Speculative Halberd Formation in the Hellenistic Era

[Cletus_the_Black]

If you look at all the factors that decide the outcome of a battle - numbers, training, supplies, communication, weather, terrain, surprise, commander ability, equipment, tactics, fortification, morale, fatigue, etc. - and list them in order of importance, the difference between the arms of both sides is right down near the bottom.

In any case, the difference between Indian wootz steel arms and the steel arms used by other cultures at the time is functionally indistinguishable. At best a blade would hold an edge a little longer and be a little less likely to bend in battle, and the armour would be a little lighter but provide no additional protection. It would have a negligible influence on the outcome of a battle.

Thanks for replying, Dan.

It's true that equipment is a very small detail for wars and strategy, but for writing these sorts of details are very important as you need to convey the scene.

The details of armor in the period are at the edge of my knowledge. I know Indian steel was prized in the period and well after, where they had a major steel exporting industry, but I don't know what kind of iron armor was common alongside Alexander and the Diadochi. Phillip II had an iron cuirass in his tomb, but it was so thick I wasn't sure if it was ceremonial. Had iron or steel armor already become common?

I had also assumed that iron swords of the period were limited in size in the Mediterranean, with the rhomphia being the largest iron weapon producible, with a blade less than a meter in length. I had thought there might be some advantage in Indian weaponry, for this reason.

Forgive my ignorance, but could you fill me in on these points? I'm lucky to be able to speak with someone who has written a book on the subject.