| Author |
Message |
Artis Aboltins
|
 Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gene Green wrote: |
I would be interested to hear from somebody with experience in fighting with a large shield. I think it's more of an offensive weapon than pure defensive one. I would imagine an aggressive use of shield would make it difficult for an opponent to go for a leg shot. |
Well, there is a good reason why attacks with a shield (except the pushes in some tournaments) are strongly prohibited in most modern day reenactment events. I mainly fight using either aproximation of gear used by 7th -8th century scandinavian warrior (loosely based on Valsgarde 8 finds) or later period Lethgallian warrior (11th century) it includes fairly large round shield (80-110 cm in diameter, varying upon specific shield, however, in both cases it is centergrip shield, not strapped-on one) and from what we have tested among our group it seems that using shield as offensive weapon is plainly deadly - centergrip shield can be very sfiftly turned in such a way that you could hit your oponent with the rim of the shield with sufficient force to seriously injure him, and if the hit would go to the side of the head, even protected by helmet, it would be downright deadly. And if the shield is held not too close to the body but bit outwards, it can be swiftly manuvered to counter most hits aimed for a leg. Of course, as always, most would depend on the skill of individual warriors involved. I do belive that in many cases people tend to forget how quickly a shield, even a large one, can be manuvered by a well trained person - of course, that is also because in many cases the shields we see in various reenactment events are rather clumsily made of thick plywood, causing them to be far too heavy and also often "reinforced" by iron rim which only adds to the weight, and as result they seem heavy and unwieldy.
|
|
  |
 |
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gene Green wrote: |
I would be interested to hear from somebody with experience in fighting with a large shield. I think it's more of an offensive weapon than pure defensive one. I would imagine an aggressive use of shield would make it difficult for an opponent to go for a leg shot. |
Hi Gene. The following videos here might give you some insight into how a shield and two handed weapon would match up. I am the guy with the shield.
In this first video we have the same number of years experience. The shield has the clear advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnezTM2UA_k
In the second video this person has a few more years experience them me. The extra experience makes up for the shield advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJPIEaYE4l0
In this third video, the polearm has many more years experience them me. You can see that he is maintaining distance and fighting from there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_h8w_av7Gg
That pattern I have seen time and time again is that among equally skilled opponents, the shield has the advantage. A polearm can make up up some of the this with superior skill.
Next observe the next video. I am wearing black leather and fighting with a bastard sword against a shield at the end of the video. I am fighting an equally skilled opponent and getting my but mostly kicked when he has a shield. The times that I manage to get some kills is when I muscle in and make use of the available power of a two-handed weapon. A strong man can power through some shield-blocks and still hit a person very hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UvPHexhozc
I am fighting some more with a bastard sword at the beginning of this video against a pavise shield.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1hV9YibrwE
While this is not a perfect recreation of what a fight between a Spartan and Samurai would be like, it does give us a starting point to work from.
Re: Offensive shield work.
On of the key variable to consider here is that my shield weighs only about 9 lbs. A Spartan shield would have weighted upwards of 15 lbs. It contained wood, leather and bronze. It had a deeply curved lip around the edges so that they could hang it off their shoulders and fight from there. In general the heavier the shield is, the less you want to move it around. I limit my offensive shield hooks, presses and bashes because this tends to open up holes that I can be hit in. Offensive shield work only works if a person is completely distracted. It is a lot easier to see and block a large shield motion then as sword.
Re: Low leg blocking
The following video is an illustration of a low leg block that works with proper distance and timing. Again, its not a perfect match in the Spartan/Samurai match up but it is a good place to start thinking from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOgO_jo1A8
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
  |
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The armoured combat, interesting as it may be, seems to be pitting two different system against each other - one is a system designed around a close teamwork of individuals working in unison (Spartan phalanx) and the other is a very individualstic form of fighting. And while a Spartan could certainly hold his own in a one on one match up, it is his equipment that betrays him when it comes to this....it is simply not designed with single combat in mind. |
Who said samurai were not fighting in formations? This image shows a test done to see which would prevail on a battlefield, long or short spear. I'll let you judge which one did. http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=battlelanceprintbu7.jpg It also shows that close formations weren't something unknown to Japanese, many treaties were written during the warring states period detailing complex formations and battle strategies. As for shield, it was used during the Yayoi period but discarded during the Heian period, as Japanese armies were modifying their fighting to adapt it to their realities. They did faced shield equipped soldiers latter during the invasion of Korea, both Chinese and Koreans. They prevailed on land, but their losses at sea cut them from supplies and so they ultimately had to retreat. Their fighting techniques were latter borrowed by the Koreans.
