[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[JaM]

my point is not to the design of the shield but to its size.. if protection was not important, they would not bother with the scutum, and instead would use lighter parma or caetra or something similar.. yet Romans used large scutum, for maximum protection to their troops. (and parma practically was the same size as clippeus, so would give same amount of protection again missiles)

If it was incorrect, then why all historians are mentioning it to be the main reason why Census was established???

[Bryan]

my point is not to the design of the shield but to its size.. if protection was not important, they would not bother with the scutum, and instead would use lighter parma or caetra or something similar.. yet Romans used large scutum, for maximum protection to their troops. (and parma practically was the same size as clippeus, so would give same amount of protection again missiles)

If it was incorrect, then why all historians are mentioning it to be the main reason why Census was established???

Defense is part of offense, in order to kill the enemy effectively the fighter has to be alive to do it. The most highly skilled, motivated, and deadly warriors in history, nearly all used defensive armor in battles. Even the bare assed Celts carried shields that covered the better part of their body (many of their thureos were of near identical size and shape, minus the curvature, of a Roman scutum). Your line of reasoning, its wrong. Romans carried Scuta because they were the best shields that allowed them to close with their enemies close enough to kill them with swords, or survive missiles while throwing their own. They didn't carry small bucklers because it wasn't cultural tradition for Italians, and because they were crap in stopping missiles against line infantry. 

Parma shields were common among those who didn't face off directly in the front lines with enemy, skirmishers who had the freedom of movement (not being constrained to remain in formation) to avoid incoming missiles, those who likely often would have had others protecting them (signifers, cornicen), or by Roman citizen cavalry (the parma was of sufficient size to protect the left arm, upper leg and part of the horse's neck and barrel, though the flat thureos of the Celts was superior, which is why the round parma was supplanted). 

Census? What does "an official count or survey of a population" have to do with shields?

[JaM]

1. reason behind Census was to levy men for military service.. they only allowed those who had certain amount of wealth, as they had something to lose and therefore would defend the Rome appropriately.

2. you are contradicting yourself now, as it was you who said they would attack without taking own protection into account. i said otherwise. yet you still claim i was wrong...

3.Parma shields were used by "those before the flags"... Velites were quite commonly mentioned to participate in duels where they challenged enemy individuals to fight in front of the armies before battle... plus, velites used standard swords, helmets.. they were capable in close combat.. they were supposed to fight together with cavalry when needed to provide them with infantry support... Parma shield is commonly mentioned to be superior to CELTIC Thureos (Battle of Tellamon), to provide more protection and being more sturdy. (besides, Vikings used very similar shields in close combat centuries later)

4. Caetras were as well used quite commonly by plethora of melee fighters among Iberian tribes, not only skirmishers... lets not forget Roman historians even calling Macedonian Phalangites at Pydna "Caetrati"....

[Bryan]

1. reason behind Census was to levy men for military service.. they only allowed those who had certain amount of wealth, as they had something to lose and therefore would defend the Rome appropriately.

And what does this have to do with shield type? For most of Rome's history all infantry of the line (hastati, princeps, triari), later all legionary, carried the same shield, an oblong tall curved scutum. Only the poorest and youngest, the velites, as well as signifers and cornicens (both of which would have been protected by others in the ranks), and cavalry, carried Parma, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were all of the same construction, actually there were known to be different types (Polybius' original cavalry parma was known to be flimsy, replaced by a sturdier version, and velites (replaced by Marius with the Bruttian ). 

2. you are contradicting yourself now, as it was you who said they would attack without taking own protection into account. i said otherwise. yet you still claim i was wrong...

No, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm not the one who said that, Densus was. I believe that anyone who fights worries about defense, but a good martial arts fighter, whether that be boxing, wrestling, or sword fighting, doesn't let their fear of being hurt prevent them from fighting. So they mitigate risks by carrying shields, or wearing armor. If the shield is going to be relied upon, the scutum is superior to the Parma, its large, protects more of the body, while not being overly large to prevent effectiveness in close range combat, or inhibiting mobility. 

3.Parma shields were used by "those before the flags"... Velites were quite commonly mentioned to participate in duels where they challenged enemy individuals to fight in front of the armies before battle... plus, velites used standard swords, helmets.. they were capable in close combat.. they were supposed to fight together with cavalry when needed to provide them with infantry support... Parma shield is commonly mentioned to be superior to CELTIC Thureos (Battle of Tellamon), to provide more protection and being more sturdy.  (besides, Vikings used very similar shields in close combat centuries later)

Source for Caesar's antesignani carrying parma? Because they weren't the same as velites. Source for Livy's antesignani carrying Parma (he specifically is describing the leading ranks of line infantry). 

