[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Printable Version +- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat) +-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier (/showthread.php?tid=27491) |
RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Bryan - 11-17-2016 (11-17-2016, 08:05 PM)JaM Wrote: here you have: Congratulations, you just described testudo being used against cavalry. And you still got it wrong because you ignored the key part of the action "But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout." Which means the Romans lifted their shields up and attacked, not in a shield wall. This is what you wrote: "Just because some historians (who are most likely not former Roman soldiers) wrote that they fought as individuals, it doesnt automatically mean they fought individually and did not rely on formations and support of others.. " You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight), so clearly you believe it was used as a mobile wall to fight from. And you implied that Polybius (the historian who wasn't a Roman soldier, but who watched them closely on campaign, and had an ear to their generals) was wrong in his description of Romans fighting individually in close combat. So besides forming a testudo or close ranks to defend against missile enemies or cavalry, I want you to show me, with primary sources, when in close combat with enemy infantry the Romans fought in a shield wall, with their shields resting on the ground like a pavise. BTW, gladiators of the Samnite/Gaul style used identical scuta as Roman infantry. Did they too fight as a shield wall in the arena? LOL RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Hasdrubal - 11-18-2016 (11-17-2016, 05:22 PM)Bryan Wrote:A few weeks ago my wife and I just got back from Rome. I took a picture. I believe at times the Roman did fight with their shields on the ground. Like any well trained unit in order to defeat the opponent you need to work in unison with your fellow brother in arms. At that time the Roman soldier pretty much had combat figured out. Phalanx with joints.(11-17-2016, 01:53 PM)JaM Wrote: yet shield wall of men having shields post on the ground and covering behind them was used often, and its something mentioned a lot. (Wars against Jugurtha, Socii wars, Civil Wars etc etc...) Nevermind. I agree with Bryans comments above. His assessment imo spot on. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - ValentinianVictrix - 11-18-2016 Aaron, I think you may have misinterpreted the picture you took and have displayed in this thread. The warriors whose shields are lying on their sides on the ground are the barbarian foes of the Romans, look at the clothing and head gear they are wearing. I don't think the argument that soldiers did not really want to fight does not stand up to the weight of evidence. I'm not saying that people have a death wish, we are all adverse to dying, but under the right circumstances the thought of death gets pushed back to the rear of the mind whilst you are concentrating on getting the job done. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - JaM - 11-18-2016 You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight) really? check this then: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711 and no, Plutarch was not describing testudo.. but something like this: http://www.padfield.com/bible-times/roman-army/p7hg_img_1/fullsize/roman-army-04.jpg And regarding shields on the ground, do you really think Triarii knelt with shields in the air??? lol Facing a cavalry, its always better to have a solid line, without any space.. horse dont like to hit solid object.. if you make it run at it, it will look for a gap instead of running into it... so putting men closer together, presenting solid line of shields... thats pretty basic anticavalry defense... it quite surprise me you are questioning such a base thing.... You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight), so clearly you believe it was used as a mobile wall to fight from so clearly you have not understand what i wrote and decided to build a new trolling case from something that is not even related to topic of this thread... RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Bryan - 11-18-2016 (11-18-2016, 02:26 PM)JaM Wrote: You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight) Yours in Italics. Still waiting on you to tell me whether or not Samnite/Gaul/provocator/murmillo/secutor all fought laying their scuta on the ground and fighting around it as a wall. