Jump to content


Maybe?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

HellenicNavy789 #1 Posted 03 February 2018 - 08:35 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 40
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015
I have one question guys and devs, isn't spears supposed to have more penetration than swords? o.O

Lee_Nox #2 Posted 03 February 2018 - 09:06 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 23
  • Member since:
    04-12-2016

Simply put, spears weren't that effective against armoured opponents, and especially one to one.

Check out the translation of the Roman army's weaponry, from the usage of hasta(spear) to the famous gladius and scutum(sword and shield).


                                                                                                                                           

HellenicNavy789 #3 Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:18 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 40
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015
Correct, thanks for the answer

DanieliusVas #4 Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:22 PM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 158
  • Member since:
    10-08-2017

View PostLee_Nox, on 03 February 2018 - 11:06 PM, said:

Simply put, spears weren't that effective against armoured opponents, and especially one to one.

Check out the translation of the Roman army's weaponry, from the usage of hasta(spear) to the famous gladius and scutum(sword and shield).

 

The Romans stopped using spear as their primary weapon because the phalanx wasn’t that effective in Italy as it was in Greece. Plus when the Romans started conquering more lands they needed more mobility and more effective tactics.

 "If numbers are what matters, all Greece cannot match a small part of that army; but if courage is what counts, this number is sufficient."

 

 -Leonidas I 


Lee_Nox #5 Posted 04 February 2018 - 03:24 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 23
  • Member since:
    04-12-2016

View PostDanieliusVas, on 04 February 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

 

The Romans stopped using spear as their primary weapon because the phalanx wasn’t that effective in Italy as it was in Greece. Plus when the Romans started conquering more lands they needed more mobility and more effective tactics.

Let's make this into a debate :p 

Romans did not stop the usage of spears completely, they translated slowly to shield and sword combined with pilum (throwing spear), they were constantly developing and integrating new tactics. Also, Alexander conquered the majority of the known world back in the classical antiquity using Hoplites and cavalry.As phalanx was prevalent everywhere, even the roman copied and developed some aspect of the greek's formation, until they faced Carthage, where they changed their tactic and adapted to the individual genius of Hannibal (a moment in history that made Rome the power that we know)

I invite you all to read  "The history" a great book written by Polybius and if you want to be a nerd :p have a look at  "The history of Rome" by Titus Livius (Livy).


                                                                                                                                           

HellenicNavy789 #6 Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:29 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 40
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015

View PostDanieliusVas, on 04 February 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

The Romans stopped using spear as their primary weapon because the phalanx wasn’t that effective in Italy as it was in Greece. Plus when the Romans started conquering more lands they needed more mobility and more effective tactics.

 

I think you didn't got his point, PHALANX was UNBREAKABLE but you couldnt PENETRATE the ENEMY ( Romans ) because Romans had heavy armour while Greeks had only one thorax and helmet for body+head protection ( Romans had full body protection ) plus scutum is too big  and when in phalanx you can't use your spear properly because there's no space for your hand to kill the enemy ( because when in phalanx the shields are glued each other )


I said Romans because Lee_Nox talked about armoured opponets, well the only stranger enemy that had good armour was the Romans.

DanieliusVas #7 Posted 05 February 2018 - 04:15 PM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 158
  • Member since:
    10-08-2017

View PostLee_Nox, on 04 February 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

Let's make this into a debate :p 

Romans did not stop the usage of spears completely, they translated slowly to shield and sword combined with pilum (throwing spear), they were constantly developing and integrating new tactics. Also, Alexander conquered the majority of the known world back in the classical antiquity using Hoplites and cavalry.As phalanx was prevalent everywhere, even the roman copied and developed some aspect of the greek's formation, until they faced Carthage, where they changed their tactic and adapted to the individual genius of Hannibal (a moment in history that made Rome the power that we know)

I invite you all to read  "The history" a great book written by Polybius and if you want to be a nerd :p have a look at  "The history of Rome" by Titus Livius (Livy).

 

I was saying that the spears were stopped being used as their primary weapon, I didn't say that they were completely became unused. When the romans faced Carthage they were already using the manipular system instead of a phalanx.

