02-17-2015, 09:53 AM
Hi; first post. I'm guessing debates about the reasons for equipment changes undergone by late imperial infantry have by now become a tiresome trope for older members. I have some specific questions to which I would be grateful for answers, and apologize if this is redundant or if it should be in another place; or if the questions are inane. I hope they can be answered somewhat independently of each other.
I) Was the change from the use of the gladius to the spatha as an infantry sword only a matter of cultural change, or is it plausible to suppose that there were important tactical advantages as well?
More specifically:
1. Is it that the spatha is a better weapon in loose formations, but that the gladius is better in close formations? Assume no thrusting spears in either case. And how does shield type influence this question?
2. How much does it matter, for infantry in close formations, from which side of the body swords are drawn, DISregarding the shield type? In other words, are the cohesion/spatial dynamics of the formation significantly affected by how the sword is drawn?
3. Does the availability of a slightly longer toward make a noticeable difference in the ability of infantry to oppose cavalry?
II) Imperial scutum vs later oval shield:
1. Is the rectangular scutum more difficult to train with? Does it require more fitness?
2. Is it more difficult to march with? Is it more difficult to move quickly on the battlefield with?
3. Would the oval shield be better than the scutum in single/open combat given the offensive weapon is a sword, and would this be mostly because of the strapping-on or because of its shape?
4. Is the ability to strap on a shield, instead of holding is at the boss, better for use with spears as thrusting weapons? And/or for throwing javelins?
5. Is the oval shape better for use with spears as thrusting weapons? And/or for use with javelins?
6. Does the efficacy of the gladius largely depend on its combination with the scutum, and if so, is this mostly because of the ability to "punch" or because of its shape?
7. How important was the testudo formation to earlier imperial armies versus late imperial armies; how significant is the superiority of the scutum for this formation; and how significant would be the impact of superior bows and fewer or different offensive sieges on the usefulness of the scutum/testudo?
III) Hastae/plumbatae vs. Pila
1. Is the spear significantly better than the pilum against mounted opposition?
2. Is the availability of multiple throwing darts a significant advantage against mounted opposition, which can move in and out, thus validating the ability to send multiple volleys?
3. What, if any, are the issues surrounding the economy/ease production of these weapons?
IV) In context of the above questions, is it possible that the change of offensive weapons resulted from the change in shield type? Or conversely that the change in shield type followed the change in weaponry?
V) I once read a comment that the Macedonian armies of Alexander functioned like a boxer, with the phalanx being the body and the shock cavalry the two arms. (I think s/he was quoting someone.) Did the increased dominance of cavalry during the late Roman Empire necessitate a return to such tactics? If so, would a spear phalanx be a superior place-holding infantry type to the more forward-moving legions of earlier times?
VI) Anything else, in or out of the context of these questions, is of course welcome.
I) Was the change from the use of the gladius to the spatha as an infantry sword only a matter of cultural change, or is it plausible to suppose that there were important tactical advantages as well?
More specifically:
1. Is it that the spatha is a better weapon in loose formations, but that the gladius is better in close formations? Assume no thrusting spears in either case. And how does shield type influence this question?
2. How much does it matter, for infantry in close formations, from which side of the body swords are drawn, DISregarding the shield type? In other words, are the cohesion/spatial dynamics of the formation significantly affected by how the sword is drawn?
3. Does the availability of a slightly longer toward make a noticeable difference in the ability of infantry to oppose cavalry?
II) Imperial scutum vs later oval shield:
1. Is the rectangular scutum more difficult to train with? Does it require more fitness?
2. Is it more difficult to march with? Is it more difficult to move quickly on the battlefield with?
3. Would the oval shield be better than the scutum in single/open combat given the offensive weapon is a sword, and would this be mostly because of the strapping-on or because of its shape?
4. Is the ability to strap on a shield, instead of holding is at the boss, better for use with spears as thrusting weapons? And/or for throwing javelins?
5. Is the oval shape better for use with spears as thrusting weapons? And/or for use with javelins?
6. Does the efficacy of the gladius largely depend on its combination with the scutum, and if so, is this mostly because of the ability to "punch" or because of its shape?
7. How important was the testudo formation to earlier imperial armies versus late imperial armies; how significant is the superiority of the scutum for this formation; and how significant would be the impact of superior bows and fewer or different offensive sieges on the usefulness of the scutum/testudo?
III) Hastae/plumbatae vs. Pila
1. Is the spear significantly better than the pilum against mounted opposition?
2. Is the availability of multiple throwing darts a significant advantage against mounted opposition, which can move in and out, thus validating the ability to send multiple volleys?
3. What, if any, are the issues surrounding the economy/ease production of these weapons?
IV) In context of the above questions, is it possible that the change of offensive weapons resulted from the change in shield type? Or conversely that the change in shield type followed the change in weaponry?
V) I once read a comment that the Macedonian armies of Alexander functioned like a boxer, with the phalanx being the body and the shock cavalry the two arms. (I think s/he was quoting someone.) Did the increased dominance of cavalry during the late Roman Empire necessitate a return to such tactics? If so, would a spear phalanx be a superior place-holding infantry type to the more forward-moving legions of earlier times?
VI) Anything else, in or out of the context of these questions, is of course welcome.
sorush