You can't find a single source about parma shields being stronger than Celtic thureos (which were flat scuta) because the only Romans who carried them were either velites (who carried a substandard one replaced by Marius by the Bruttiian shield), or by Roman citizen cavalry. http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread-24473.html

You misread Polybius 2.30, he's not comparing the Parma vs. the Gallic shield, he's comparing the Gallic shield to the Roman infantryman's shield. Polybius is specifically saying the larger more protective shields and the cut and thrust swords of the Romans allowed them to close with and slaughter the less protected and worse armed Gauls.

"For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were the better chance had the missiles of going home. 4 At length, unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness. Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers; 6 but the main body of the Insubres, Boii, and Taurisci, once the javelineers had withdrawn into the ranks and the Roman maniples attacked them, met the enemy and kept up a stubborn hand-to‑hand combat. For, though being almost cut to pieces, they held their ground, equal to their foes in courage, and inferior only, as a force and individually, in their arms. The Roman shields, it should be added, were far more serviceable for defence and their swords for attack, the Gaulish sword being only good for a cut and not for a thrust." 

You mention Viking shields, when instead you should be describing Germanic tribes of the Migration period, be they from Scandinavian or from Germania proper, but since you bring it up, Vikings carried parma like shields and formed into shield walls, and they weren't known for being a cautious or hesitant in a fight. So maybe they too know something that you don't seem to understand, that a grey area exists between offense and defense, protection, and ferocity/aggressiveness. One can be VERY aggressive in combat and still believe in easy to use defenses. 

4. Caetras were as well used quite commonly by plethora of melee fighters among Iberian tribes, not only skirmishers... lets not forget Roman historians even calling Macedonian Phalangites at Pydna "Caetrati"....

Iberian infantry who carried the caetrati did not fight in the close ranks where they couldn't individually try dodging missiles. Line infantry cannot be allowed to duck, leap to the side, or do anything else when under missile attack, they can only either stand and take it or advance to close the distance and take it, either way they need a shield large enough to protect them head to toe, or else they need the heavy armor necessary to protect them. Iberian infantry that fought Romans in line used a thureos shield, sometimes curved identically to the Romans. (see  Fernando Quesada Sanz)

Livy substituted Caetrati (Latin for a known skirmisher's shield) for Pelta (a Greek word originally describing a skirmisher's shield). 

Yours in Italics.

[JaM]

And what does this have to do with shield type?

nothing with the shield, everything with the  fact wealthy men were expected to fight harder for their country than those who have nothing to lose...


Source for Caesar's antesignani carrying parma? Because they weren't the same as velites.

No, im not, im just stating the way how Velites fought.. and you practically ignored the whole part about Velites being engaged in single combat before battle against enemy champions...

unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness. Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers;

perfect example what i've been saying all the time - even with fanatical Gaesatae, only some rushed at enemy in rage, while others retreated back and put own lines in disorder...  and this time they routed facing ordinary velites.. mostly teenagers hurling light javelins..

I have mentioned Telamon because of Celtic shield. Parma was mentioned (by Polybius) during Macedonic campaigns as being superior to what others used

"The shield is strongly made and sufficiently large to afford protection, being circular and measuring three feet in diameter." - Hist 6, 22

3feet in diameter, thats same as Aspis... Macedonic Pelta was smaller with typically 60-70cm diameter..


Iberian infantry who carried the caetrati did not fight in the close ranks where they couldn't individually try dodging missiles. Line infantry cannot be allowed to duck, leap to the side, or do anything else when under missile attack, they can only either stand and take it or advance to close the distance and take it, either way they need a shield large enough to protect them head to toe, or else they need the heavy armor necessary to protect them. Iberian infantry that fought Romans in line used a thureos shield, sometimes curved identically to the Romans. (see  Fernando Quesada Sanz)

I have Fernando's book, read his work at Academia.edu.. even he mentions certain tribes using ligher Caetras in melee.. Iberians were masters of ambushes and "partisan" war. Yet, every time they fought Romans in open battles, using closed formations, they were defeated..:

[Densus]

At no point have I said anything even close to 'they would attack without taking own protection into account'.

[Bryan]

nothing with the shield, everything with the  fact wealthy men were expected to fight harder for their country than those who have nothing to lose...

And that was proven wrong by Philip, who recruited the poor into a professional army, and by Marius, who broke tradition on levying from the poor and still managed to produce fantastic soldiers. 