 "If numbers are what matters, all Greece cannot match a small part of that army; but if courage is what counts, this number is sufficient."

 

 -Leonidas I 


DanieliusVas #8 Posted 05 February 2018 - 04:27 PM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 158
  • Member since:
    10-08-2017

View PostHellenicNavy789, on 04 February 2018 - 06:29 PM, said:

 

I think you didn't got his point, PHALANX was UNBREAKABLE but you couldnt PENETRATE the ENEMY ( Romans ) because Romans had heavy armour while Greeks had only one thorax and helmet for body+head protection ( Romans had full body protection ) plus scutum is too big  and when in phalanx you can't use your spear properly because there's no space for your hand to kill the enemy ( because when in phalanx the shields are glued each other )


I said Romans because Lee_Nox talked about armoured opponets, well the only stranger enemy that had good armour was the Romans.

 

The shields are overlapping each other, then some Hoplites could actually use an overarm grip that their spears wouldn't get stuck when they are in a very tight phalanx. And don't you dare say that only romans had good armour -_-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 "If numbers are what matters, all Greece cannot match a small part of that army; but if courage is what counts, this number is sufficient."

 

 -Leonidas I 


Lee_Nox #9 Posted 05 February 2018 - 05:14 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 23
  • Member since:
    04-12-2016

View PostDanieliusVas, on 05 February 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

 

I was saying that the spears were stopped being used as their primary weapon, I didn't say that they were completely became unused. When the romans faced Carthage they were already using the manipular system instead of a phalanx.

 

Oh, i misunderstood you there ^^ my bad, and about the manipulus system, that's what i mean by "developed" and the manipulus is still based on phalanx. And let's say that we are talking about the republican period here.

( i like how this topic is going south :p )


                                                                                                                                           

Jakerp #10 Posted 06 February 2018 - 05:06 PM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 527
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

Reason why Greeks lost to Romans was that Greeks put their best men, armor and weapons to pike phalanxs and troops who protected flanks of pike phalanx generally were low quality troops with poor armors and weapons. Those greek flank protection troops generally were no match for Roman legionaries. Roman sword was better in close quarter combat than greek ones, roman legion had better training and better armor. Also phalanx was too immobile to be able to beat more mobile legionaries so time was on the roman side. When roman legionaries collapsed flanks of greek army they could collapse pike phalanx too.

 

Greeks could not chance the way they fight as it was so deeply tied to their culture that upper class citizens with best armor fight in phalanx instead in light infantry that protected flanks of it. Also Romans were too well organised. trained and armored that romans could be won with archer fire or cavalry attacks either. Witch worked great in earlier times against less orginized and armoured opponents greeks had.


Edited by Jakerp, 06 February 2018 - 05:07 PM.


HellenicNavy789 #11 Posted 07 February 2018 - 08:18 AM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 40
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015
You're correct there mate, there's a problem... A Greek phalanx was almost impossible to beat Roman Legion... WHY?

Roman Legionary soldier had FULL body protection.
Greeks had only Thorax Helmet and Greaves... Plus DORY wasn't that good to penetrate the Roman armour :/

The cause of this is the Hellenic Civil wars...

As i Greek i feel kinda sad about it xD

DanieliusVas #12 Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:46 AM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 158
  • Member since:
    10-08-2017

View PostHellenicNavy789, on 07 February 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

You're correct there mate, there's a problem... A Greek phalanx was almost impossible to beat Roman Legion... WHY?

Roman Legionary soldier had FULL body protection.
Greeks had only Thorax Helmet and Greaves... Plus DORY wasn't that good to penetrate the Roman armour :/

The cause of this is the Hellenic Civil wars...

As i Greek i feel kinda sad about it xD

 

Greeks had full bronze body armour, graves, and a bronze helmet. At the time when the Greeks fought against the Romans the Romans were using Lorica Hamata, their rectangular/oval shields, and their helmets. 

 


Edited by DanieliusVas, 22 February 2018 - 09:46 AM.

 "If numbers are what matters, all Greece cannot match a small part of that army; but if courage is what counts, this number is sufficient."

 

 -Leonidas I 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users