders greek spearmen, persian spearmen, or roman auxileries would have used

At no point did I say they were thrusting spears or anti cavalry spears (although they could have been thrown at cavalry as easily as infantry. It seems like you are making up points to argue against to make your position stronger.

they had one sole purpose. that purpose was to be hurled, at about 40 feet, in the course of a charge, in order to disorganise the enemy.

You do not seem to be understanding the significance of breaking the enemies formation whilst keeping your own. This is a massive difference and can win battles by itself.

So, they were hurled, not thrusted. therefore they were not the primary weapon. The primary Roman hand to hand weapon was the short sword. And the Romans fought more battles than any other army

This is not really the definition of a primary weapon. The primary Roman hand to hand weapon was the gladius/shield, no one is arguing that point, again you are making points to argue with.

The key point is one you keep missing even though you make it yourself

"the Romans fought more battles than any other army"

They were expert professional soldiers who did this for a living fighting opponents who did not, generally, do the same.

you make a distinction between warriors and soldiers.
you make a distinction between organised and un organised troops.
you also make a distinction between disciplined and non disciplined troops.
you mention the difference between armies and other battles.


These are false distinctions

This is quite possibly the most stupid thing I have ever read in my entire life.

There is no difference between organised and un organised troops?
There is no difference between disciplined and non disciplined troops?

Honestly, I almost did not bother replying when I saw this. Seriously - is this a wind up?

What you really meant was that

'between self taught warriors, who are not organised into large formations, or used to the discipline of organised close-formation groups, who operate in very small numbers and without any danger of actually suffereing any harm,
the sword sucks'

and I might find myself agreeing with that

Nope, what I meant was sword suck on the battle field unless you have a massive advantage in armour, equipment, discipline, organisation and tactics along with enemies who have little armour which therefore allows single handed swords to actually have any affect.

and you might find anyone who knows what they are talking about agreeing with that

Let us talk about other armies where the training and equipment was more equal shall we?
How many armies sent their soldiers out with swords as their primary weapon? Off you go to google, I'll wait.

Whilst you are doing that have a go at this thought experiment:

You have a 3' sword and I have a 10' glaive.

When you are 16 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 15 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 14 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 13 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 12 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 11 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 10 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 9 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 8 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 7 feet away I can hit you but you cannot hit me
When you are 6 feet away I can hit you and you might be able to scratch me if you are tall.
When you are 5 feet away I can hit you and you can hit me.
When you are 4 feet away I can hit you (with the shaft) and you can hit me.
Closer than that I pull out my knife or kick you in the nuts.

Now when you are closer than about 9 foot my second line can reach you too.
Now when you are closer than about 3 feet my third line can reach you too.

At all times the two fighters on my left and right can also reach you.

Which weapon do you think is better?

[MyUserName]

I agree entirely with EO.

The Romans fought as an entity, and thus, the sword they used ( bit phissed forgot the name ) was used to stab the enemy in a thrusting ( steady Wim ) motion like a spear. Here's the rub. They didn't stab the attacker in front of them, but anyone they could reach

Raise your right arm to swing a sword and you stab your mate with your swing which is why swords suck in formation. If you've a shield held in your left hand then the person directly ahead of you cannot get past your defense, but anyone to your right has immediate access to your right hand side, beneath you sword arm and straight into your rib-cage.

Team-work and strong organisation was the key. Not the sword as it was being used as a short spear anyway.

FTFY

[EternalOptimist]

before I reply, I will tell you one thing. This is my subject. I dont google.

[EternalOptimist]

the most stupid thing you ever heard in your life eh ? ok let me give you some definitions

you make a distinction between warriors and soldiers.
you make a distinction between organised and un organised troops.
you also make a distinction between disciplined and non disciplined troops.
you mention the difference between armies and other battles.

A warrior is a fighting man vs a soldier who has been singled out and seperated to be solely a fighting man

Organised troops - 'You belong to the 1st battalion of cuk who will meet at such and such a place at such and such a time' vs, just turn up and join in, everything will be ok.

Disciplined troops -march when I say march, retreat when i say retreat and attack when i say attack
vs use your own judgement, you know best

Scale of battles, armies. these battles are often determined by abstract nototions rather than by individual actions. ie totally differerent from skirmishes

[MyUserName]

You seem to be agreeing that these terms are not the same, previously you said that there was no distinction between for example unorganised and organised troops?

Although yor definitions are poor at least you are wading te right way. Now, about the several other points in my post ....

[Gentile]

I have discovered that recessions are terrible things, that make otherwise intelligent people argue about nonsense on the internet when they would otherwise be applying their intellects and critical skills to meaningful work!

[MyUserName]

There seem to be a couple of people interested in this so pm ing will not work, perhaps we should start a separate thread?