| Quote: | | Now this is something I'd like to see, much more that katana vs. spear fantasy duel. |
I'll repeat myself once again but samurai fought with spears, not katana. As for hand to hand combat, there is absolutely nothing to extrapolate. Both had very efficient systems, and we don't know that much about Greek martial arts. And I will say it again, the samurai would just pull out a mathlock and shoot the poor Spartan.... It's not even funny. Why not pitting Spartans against Spanish tercios then, it would probably end much the same.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zlatko Vlašic
Location: Croatia Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: |
Who said samurai were not fighting in formations? This image shows a test done to see which would prevail on a battlefield, long or short spear. I'll let you judge which one did. http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=battlelanceprintbu7.jpg It also shows that close formations weren't something unknown to Japanese, many treaties were written during the warring states period detailing complex formations and battle strategies.
|
Any army has to fight in formation of some sort, otherwise it's just a rabble. So did the samurai.
But can you possible equate the tight phalanx where individual soldiers in the first ranks couldn't even move in any other way than forward with japanese fighting styles? I think not.
Phalanx is the most strict, the most tight battle formation in the history of warfare. I admit I know very little about japanese formations, but I doubt they employed anything similar. I have a vague recollection of reading of samurai actually mixxing it up and yelling their names so as to be able to pick an opponent of worthy rank. Don't know what period this was referring to, or whether this was common practice, but it doesn't seem out of place with what I know of samurai character.
That being said, the equipment of your average Spartan hoplite is much more adapted to fighting in very confined space, in a press of other bodies, than the equipment of your average japanese samurai, which puts samurai at an advantage when contemplating any one vs one fantasy duel.
| Quote: | | I'll repeat myself once again but samurai fought with spears, not katana. As for hand to hand combat, there is absolutely nothing to extrapolate. Both had very efficient systems, and we don't know that much about Greek martial arts. And I will say it again, the samurai would just pull out a mathlock and shoot the poor Spartan.... It's not even funny. Why not pitting Spartans against Spanish tercios then, it would probably end much the same. |
the katana vs. spear was a figure of speach on my part, no need to get upset:)
Actually, a great deal is now known about pankration. The rules (or lack thereof) are known, there are some pictoral evidence, some text, and of course the grekoroman wrestling was a relative. And in the end body mechanics are exactly the same now as they were in the time of Alexander the Great, and there's only so many ways you can kick, punch, sweep or throw.
Obviously, many jj styles have survived.
In any case, something that I would very much like to see, and would certainly be less influenced by equipment bias.
Of course, since in such combat everything comes down to individual fighter skill and some art variation, even a hypothetical debate is impossible.
Again, sorry for the OT
"To you, Baldrick, Renaissance is just something that happened to other people."
Edmund Blackadder
|
|
 |
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Any army has to fight in formation of some sort, otherwise it's just a rabble. So did the samurai.
But can you possible equate the tight phalanx where individual soldiers in the first ranks couldn't even move in any other way than forward with japanese fighting styles? I think not. |
Not to my knowledge, but still it doesn't make them superior. Takeda had shock units fighting with nagamaki, whose job was to outflank spearmen and break their formations. Much like a dopplesoldner (if the hypothesis can be verified).
| Quote: | | Phalanx is the most strict, the most tight battle formation in the history of warfare. I admit I know very little about japanese formations, but I doubt they employed anything similar. I have a vague recollection of reading of samurai actually mixxing it up and yelling their names so as to be able to pick an opponent of worthy rank. Don't know what period this was referring to, or whether this was common practice, but it doesn't seem out of place with what I know of samurai character. |
That was mostly pre-mongol invasion (1274). Before then samurai where much more horse archers, while the ashigaru would be the supporting troops, holding formations and fighting on foot. This war, the latter shortage of horses, frequent urban warfare and the use of the gun made the infantry prevalent even among bushi class.