No, im not, im just stating the way how Velites fought.. and you practically ignored the whole part about Velites being engaged in single combat before battle against enemy champions...

unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness. Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers;

Reading comprehension failure on your part. At no time is Polybius describing single combat between velites and Gauls at Telamon. The full context of the quote, which I provided in my previous response, shows that Polybius is describing the javelin storm that broke up the Gallic line infantry's ranks because their shields weren't as protective as the Roman scuta.  

perfect example what i've been saying all the time - even with fanatical Gaesatae, only some rushed at enemy in rage, while others retreated back and put own lines in disorder...  and this time they routed facing ordinary velites.. mostly teenagers hurling light javelins..

They rushed at the Romans, carrying what nobody would actually refer to as a small shield, but were driven back, because their shields weren't sufficient in size and quality to stop light javelins thrown by teenagers. Let that sink in and then compare it to what you earlier wrote, "If your mentality is to kill the enemy no matter what, you would definitely not bring a "wall" with you to do that.. and Scutum or Aspis is that wall practically.. instead you would bring s target shield or nothing at all.."

The Gaesatae were attacking with a mentality to kill the enemy, they did have an insufficient protective shield, and look what happened to them. 

I have mentioned Telamon because of Celtic shield. Parma was mentioned (by Polybius) during Macedonic campaigns as being superior to what others used

"The shield is strongly made and sufficiently large to afford protection, being circular and measuring three feet in diameter." - Hist 6, 22

3feet in diameter, thats same as Aspis... Macedonic Pelta was smaller with typically 60-70cm diameter..

As I've already stated, all Parma were not created equally. Polybius describes a different parma used by Roman cavalry that was changed in the 3rd century BC, it was flimsy. The Parma used by the velites is described as sturdy, while it was replaced by a different parma, the Bruttian, which was different in size, shape, construction, quality, but was still called a parma. In addition there is iconography of signifers and others who carried Parma which were NOT 3 feet in diameter, they were clearly much smaller in size. 

Iberian infantry who carried the caetrati did not fight in the close ranks where they couldn't individually try dodging missiles. Line infantry cannot be allowed to duck, leap to the side, or do anything else when under missile attack, they can only either stand and take it or advance to close the distance and take it, either way they need a shield large enough to protect them head to toe, or else they need the heavy armor necessary to protect them. Iberian infantry that fought Romans in line used a thureos shield, sometimes curved identically to the Romans. (see  Fernando Quesada Sanz)

I have Fernando's book, read his work at Academia.edu.. even he mentions certain tribes using ligher Caetras in melee.. Iberians were masters of ambushes and "partisan" war. Yet, every time they fought Romans in open battles, using closed formations, they were defeated..:

You say you read his works but you didn't pay attention to them apparently, because what you write is the direct opposite of what he wrote:

"But most visible are the more radical innovations in defensive weapons,with the introduction of the flat version of the oval shield (scutum) in the South and Southeast and probably also in the Meseta; and also of the bronze helmet commonly known as Montefortino or jockey-cap helmet. Even if they were ultimately of Italic origin, the jockey-cap bronze helmet and the oval thureos were probably first adopted by Iberian mercenaries and allies in the Carthaginian service, and perhaps even by Carthaginian citizens, as they were both cheap and efficient.
We have argued elsewhere in detail (Quesada2002-2003) that a close analysis of the chronology of the first oval shields and Montefortino helmets in Iberia closely matches the period of Barcid influence(c. 237-c. 218) and Hannibal’s war (218-202 BC), and therefore it is very likely that both defensive weapons and Punic presence are connected as no other model explains better the available data. All these weapons, if taken together, are typical of the Late Iberian and Celtiberian panoply (c. 230-c. 100 BC) and are best suited to close combat. In fact, they would have severely encumbered any pure light infantryman jumping from rock to rock and avoiding scrub in the manner some usually visualize the Celiberian ‘guerrilleros’. We believe that the innovations in weaponry we have just summarized (see Quesada 1997b, 2002-2003, 2004 forth.for more details) are not the result of chance or of fashion. They imply a significant renovation of the traditional Iberian panoply and should be explained in terms of tactical adaptations or changes, as in the ancient world it was usually changes in tactics that determined changes in weapons, and not the other way round (see Gracia 2003:35, n. 1; Hanson, 1991:63 ff.)....
The oval shield of Celtic or Hellenistic shape, somewhat lighter than the Roman scutum, was useful while in skirmish order, but at the same time afforded better protection than the round caetra in pitched battle."

