those last videos, especially that knifing, only issue there is, that victims are unarmed while attacker has a knife - in situation where both sides are armed, i guess the whole motivation for attack would be less profound and attacker would be not charging blindly against the defender. And if we add the formation factor into this, it would be a bit strange expecting anyone to throw himself to enemy shields with intend to hit somebody, just to be cut down by multiple people in that formation quite easily... (similarly, protesters kinda dont expect Police force wanting them to kill them, so they actually have additional motivation for such behavior due to that knowledge.. i guess they would be behaving quite differently if policemen were there to kill them)
I think its quite similar to what bayonet combat is described - bayonet is very effective at killing, being practically a short but heavy pike, while opponent wore no armor, so was practically defenseless against it. Yet, opposing soldiers had bayonet as well, so both sides had means to kill each other, and neither side had an advantage of resisting the attack, which meant morally weaker side would rather turn and run, than stand and risk being possibly stabbed by bayonet....
If you look at statistics from Napoleonic era, there are no known examples where two formation of men would clash in bayonet fight in open terrain.. Bayonet fights happened mostly in broken terrain, where one side had advantage of some defensive works, that gave them cover, and was also common in small unit skirmishes, but practically every single bayonet charge ended up by one side routing and running away prior to actual contact..
Of course, Ancient battles are different, while weapons are as effective, they actually have effective means to protect themselves - Scutum and possibly some lorica would be good enough to provide necessary protection to be able to survive the contact. Yet, i really doubt that majority of soldiers would be completely careless of own defenses and would attack the enemy not looking at own(unit) protection first..
and one additional thing regarding actual recorded event - During battle of Heraclea, Pyrrhos and his cavalry tried to attack Roman legions as they were trying to cross the river, just to be counter-charged by Roman cavalry. Dionysios mention one of Roman cavalry (seeking for Gloria), personally charging against Pyrrhos, ignoring his bodyguards, managing to strike him down from his horse. Bodyguards quickly killed him, but this quickly convinced Pyrrhus to give his ornamented armor and cloak to one of his companions so he would not be targeted like this again. Anyway, while this clearly shows some Romans actually performed such suicidal things.. later at Ascullum, when Pyrrhos was informed some others have volunteered for such thing, he gave order to not take prisoners in case such called attack would be done.. Point is - this was seen as something extraordinary,worth mentioning by ancient historians... not as something that could be expected of ordinary rank and file soldier within the legions.. Plus, usually those who attempted such things, didn't usually survive..
I think its quite similar to what bayonet combat is described - bayonet is very effective at killing, being practically a short but heavy pike, while opponent wore no armor, so was practically defenseless against it. Yet, opposing soldiers had bayonet as well, so both sides had means to kill each other, and neither side had an advantage of resisting the attack, which meant morally weaker side would rather turn and run, than stand and risk being possibly stabbed by bayonet....
If you look at statistics from Napoleonic era, there are no known examples where two formation of men would clash in bayonet fight in open terrain.. Bayonet fights happened mostly in broken terrain, where one side had advantage of some defensive works, that gave them cover, and was also common in small unit skirmishes, but practically every single bayonet charge ended up by one side routing and running away prior to actual contact..
Of course, Ancient battles are different, while weapons are as effective, they actually have effective means to protect themselves - Scutum and possibly some lorica would be good enough to provide necessary protection to be able to survive the contact. Yet, i really doubt that majority of soldiers would be completely careless of own defenses and would attack the enemy not looking at own(unit) protection first..
and one additional thing regarding actual recorded event - During battle of Heraclea, Pyrrhos and his cavalry tried to attack Roman legions as they were trying to cross the river, just to be counter-charged by Roman cavalry. Dionysios mention one of Roman cavalry (seeking for Gloria), personally charging against Pyrrhos, ignoring his bodyguards, managing to strike him down from his horse. Bodyguards quickly killed him, but this quickly convinced Pyrrhus to give his ornamented armor and cloak to one of his companions so he would not be targeted like this again. Anyway, while this clearly shows some Romans actually performed such suicidal things.. later at Ascullum, when Pyrrhos was informed some others have volunteered for such thing, he gave order to not take prisoners in case such called attack would be done.. Point is - this was seen as something extraordinary,worth mentioning by ancient historians... not as something that could be expected of ordinary rank and file soldier within the legions.. Plus, usually those who attempted such things, didn't usually survive..
Jaroslav Jakubov