| Quote: | | That being said, the equipment of your average Spartan hoplite is much more adapted to fighting in very confined space, in a press of other bodies, than the equipment of your average japanese samurai, which puts samurai at an advantage when contemplating any one vs one fantasy duel. |
Not sure what you mean. You mean because of a two handed spear? Again this capacity is good but is also an handicap to manoeuvrability, as was later exploited by the Romans.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zlatko Vlašic
Location: Croatia Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not to my knowledge, but still it doesn't make them superior. Takeda had shock units fighting with nagamaki, whose job was to outflank spearmen and break their formations. Much like a dopplesoldner (if the hypothesis can be verified). |
Not trying to imply it was superior. Simply different fighting style, developed in a different time, for different purposes.
I once read a hypothesis that the reason for such tight formations in ancient Greece was geography. Battlefields were basically confined valleys flanked by high mountains and ridges. Farmable land was scarce, and agricultural produce was a valuable comodity. Destroying the crops was an efficient strategy. The defending army was therefore required to block the invaders route in these confined valleys, and the best way to do it was to form up in tight, impenetrable blocks. Since they had little to fear from flanking or missile troops, it was ideal strategy.
Haven't the foggiest if this is actually true, but it is an interesting theory that puts in relation the hypothetical goals a particular army has to achieve with the tactics developed to achieve such goals.
| Quote: | | Not sure what you mean. You mean because of a two handed spear? Again this capacity is good but is also an handicap to manoeuvrability, as was later exploited by the Romans. |
I was mostly thinking of the short sword. Very poor reach and presumably not perfect for use in one vs one encounters, but perfect for stabbing underneath shields, armour, in between tight spaces etc. It's no coincidence that the landsknechts virtually reinvented the short sword out of nowhere once medieval armies got serious about pike formations.
"To you, Baldrick, Renaissance is just something that happened to other people."
Edmund Blackadder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The usefulness of these types of exercises of matching different fighting systems, that would never have met in reality, is just as mental experiments where one tries to imagine the advantages and disadvantages of each in a more or less narrow tactical way: If one adds in too many variables such as psychology, grand strategy, political interactions etc .... it does become too complex and not very useful.
One can look at battles and at small skirmishes or individual duels and just how the weapons systems and possibly training interact.
One can never really arrive at any absolute conclusions but one can have fun debating the possibilities as long as one doesn't take it too seriously.  
Experimentally I guess well trained " modern ' martial artist of each type could try to do some duels and bouting just to see how things interact ?
At the extreme one could even have Romans against WWII armed U.S. soldiers ( Well, lots of Romans and just a few soldiers way out numbered i.e. Pilum versus M1 Garands+bayonets and unlimited ammunition )
True historical parallels of extreme asymmetry of weapons capability would be the British against the Zulus armed with spears.
Anyway my point is just that kept in proper perspective this can be fun and productive as each brings in their expertise and compare Spartans to Samurai using knowledge of their real skills as opposed to erroneous information i.e. comparing reality to reality and not misinformation to misinformation. ( Or reality to misinformation: Get both sides of the equation right before comparing ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohm D.
|
| Posted: Wed 05 Nov, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
would the fight be one on one or would there be like an army of spartans vs an army of samurai, because if it was one on one the samurai would win. Despite what ppl think spartans weren't that good in solo battle, mostly because of the armor they wore because it weighed them down a lot and the view from their helmets left a lot of blind spots1. Thats why they had to use the phalanx in the first place, so they could still fight while having somone their back. so the samurai would have the upper hand by having more maneuverability and also they would probably have a longer sword (i think) which would give the samurai a greater advantage, after he disarmed the spartan's spear that is or he could just come in close and not let the spartan maneuver with his spear. But if it was army against army then the spartans would probably win cuz the would be better armored and use the phalanx maneuver and ultimately kill the samurai army with spears. So samurai in one on one combat and spartan in army vs army combat.
Those are just my thoughts though so i'm not sure if thats how things would turn out lol
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Wed 05 Nov, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Spartan vs Samurai. Who would win? |
|
|
| Katie Neal wrote: |
allso the spears in the phalynx whiich you gents are thinking about are called cyrissa's. 14ft long and useless one on one.
|
This was an earlier comment in the discussion but I'd still like to respond to it. Just because spears were long does not mean they are useless one on one. Meyer's teaching of the pike is in the context of one on one.