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - JaM - 11-18-2016 And? Do you think because a kite or heater was strapped to the arm similar to an aspis they were also used the same way? You are drawing conclusions that have no historical evidence to match up. Pavise are not scuta, scuta were not pavise, no matter how much you want to see both and try to make them identical because you feel the need to find similarities. And where i said they were same??? I said, they were of similar shape and weight.... average Pavise was 125mm x70mm, same or similar like Republican Scutum... LOL, that's still a testudo. The only reason is isn't fulled out is because there are 20 reenactors in two ranks, not the 60-100 in a century there normally would be. Or do you think Romans commonly formed their centuries in ranks of two? Thats not Testudo. This was deployed in line,to face cavalry. Testudo was usually a column. ill repeat part you ignored completely: Facing a cavalry, its always better to have a solid line, without any space.. horse dont like to hit solid object.. if you make it run at it, it will look for a gap instead of running into it... so putting men closer together, presenting solid line of shields... thats pretty basic anticavalry defense... it quite surprise me you are questioning such a base thing.... Did Romans know how to repel cavalry? Definitely.. Even Cataphracts didnt dare to charge Romans frontally... so your idea of them fighting individually, is pretty ridiculous. Romans defeated their enemies because of better training, better formations, better cohesion, and better initiative of their (low rank) commanders.. They were perfectly capable adopting the formation based on situation, they were not seeking combat individually, but cooperated within unit... Did they knelt? why not? It is not that unusual for infantry to kneel when facing cavalry charge... In Napoleonic times, it was pretty much normal for men in the square to kneel and present their bayonets towards cavalry.. same even with Renaisance Pikemen, who knelt with their pikes supported against the ground.. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Robert Vermaat - 11-18-2016 (11-18-2016, 03:03 PM)JaM Wrote: Thats not Testudo. This was deployed in line,to face cavalry. Testudo was usually a column. Actually the word 'testudo' may have been used for both the column as well as the linear 'shield wall' you describe. Mauricios uses the word 'fulcum' for both a linear offensive formation as well as a defensive formation that is very much like a linear version of the classical testudo. Nothing sure of course, but that's something we see more often in Roman military terminology. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Bryan - 11-18-2016 (11-18-2016, 03:03 PM)JaM Wrote: And where i said they were same??? I said, they were of similar shape and weight.... average Pavise was 125mm x70mm, same or similar like Republican Scutum...Yours in italics. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - JaM - 11-18-2016 Am I being punked? you are twisting my words in every single sentence i write... Where I wrote it has to be two ranks deep? Plutarch described three ranks, with first one kneeling... Obviously when facing cavalry you wont form a column, but want to keep your frontage, and prevent cavalry to pour in the gaps... especially if that cavalry might have some ranged weapons... so let say with 6 ranks, 3 would form that lets call it SHIELD SCREEN, remaining would be ready to use their javelins when cavalry gets closer, or be ready to countercharge.. Line and Column are base military formations, universally used thorough the history. call it whatever you want. I'm just surprised somebody who claim to serve with military doesn't have base military knowledge about formations... Triplex Acies is a formation of three lines (with gaps between maniples)... when Maniples marched into battle, they were marching in columns as it was easier to maneuver into positions.. oh, look Romans formed lines at Zama: and at Trebia: even at Cannae: surprisingly for you, even Napoleonic infantry fought with battalions having GAPS from each other... Just to be clear, you just promoted in the very paragraph before this that Romans countered the front threat from charging horse by forming in a shield wall with no gaps. Now you are saying that they never would attack Romans frontally? You're wrong either way. I'll list one example: Magnesia, many historians believe that Seleucid heavy horse successfully charged through the Roman front line. NOT ALL cavalry was fighting like that... Celts, Iberians,Carthaginians and even Romans went for shock action and closed in... and regarding Magnesia, you are wrong... Seleucid cataphracts charged small Roman cavalry detachment (3 turmae) and then attacked Italic legion on the flank (Roman Legions were in the middle, not on flanks).. you should spend a bit more time reading about Magnesia... and nice picture, yet since when some modern day painting serves as proof of anything???? plus, you used a picture with shock cavalry on it.... anyway, this is how i imagine how Romans fought: http://romanarmy.info/battleline/battleline.html http://romanarmy.info/site_map.html but i dont doubt you will tell me Garry Bruggemann is also a fraud that was incorrect in every single word he wrote... RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - ValentinianVictrix - 11-18-2016 Jaroslav Ammianus gives an account where Sarmatian cavalry managed to successfully charge and break through and rout two Roman legions, that is one counter to your argument. Although of course Professor Philip Rance has demonstrated if the infantry remains steady then its almost impossible for any form of mounted troops to frontally attack and defeat the infantry. