no because if you strike him sideways, he has no shield there, and you could even hit his armpit.. has nothing to do with his height. He is just much more vulnerable to flanking hits, and role of a guy with the Warthog shield, would be to keep his opponent busy, so he has no time to strike diagonaly against that guy. you dont really need the most powerful strike for that.. just good reach and accuracy of hits.
and i really doubt he would be able to parry something he doesn't anticipate.
and weren't Greek spears getting continually longer? the whole Macedonian Phalanx was made around the concept of longer reach..
And no, to me Othismos sounds more like a morale thing.. going forward into contact with enemy, not necessarily pushing him physically off the battlefield.. It is common thing in military history to use term "push the enemy" and not literally mean pushing, but having men to advance and "push forward".. I think the combat psychology is one area that is greatly overlooked in all this, and instead such insignificant things like a speed of a thrust or few percentage stronger hit is being dissected to maximum, yet the base notion of human psyche to survive, is put to a side note... People are not suicidal, guys doing reenactment battles do take risks they would not take if they were in real battle.. same as guys playing paintball would not take in a gunfight. So yeah, having a long reach is something that helps dramatically with the morale of an average Joe, who has no intention to get killed... he would poke an enemy, but he would not be risking his like just to get a kill..
If you were in a war, would you risk your life the same way as you would do playing the game? i really doubt that, otherwise you would not be there.. and thats the base principle that is valid over the history. So maybe instead of looking for what gives best power, what is best from close range etc etc, it would be worth looking at which tactics gives you some standoff from enemy, yet you still are endangering them..
and i really doubt he would be able to parry something he doesn't anticipate.
Quote:If reach was the main criteria for hoplite effectiveness, why didn't the Greeks go longer? Iphicrates' spear and the Macedonian cavalry's xyston were both one handed weapons much longer than the traditional dory. You'd think if hoplite battle came down to couched arm spear assaults and nothing more, then they would have figured out centuries earlier that the side with the slightly longer spear will always win. And yet, that's not at all how it happened.
and weren't Greek spears getting continually longer? the whole Macedonian Phalanx was made around the concept of longer reach..
And no, to me Othismos sounds more like a morale thing.. going forward into contact with enemy, not necessarily pushing him physically off the battlefield.. It is common thing in military history to use term "push the enemy" and not literally mean pushing, but having men to advance and "push forward".. I think the combat psychology is one area that is greatly overlooked in all this, and instead such insignificant things like a speed of a thrust or few percentage stronger hit is being dissected to maximum, yet the base notion of human psyche to survive, is put to a side note... People are not suicidal, guys doing reenactment battles do take risks they would not take if they were in real battle.. same as guys playing paintball would not take in a gunfight. So yeah, having a long reach is something that helps dramatically with the morale of an average Joe, who has no intention to get killed... he would poke an enemy, but he would not be risking his like just to get a kill..
If you were in a war, would you risk your life the same way as you would do playing the game? i really doubt that, otherwise you would not be there.. and thats the base principle that is valid over the history. So maybe instead of looking for what gives best power, what is best from close range etc etc, it would be worth looking at which tactics gives you some standoff from enemy, yet you still are endangering them..
Jaroslav Jakubov