A spartan is not an idiot. If the helmet is a disadvantage then he'd take it off. If he'd be better off with two hands on a spear then the shield could ride on his back.
Of course the better and more experienced fighter would win. But there are inherent advantages and weaknesses resulting in the mismatch of armaments. The better fighter would win by recognizing these, overcoming his own disadvantages, and exploiting his advantages against his adversary. This is what every fighter must do when facing dissimilar weapon combinations. And really, the samurai vs. spartan debate at least in my mind is more about big-shield and short sword vs. longsword (katana) if we are talking about a sword fight or some other comparable weapon combination.
That said, a longer spear gives a strong advantage in a spear fight assuming both hands on the weapon. A shield gives a pretty good advantage too.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Bennison N
|
| Posted: Thu 06 Nov, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Samurai Archers were very skilled. I don't think a rush at a line of Archers, like the Greeks used at Marathon, would've helped much. I realise that there were no Spartans there that time, but they very likely would've used a similar tactic...
Was this debate a product of the Spartan fever that came about after the release of the movie "300"? Everyone seems to conveniently forget that the Athenian Navy had just as much to do with the Thermopylae win as the Spartan Hoplites did... The battlefield, in terms of terrain, plays a big important part in the Spartan-Samurai battle as well, believe me.
One on one, the ignorance of sword techniques would leave a Hoplite at a serious disadvantage, whereas a Samurai who is skilled at sword considers his skill as important as a young girl considers her virtue (I obviously borrowed this from the movie "Sword of Doom"... Haha!). Ancient Greeks didn't train in sword unless they were rich and could afford a specialist teacher. The Spartan Bronze/Iron short sword, often also described as a dagger, against a full length Katana or Tachi is another serious disadvantage. They could've used their spear, but we all know that Japanese swords are/were very resilient and sharp, and a Greek spear was wooden, with bronze heads and caps that didn't cover much shaft. Also, it is really important to remember how heavy those Hoplon, Breastplates, Greaves and Corinthian helmets were... Yes, I know there was a race at the Olympics in full Armour, but we all know that fighting burns more energy than running in a straight line does. Plus, the visibility and hearing in those big ol' Corinthians wasn't that hot (whilst the weather in one was hot...) either.
It's possible that not many knew that Ancient Greeks didn't train in sword techniques as part of military training. In direct contrast... The whole Katana "Soul of the Samurai", symbol of the warrior class thing...
Spartans wore no upper arm protection. They had no cavalry, archers or specialised and protected supply trains. They didn't use artillery, and although they were highly trained in stealth from a young age, they didn't use spies quite like the Samurai did. The most important thing, I think, is that Spartans almost exclusively fought in pitched battles, and didn't use guerrilla tactics very much at all. Samurai did.
Spartans would lose in a battle, even outnumbering the Samurai, although they DID have a habit of pulling off wins against seemingly impossible odds... And in a one-on-one, they would get pretty soundly and embarrassingly whipped. My opinion, but not one that took a lot of thought...
I had to edit this, because when I first wrote it, I was in a hurry. I think it better describes what I wanted to say now... To be honest, a "something vs something else" debate that I'd really like to see is "Ancient Greek Army/Navy vs Qin Dynasty Army/Navy". Anyone else keen to talk that one out with me?
"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius
अजयखड्गधारी
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zlatko Vlašic wrote: | But can you possible equate the tight phalanx where individual soldiers in the first ranks couldn't even move in any other way than forward with japanese fighting styles? I think not.