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Bryan - 11-18-2016 (11-18-2016, 03:59 PM)JaM Wrote: Where I wrote it has to be two ranks deep? Plutarch described three ranks, with first one kneeling... Obviously when facing cavalry you wont form a column, but want to keep your frontage, and prevent cavalry to pour in the gaps... especially if that cavalry might have some ranged weapons... so let say with 6 ranks, 3 would form that lets call it SHIELD SCREEN, remaining would be ready to use their javelins when cavalry gets closer, or be ready to countercharge.. Yours in italics. (11-18-2016, 03:59 PM)JaM Wrote: but i dont doubt you will tell me Garry Bruggemann is also a fraud that was incorrect in every single word he wrote...You're still upset that I called SLA Marshall a fraud? He was, no matter how much you want to use him to support you theories on warfare and killing, Marshall is a fraud and everyone who follows him and the subject now knows this. And Lindy is not a fraud but he's not a source either, he's an entertainer. We've discussed Bruggemann's website on this forum in the past, you've not read them (as you've not read anything else apparently). I agree with some of the things he proposed, I disagree with other things. At least he was original though and did his homework on the sources he used. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - JaM - 11-18-2016 There are these people called historians, and they work with these people called artists, and together they create these things call prints. And their work is more credible than twcenter.com fanbois. really, and who's to tell which pictures are made by those artists and historians and which are not? You? Don't go there, you really don't want to get personal and start questioning my military service. You truly don't want to do this, because if you think things are heated now, should you choose to call me a liar or a fool it will get a whole lot worse very quickly. Yet you are doing exactly the same.... REPEATEDLY Further, this post of yours is proof that you are merging Roman military tactics with Napoleonic era tactics in your quest to simplify everything, the same thing you're doing with the Republican era Scuta and 15th century Pavise. So? are you questioning the simple fact that its easier to march forward with men in column than in line??? its a very base military knowledge... again.. Anyway, i decided to stop this nonsense. there is no point continue this "discussion" as its more like a rant and i feel guilty feeding the troll. because your style of "discussion" is a perfect definition of trolling. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Bryan - 11-18-2016 (11-18-2016, 05:20 PM)JaM Wrote: really, and who's to tell which pictures are made by those artists and historians and which are not? You? Yours in Italics. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Hasdrubal - 11-18-2016 (11-18-2016, 09:07 AM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: Aaron, I think you may have misinterpreted the picture you took and have displayed in this thread. The warriors whose shields are lying on their sides on the ground are the barbarian foes of the Romans, look at the clothing and head gear they are wearing. I was referring to the testudo in the picture. RE: [split] Psychology of the Roman soldier - Bryan - 11-18-2016 A while ago I built a Republican styled curved oval scutum, two birch 1/8" sheets glued together, measuring 30" wide (before curving it over a 55 gallon drum) x 48" tall. I didn't use a proper umbo, felt/skin covering, and used rug padding for top and bottom protection so I could smash it against my pell in the backyard. Its not very heavy at all but it balances well enough to understand how the dynamics with the shield works, its very maneuverable and there are many different ways of holding it in a close in fight besides the heavily braced crouching method commonly depicted by reenactors. I'm actually about to build another test scutum to mimic the height of the scuta in the Pydna monument and the Altar of Ahenobarbus Domitius. Both are significantly taller in scale, the Pydna scutum would come up to the shoulder while resting on the ground while the Ahenobarbus scutum reaches the armpit. I think these are the most excessive sizes of Republican scuta but we know they varied in size. The Fayum scutum is large than Polybius' scutum, and numerous sources describe Scipio Aemilianus chewing out a soldier for having an oversized shield, relying too much on defense than offense. Peter Connolly believed that the Roman fighting style was to place the shield bottom on the ground and fight from around it, but based on my experiences playing on the pell with my rudis and faux-scutum it isn't really possible with a ~48" tall scutum, the soldier's upper body would be VERY exposed to overhead stabs and wrap cuts due to how far they would need to crouch down. Maybe with the taller 55-58" shields I'm going to make it is possible, but its just as likely the scutarii simply held the shield normally, its greater height meant they wouldn't need to bend the elbow at all to raise the shield up to protect their shoulder and face like with a "normal" 40"-48" sized scutum, they could simply hold it in front of them, their arm relaxed besides the hands holding the grip, and it seems it would give ample protection to the lower legs and head/shoulder against missiles and close range weapons. |