08-17-2014, 09:42 PM
If you wanted to kill a Roman soldier, you aim for part of the body that isn't covered by armour. Plenty of places would prove fatal - the throat, the eye, the groin, the armpit, the inner thigh, etc. Or you simply disable him and kill him after the battle. Deliberately aiming for his armour is crazy. The chances of successfully punching through, regardless of what weapon you choose, are way too low to be worth the risk. While you are smacking around his armour he has already stabbed you in the belly and moved on.
But I'll repeat, killing the enemy is irrelevant. It isn't necessary. All you need to do is incapacitate. You can decide what to do with all of the wounded after you have won the battle. Actual fatalities during a battle were usually very low. The fatalities occurred afterwards when men succumbed to their wounds, prisoners were executed, and routers were chased down.
But I'll repeat, killing the enemy is irrelevant. It isn't necessary. All you need to do is incapacitate. You can decide what to do with all of the wounded after you have won the battle. Actual fatalities during a battle were usually very low. The fatalities occurred afterwards when men succumbed to their wounds, prisoners were executed, and routers were chased down.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
