02-08-2001, 03:21 PM
Salve,<br>
<br>
Superior weaponry in itself is not much use when the soldier equipped with it has no will to fight. Apart from torsion artillery the Romans had in fact a negligible technological superiority over their enemies. The same types of weapons and equipment was available to their opponents, they just had loads more of it. In the Roman army all soldiers and even part of the military servants had body armour and helmets available to them, in barbarian societies just the social elite and their immediate following. This reflected the better social and logistical organisation of the Roman army. Enemy weaponry could be superior and the Romans readily copied superior enemy equipment for their own purposes. Helmets and body armour followed Celtic and Hellenistic examples, shields and javelins were taken over from Italic enemies, swords and daggers were of Iberic or Celt-Iberic origin. Thus many of the weapons and equipment considered to be typically Roman were taken over from others.<br>
<br>
The differences in performance of weaponry were not as great in ancient times as nowadays. Also it must be taken into account that their effectiveness is considerably influenced by the state of the person using it. Tired, frightened or wounded soldiers and warriors would all use their weapons to somewhat less than their full effect.<br>
<br>
In addition much of the results of a battle is due to morale rather than butchery pure and simple. It is because of one side perceiving it is not going to win that engagements are often decided. Recent research of Roman battles suggests that battles would consist of long periods of inactivity, both sides trying to intimidate their enemies and building uptheir courage for charging, and occasional breaks between such stand-offs in which one side or both sides would try to close to force a fight. This would even then often result in one side giving way before the other before actual contact rather than resulting in a bloody clash of hand to hand fighting.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/8/01 4:34:12 pm<br></i>
<br>
Superior weaponry in itself is not much use when the soldier equipped with it has no will to fight. Apart from torsion artillery the Romans had in fact a negligible technological superiority over their enemies. The same types of weapons and equipment was available to their opponents, they just had loads more of it. In the Roman army all soldiers and even part of the military servants had body armour and helmets available to them, in barbarian societies just the social elite and their immediate following. This reflected the better social and logistical organisation of the Roman army. Enemy weaponry could be superior and the Romans readily copied superior enemy equipment for their own purposes. Helmets and body armour followed Celtic and Hellenistic examples, shields and javelins were taken over from Italic enemies, swords and daggers were of Iberic or Celt-Iberic origin. Thus many of the weapons and equipment considered to be typically Roman were taken over from others.<br>
<br>
The differences in performance of weaponry were not as great in ancient times as nowadays. Also it must be taken into account that their effectiveness is considerably influenced by the state of the person using it. Tired, frightened or wounded soldiers and warriors would all use their weapons to somewhat less than their full effect.<br>
<br>
In addition much of the results of a battle is due to morale rather than butchery pure and simple. It is because of one side perceiving it is not going to win that engagements are often decided. Recent research of Roman battles suggests that battles would consist of long periods of inactivity, both sides trying to intimidate their enemies and building uptheir courage for charging, and occasional breaks between such stand-offs in which one side or both sides would try to close to force a fight. This would even then often result in one side giving way before the other before actual contact rather than resulting in a bloody clash of hand to hand fighting.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/8/01 4:34:12 pm<br></i>