And this is from his paper called "Not so different: individual fighting techniques and small unit tactics of Roman and Iberian armies… ", which is further evidence that you didn't actually read this, because if you had you wouldn't be saying "Iberians were masters of ambushes and "partisan" war. Yet, every time they fought Romans in open battles, using closed formations, they were defeated..:" because that simply isn't true at all, Spanish had numerous successes in pitched battles against Romans throughout the 2nd and 1st Cent. BC. One of the most notable battles occurred during the 2nd Punic War, in Spain against the elder Scipii, and in Italy at Trebia and Cannae, where the heart of Hannibal's line infantry were either Spanish (armed with flat thureos) or Gallic (armed with flat thureos). 

Yours in italics.

---

At no point have I said anything even close to 'they would attack without taking own protection into account'.

JaM misconstrued your previous post: "Hopefully they will also kill off the idea from earlier in the thread (or possibly the other one) that soldiers don't expose themselves to risk to close with and destroy the enemy." But battle isn't black and white. While fighting, one can be cautious without being overly fearful of risking injury. It really comes down to will, mindset, morale. 

For JaM, look at prize fighters, they aren't shy in a close fight but they still keep their guard up to block. Fencers, same thing. Even the naked Gauls and the Beserker Vikings (those not carrying two handed weapons) cared enough about protection to use shields too. Modern special operations forces fight extremely bravely and use tactics that are borderline dangerous, they wear body armor.

[Densus]

On Viking shields, and the use of shields in general, the Norse believed warriors chosen for Valhalla would fight every day in preparation for a final battle at the end of the world, any wounds they took during these fights would magically heal every night. That is why warriors were buried with the weapons they would need in the afterlife.

Helmets and body armour are almost never found in Norse graves but shields are almost always present. One theory for this is that they didn't need protective equipment because of the magically healing wounds but that they saw the shield as a weapon, not as a piece of protective equipment.

Shields with straps for the arms are far more comfortable to use for long periods and arguably are better for protection (ie absorbing blows), single grip shields such as the Norse and the Romans use allow them to be used offensively as well as for blocking attacks.

[JaM]

For JaM, look at prize fighters, they aren't shy in a close fight but they still keep their guard up to block. Fencers, same thing. Even the naked Gauls and the Beserker Vikings (those not carrying two handed weapons) cared enough about protection to use shields too. Modern special operations forces fight extremely bravely and use tactics that are borderline dangerous, they wear body armor.

those prize fighters are not fighting for their life... that's  a huge difference. Modern spec ops troops are not drafted, they are specifically selected men.. if you watched that Lindy video, he specifically mentions the study about all the men who got the Victoria Cross, what they had in common.. yet you decided to ignore it...


On Viking shields, and the use of shields in general, the Norse believed warriors chosen for Valhalla would fight every day in preparation for a final battle at the end of the world, any wounds they took during these fights would magically heal every night. That is why warriors were buried with the weapons they would need in the afterlife.

and yet there are plenty of examples when these men, prepared to die routed and ran away from enemy...   or you wanna suggest they never routed, and there are no historical mentions of Vikings being defeated in battle?


And that was proven wrong by Philip, who recruited the poor into a professional army, and by Marius, who broke tradition on levying from the poor and still managed to produce fantastic soldiers.

Troops Marius got were  by no means better than normally drafted men.. and for Republic they were the reason why civil wars started in the first place - suddenly a "warlord" like Marius, had own troops only loyal to himself, not to the senate... The day Marius did that, was the beginning of the end for Roman Republic.


Reading comprehension failure on your part. At no time is Polybius describing single combat between velites and Gauls at Telamon. The full context of the quote, which I provided in my previous response, shows that Polybius is describing the javelin storm that broke up the Gallic line infantry's ranks because their shields weren't as protective as the Roman scuta. 

I never said he did... so failure on your part actually...  i said Velites were men who often engaged enemies in duels before battle.. whole notion wearing the Wolf pelt over helmet was just a way how to distinguish himself as one who seeks glory..  of course that tradition was later dropped, yet that mark stayed with them.


And this is from his paper called "Not so different: individual fighting techniques and small unit tactics of Roman and Iberian armies… ", which is further evidence that you didn't actually read this, because if you had you wouldn't be saying "Iberians were masters of ambushes and "partisan" war. Yet, every time they fought Romans in open battles, using closed formations, they were defeated..:" because that simply isn't true at all, Spanish had numerous successes in pitched battles against Romans throughout the 2nd and 1st Cent. BC. One of the most notable battles occurred during the 2nd Punic War, in Spain against the elder Scipii, and in Italy at Trebia and Cannae, where the heart of Hannibal's line infantry were either Spanish (armed with flat thureos) or Gallic (armed with flat thureos).

