02-16-2017, 03:35 PM
I'd believe that some Macedonian troops, being young, untested soldiers, were unstrung by the bloody sight of death, but I dispute that all Macedonians were used to some 'cleaner' kind of warfare. War is war. Horses run over each other, spearheads go through faces, and swords lop off arms and carve through bodies. I really don't think the wounds produced by your average sarissa spearhead was 'just a small slit with some blood oozing out'; stab someone in the chest, and you'll break apart ribs. Stab in the abdomen, and you hit the stomach and GI tract.
Plus, like I mentioned before, Macedonians were plenty used to swords. The Decree of Amphipolis mentions that all Macedonian soldiers must carry a sword in addition to their normal arms and armor; cavalry troopers generally used the lance as their main weapon, but only a fool would go into battle without some sort of backup weapon. No, I think the simple fact that the Macedonians were an inexperienced army, going up against an experienced one, made the difference. Had untested Romans fought against grizzled Macedonians, the opposite might have happened.
Plus, like I mentioned before, Macedonians were plenty used to swords. The Decree of Amphipolis mentions that all Macedonian soldiers must carry a sword in addition to their normal arms and armor; cavalry troopers generally used the lance as their main weapon, but only a fool would go into battle without some sort of backup weapon. No, I think the simple fact that the Macedonians were an inexperienced army, going up against an experienced one, made the difference. Had untested Romans fought against grizzled Macedonians, the opposite might have happened.