oh, so now Iberians were behind the Hannibal victory at Cannae? (besides, at Cannae they were even mixed with Celts) Just because they served in Hannibal's army, it doesn't automatically means they were responsible for those victories... plus, specifically at Trebia, Romans breached the Hannibals line and managed to get away...
But lets look later, Sertorius for example, rather used his Roman troops than Iberians when facing Pompey, yet he used his Iberian forces at ambushes and feinted retreats.
Anyway all this doesn't matter, because that was not the point which you try to avoid for all costs - as I wrote before, CAETRA was used by IBERIANS even for close combat and Quesada never questioned that part.

and btw, he kinda ignored in his work one thing - Scipio's brothers tried to retrain 25000 Iberians to fight in Roman style.. yet those Iberians left, when they were told they will be fighting other Iberians who served Carthage... so clearly, their original fighting style was not that similar to what Romans used...  Similar things are mentioned with Sertorius..

---

oh, and when we are talking about prize fighters, have you ever watched MMA fights? recommend watching Connor McGregor last fight.. what is most intriguing is his style keeping his opponent at the distance with one arm, then waiting for opportunity to strike hard... he never goes into exchange blindly, always waits for the opportunity and the mistakes his opponent makes.. so, its practically the opposite what you are saying...

again, even boxing or any other martial fight, fencing included, you never attack enemy blindly to knock him off, instead you always keep your guard, and wait for right moment to strike... why is that so hard to understand for you guys...

[Bryan]

those prize fighters are not fighting for their life... that's  a huge difference. Modern spec ops troops are not drafted, they are specifically selected men.. if you watched that Lindy video, he specifically mentions the study about all the men who got the Victoria Cross, what they had in common.. yet you decided to ignore it...

The prize fighters are fighting. Which is what I'm talking about. The soldiers in the front lines, the true warriors, they don't believe they are fighting for their lives, because they go into battle with a near invulnerable mindset. That's how it works now, in real combat (in which I've been in, so I'm not making anything up or relying on an English dancer to enlighten me about battle). Speaking about Lindy, as I've mentioned previously but you've ignored, his source for this info is SLA Marshall. Who is a fraud. He didn't get the memo, I did, now you have it. If you choose to continue trying to explain the mindset and psychology of battle and use SLA Marshal (or Grossman) as a source then you are going to be wrong, because Marshal made assumptions, lied about his research to back it up, and set back the study for generations. 

and yet there are plenty of examples when these men, prepared to die routed and ran away from enemy...   or you wanna suggest they never routed, and there are no historical mentions of Vikings being defeated in battle?

LOL. You built the straw man and now you burn it, declaring victory. You're the one who brought up Vikings. And small bucklers. I proved that warriors keen to kill the enemy still worry about protection to some extent, because unless suicidal, hoping to commit Devotio, defense allows one to close with the enemy and kill them. 

Troops Marius got were  by no means better than normally drafted men.. and for Republic they were the reason why civil wars started in the first place - suddenly a "warlord" like Marius, had own troops only loyal to himself, not to the senate... The day Marius did that, was the beginning of the end for Roman Republic.

Stop with the loyalty stuff, you're not educating me about Marius, and all you're doing is making a tangent away from the subject. I brought up Marius' recruitment of the poor to demonstrate that the property qualifications you previously mentioned had no legitimate bearing on the quality of soldiers. The Romans believed it too, they were wrong, Marius and later generals who recruited the poor and turned them into quality professionals proved them wrong. 

I never said he did... so failure on your part actually...  i said Velites were men who often engaged enemies in duels before battle.. whole notion wearing the Wolf pelt over helmet was just a way how to distinguish himself as one who seeks glory..  of course that tradition was later dropped, yet that mark stayed with them.

Except the source you used doesn't describe a duel, it describes velites doing what they do, throwing javelins, while the less protected Gauls took heavy casualties, then being beaten by the Roman line infantry. The key part you keep dancing around is: 1. The Gauls were no doubt keen on killing their enemy. 2. They carried shields larger than small bucklers and those too were insufficient. 3. In order to kill the enemy the side with vigor needs to be protected enough that they can reach the enemy, which means carrying a shield or armor sufficient to stop the missiles they will encounter, and the spears and swords in close combat. Which means a super aggressive soldier in ancient times is still better off with a Roman scutum than a parma/caetrati shield. 

oh, so now Iberians were behind the Hannibal victory at Cannae? (besides, at Cannae they were even mixed with Celts) Just because they served in Hannibal's army, it doesn't automatically means they were responsible for those victories... plus, specifically at Trebia, Romans breached the Hannibals line and managed to get away...
But lets look later, Sertorius for example, rather used his Roman troops than Iberians when facing Pompey, yet he used his Iberian forces at ambushes and feinted retreats.
Anyway all this doesn't matter, because that was not the point which you try to avoid for all costs - as I wrote before, CAETRA was used by IBERIANS even for close combat and Quesada never questioned that part.

Spanish troops (most of them being Celtiberians) were instrumental behind the victory at Cannae. They served their purpose at Cannae, they held the much large Roman infantry without breaking, completing a complex and purposeful retreat, which allowed the Romans to advance, become encircled, and then annihilated. 

Quesada specifically mentions that a technology shift happened in the 3rd Cent. BC in Spain, where the thureos shield started becoming the dominant shield of the Spanish, allowing them to form up in actual lines and fight pitched battles. 

---

oh, and when we are talking about prize fighters, have you ever watched MMA fights? recommend watching Connor McGregor last fight.. what is most intriguing is his style keeping his opponent at the distance with one arm, then waiting for opportunity to strike hard... he never goes into exchange blindly, always waits for the opportunity and the mistakes his opponent makes..  so, its practically the opposite what you are saying...

again, even boxing or any other martial fight, fencing included, you never attack enemy blindly to knock him off, instead you always keep your guard, and wait for right moment to strike... why is that so hard to understand for you guys...

Connor McGregor is going into the fight to win, yes? He's not full of fear, scared to either hit his opponent, nor scared of being hit. Not wanting to get hit is not the same as being fearful, the latter is a physiological condition triggering biological responses that are detrimental to a professional fighters. Connor has a strong defense but he's fighting to win. 

And this proves what I'm talking about, what Densus is talking about. That warriors of the ancient period could still carry large shields, fight in phalanx/shield wall type formations, and still be killing machines. Because the former doesn't contradict the latter.  

[JaM]

Connor McGregor is going into the fight to win, yes? He's not full of fear, scared to either hit his opponent, nor scared of being hit. Not wanting to get hit is not the same as being fearful, the latter is a physiological condition triggering biological responses that are detrimental to a professional fighters. Connor has a strong defense but he's fighting to win.


Nobody say they were scared for g*d sake.. All im saying is that soldier would not unnecessarily expose himself from cover just to hit the enemy. Instead, he would poke the enemy and look for opening. and if you watched that duel, it was exactly what McGregor did whole match.. he  kept him out of reach, dodged any blows he aimed at him, and only strike when he was at clear advantage.  YET big difference with combat is the simple fact they were not fighting to the death...


Spanish troops (most of them being Celtiberians) were instrumental behind the victory at Cannae. They served their purpose at Cannae, they held the much large Roman infantry without breaking, completing a complex and purposeful retreat, which allowed the Romans to advance, become encircled, and then annihilated.

Spanish troops were tool in Hannibals arms.. if he didnt had them, he would use what he had.. Celts, Italians, Libyans, whoever he had at hand.. By no means you can say Iberian troops used by Hannibal were the main deciding factor behind Cannae or Trebia..


If you choose to continue trying to explain the mindset and psychology of battle and use SLA Marshal (or Grossman) as a source then you are going to be wrong, because Marshal made assumptions, lied about his research to back it up, and set back the study for generations.

Thing is, with you, i start to have a feeling no matter what study i quote on this topic, you will find a way how to discredit it, just because it doesnt confirm your theories...

And this proves what I'm talking about, what Densus is talking about. That warriors of the ancient period could still carry large shields, fight in phalanx/shield wall type formations, and still be killing machines. Because the former doesn't contradict the latter. 

And as i said many times before, actual historical sources claim relatively light casualties from direct combat, with majority of casualties happening only when one side routed... so it is quite obvious they were not all even close to the killing machine... they were still humans with human limitations, no matter how much you wanna ignore them.

and btw, its quite often quoted thing that famous generals prefer soldiers over warriors.. Napoleon for example when comparing French cavalry to mamluks said that single Mamluk is better fighter than two French cavalrymen... yet single French cavalry Squadron will defeat three Mamluks squadrons with no problem...

[Bryan]

Nobody say they were scared for g*d sake.. All im saying is that soldier would not unnecessarily expose himself from cover just to hit the enemy. Instead, he would poke the enemy and look for opening. and if you watched that duel, it was exactly what McGregor did whole match.. he  kept him out of reach, dodged any blows he aimed at him, and only strike when he was at clear advantage.  YET big difference with combat is the simple fact they were not fighting to the death...

This what you wrote earlier in reply to Densus' post: 

"Hopefully they will also kill off the idea from earlier in the thread (or possibly the other one) that soldiers don't expose themselves to risk to close with and destroy the enemy. "

sorry but if that was not true, then Ancient soldiers would not carry shields. Shield is a perfect example where soldier prefers own protection over ability to attack enemy unhindered.. unless you wanna suggest 5-7.5kg heavy shield was no hindrance to movement.."

You are clearly asserting that because the Romans carried a large shield, that was heavy, it meant they didn't want to expose themselves to kill the enemy. You're wrong. The large shield is what allowed them to close with the enemy close enough to kill them. No matter which MMA fighter you bring up, no matter the Vikings, naked Gauls, or any other, you are wrong because you just don't get that having a good defense allows one to have a great offense. Its not one or the other. A counter puncher is a defensive boxer who attacks as a riposte, but that doesn't make them overly cautious, hesitant, or fearful, its just the style they choose to use because for them it suits them and more importantly, helps them win fights and beat the crap out of other people. The Roman fighting method up close was very similar, they relied a lot on counter attacks as a way of defeating the enemy. Take a sword to the scutum, block it and attack around it. Etc. It didn't speak for timid soldiers, which is what you keep promoting, what Lindy keeps promoting, because neither of you really understand the mindset or fighting. 


Spanish troops were tool in Hannibals arms.. if he didnt had them, he would use what he had.. Celts, Italians, Libyans, whoever he had at hand.. By no means you can say Iberian troops used by Hannibal were the main deciding factor behind Cannae or Trebia..

By all means can I say that Hannibal's victory was due in no small number to the Spanish infantry, who made up about half of the infantry line, who performed the complicated maneuver (retreat in contact, without routing) remarkably well. Who was Hannibal fighting with during the battle? The Spanish and Celtic infantry, that's who, because they intricate for his overall plan to work. And they did do exactly what they wanted, because they were skilled enough to pull it off. Two thousand and some years later you don't get to take away their achievement simply because you don't understand how shields work. 


Thing is, with you, i start to have a feeling no matter what study i quote on this topic, you will find a way how to discredit it, just because it doesnt confirm your theories...

Like the Hoplite spear thread, you're a day late and a dollar short to this discussion.

I have in front of me, sitting next to my keyboard, a 1961 copy of SLA Marshall's Men Against Fire that I bought on special order in 2002 and have read numerous times. I have sitting next to that book another two, Grossman's On Killing, and On Combat, respectively the third and second copies I've bought over the years of each because I loaned them out to military officers to learn a bit about combat (with advice about what to focus on and what to discard). 

You are discussing something you clearly little about besides watching Lindy's youtube video and a blurb or two on other discussion forums. SLA Marshall's fire ratios, which is the basis of his entire argument that men are hesitant to kill, as well as the only evidence Grossman used to push the same argument, its all been debunked years ago, but it still hasn't reached the far sides of the internet so the old story that is false is still repeated.

Marshall's assistant, who went with him everywhere during WWII, who helped him conduct interviews and who helped him compile the info that went into Men Against Fire, he says Marshall never quantified any of the info to come up with actual ratios, he didn't even make the question a standard one during post battle interviews. You shouldn't trust me on this, but trust the historical method: S. L. A. Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios

Many combat experienced infantryman and military historians have doubted Marshall over the years, not helped since Marshall was known already for embellishing things (like his experiences, rank, training, all of which he lied about his entire career). Personal experiences in actual firefights (including ones I've personally been in) have left many questioning the accuracy of his claims in Men Against Fire, that men are hesitant to kill. We all then found out that his research assistant confessed he made it up is what sealed it, Marshall was full of crap, he made it up because it sounded good and then he made up evidence to support it, which is something he'd done in other situations too. 

Its been busted and the more you repeat the lie the more people get duped by it. Its not personal, its history. Deal with it.  


And as i said many times before, actual historical sources claim relatively light casualties from direct combat, with majority of casualties happening only when one side routed... so it is quite obvious they were not all even close to the killing machine... they were still humans with human limitations, no matter how much you wanna ignore them.

I know exactly what goes into producing a high quality fighting man, because I SERVED FOR 11 YEARS AS IN INFANTRYMAN IN THE US MILITARY, INCLUDING TWO YEARS IN ACTUAL COMBAT, WITH BULLETS FLYING, PEOPLE DYING. 

[JaM]

You are clearly asserting that because the Romans carried a large shield, that was heavy, it meant they didn't want to expose themselves to kill the enemy. You're wrong. The large shield is what allowed them to close with the enemy close enough to kill them. No matter which MMA fighter you bring up, no matter the Vikings, naked Gauls, or any other, you are wrong because you just don't get that having a good defense allows one to have a great offense. Its not one or the other. A counter puncher is a defensive boxer who attacks as a riposte, but that doesn't make them overly cautious, hesitant, or fearful, its just the style they choose to use because for them it suits them and more importantly, helps them win fights and beat the crap out of other people. The Roman fighting method up close was very similar, they relied a lot on counter attacks as a way of defeating the enemy. Take a sword to the scutum, block it and attack around it. Etc. It didn't speak for timid soldiers, which is what you keep promoting, what Lindy keeps promoting, because neither of you really understand the mindset or fighting.


you clearly misunderstood what i was writing about. You are overgeneralizing the subject, making it sound like ancient soldiers were some superhuman or robots who killed without any concern to own safety, and would throw themselves into danger just to have a chance for hitting the enemy (like of they were zombies), yet every single battle description of ancient battle describes over and over that majority of casualties happened only after one side routed, while actual casualties from direct combat were very small..  Your view is flawed because you failed to take these into assumption and you are mistakenly assuming just because there were individuals that would throw their lives in vain, EVERY SINGLE ANCIENT SOLDIER WOULD DO THE SAME...


By all means can I say that Hannibal's victory was due in no small number to the Spanish infantry, who made up about half of the infantry line, who performed the complicated maneuver (retreat in contact, without routing) remarkably well. Who was Hannibal fighting with during the battle? The Spanish and Celtic infantry, that's who, because they intricate for his overall plan to work. And they did do exactly what they wanted, because they were skilled enough to pull it off. Two thousand and some years later you don't get to take away their achievement simply because you don't understand how shields work.

And i call it BS, composition of Hannibal's army was just a minor feature, other Carthaginian generals who on Iberian troops were defeated thoroughly when facing Romans. Iberians were just a tool Hannibal used, he would have won that battle with different nationality of troops available.. and besides, Iberians were not composing 50% of his infantry, Hannibal had also his African Infantry with him, and it was them who decided the battle by attacking the flanks. Besides, Iberians and Celts did not feinted retreat, but were slowly pushed back. If anything, Hannibal considered both Celts and Iberians expendable and that is why he placed them in the front. he expected them to be pushed back, same way as they were pushed back at Trebia. Two thousands years later you dont get to take away Hannibal's achievement because you dont understand his tactics...  (besides, what exactly his have to do with the shields..)



I know exactly what goes into producing a high quality fighting man, because I SERVED FOR 11 YEARS AS IN INFANTRYMAN IN THE US MILITARY, INCLUDING TWO YEARS IN ACTUAL COMBAT, WITH BULLETS FLYING, PEOPLE DYING.


I know a lot of veterans from that war, yet not single one claim to be expert on ancient combat because of that experience.. you are the first...

[Bryan]

So just to sum up, you believe that large shields proved soldiers weren't willing to risk themselves, because if they did they wouldn't use shields at all, or they would use very small bucklers (even though naked Gauls and Vikings and everyone else used shields). And that Spanish infantry could never fair against Roman infantry (even when they did, like at Cannae). And that you believe Lindy, a ballroom dancer who makes youtube videos, knows more about combat and killing in combat than people who've actually killed enemy in real combat (and because you know a GWOT or two you met online that makes you an expert on that too no doubt).

You still haven't tried to explain away why Lindy and yourself was right about SLA Marshall. Lay some knowledge down and show that I don't know what I'm talking about on that subject either.

[JaM]

NO. I believe they used those shields because they gave them tactical advantage, due to their construction, which allowed relatively active use of shield, unlike Greek Aspis, which due to being strapped on the arm had limited capacity for offensive use) they kept formation and fought as a unit. They didn't rush individually at enemy, but covered each other, formed battle line and tried to relieve tired men for fresh when possible. also while front line was engaged in contact with enemy, rear ranks could still use their javelins and throw them at enemy rear ranks. Contact with enemy was brief, after which both sides stepped back, reorganize, then attack again. during luls, those who had javelins would use them from behind the own main line.


I don't care about SLA Marshall, i never even read his work. There are plenty of other sources out there even more relevant to melee combat.. if anything, modern warfare is quite different and produces a bit different results than cold steel combat, which is a lot more personal.. not saying there are not some extreme examples where modern soldiers had to use cold weapons to kill the enemy, just it is not the main focus how to defeat the enemy.

And Lindy in his video is 100% right about the way how training changed over time, teaching soldiers how to kill instinctively without thinking, dehumanize the target as much as possible, just so eventually these men come home and all those things they did and saw then take its toll on their psychical health... Unless you wanna deny any PTSD exists of course...