Phalanx is the most strict, the most tight battle formation in the history of warfare. |
Recent scholarship has put some doubts upon this idea. G.L. Cawkwell's 1989 article, titled Orthodoxy and Hoplites, shows that the popular picture of hoplite warfare suffers from one major flaw--it makes things look neater and more certain than the historical evidence shows. There are numerous mentions of hoplites leaping into the attack and doing individual feats of bravery in the primary sources, and these incidents show that the hoplite phalanx might not have been as tightly-packed (or at least notalways as tightly-packed) as modern ideas have made them.
| Quote: | | I admit I know very little about japanese formations, but I doubt they employed anything similar. I have a vague recollection of reading of samurai actually mixxing it up and yelling their names so as to be able to pick an opponent of worthy rank. Don't know what period this was referring to, or whether this was common practice, but it doesn't seem out of place with what I know of samurai character. |
Challenges to personal combat doesn't really say anything about the tightness of the exponents' formation, since such personal combats would have happened either before the battle (in the sense of a massed clash between the two opposing sources) was joined or during lulls in the fighting. And we have examples to show that people who habitually fought in tight formation did also engage in single combat on occasion--both the Swiss and the Landsknechts were known for the tightness of their pike squares, and yet one of their most famous encounters was the personal duel between Arnold Winkelried and Georg von Frundsberg atop the rampart during the Battle of Bicocca!
(I will not repeat the evidence that samurai could and did fight in close formation, especially during the later years of the Sengoku period--other posters have done that well enough.)
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | Katie Neal wrote: |
allso the spears in the phalynx whiich you gents are thinking about are called cyrissa's. 14ft long and useless one on one.
|
This was an earlier comment in the discussion but I'd still like to respond to it. Just because spears were long does not mean they are useless one on one. Meyer's teaching of the pike is in the context of one on one.
A spartan is not an idiot. If the helmet is a disadvantage then he'd take it off. If he'd be better off with two hands on a spear then the shield could ride on his back.
(snip)
That said, a longer spear gives a strong advantage in a spear fight assuming both hands on the weapon. A shield gives a pretty good advantage too. |
Actually, you don't need to go to all this length to address the idea of long spears, since the Spartans that come to mind when most people talk about them are the Spartans before the Hellenistic era of Philip and Alexander and the Successors; and the Spartans in this period (say, 5th-4th centuries BC) still fought with the short spear known as the dory (pronounced more like "doru"), about seven to eight feet long at most and often considerably shorter. They only adopted the sarissa much later, in the mid-3rd century BC or so--and that's long after they had lost their dominant position in Greek politics and warfare.
Neither should the hoplite phalanx be confused with the Macedonian pike phalanx; the two were probably related developments, but they were different things. The hoplite phalanx had large shields and relatively short spears and were the primary offensive arm of their users, while the Macedonian phalanx had significantly smaller shields and much longer pikes (the sarissa proper) and were part of a combined-arms system where the principal shock force was often the cavalry rather than the phalanx. It's pretty obvious that the pike phalanx was (on average) deeper than the hoplite phalanx and probably more tightly-packed as well.
| Bennison N wrote: | | Was this debate a product of the Spartan fever that came about after the release of the movie "300"? Everyone seems to conveniently forget that the Athenian Navy had just as much to do with the Thermopylae win as the Spartan Hoplites did... The battlefield, in terms of terrain, plays a big important part in the Spartan-Samurai battle as well, believe me. |
300 deserves a lot of blame for a lot of things--but let's not forget that one of the things it can be blamed for is by making most popular enthusiasts focus too much on Thermopylae in their discussion of Spartans. There were many other battles where the Spartans showed their superiority, mostly against other Greeks--and some other battles where the other Greeks found ways to get over or around the Spartan superiority (Leuctra and Mantineia being the most remarkable examples). I wish people would start looking at these other battles rather than focusing solely on Thermopylae....
| Quote: | | One on one, the ignorance of sword techniques would leave a Hoplite at a serious disadvantage, whereas a Samurai who is skilled at sword considers his skill as important as a young girl considers her virtue (I obviously borrowed this from the movie "Sword of Doom"... Haha!). Ancient Greeks didn't train in sword unless they were rich and could afford a specialist teacher. |
Myth. Myth. MYTH!
Sorry for my vehemence, but this myth needs to be seriously exploded--from several facets.
First, anybody who has looked at the primary sources on Greek warfare would soon be able to find examples of hoplites fighting skilfully with swords, and especially of Spartans hacking their way through their opponents' ranks with short swords.
Second, not all samurai were masters in the use of the spear, sword, bow, or whatever. The presence of certain samurai whom people remembered for their mastery of this weapon or that is actually the example that proves the rule--if all samurai were masters, why bother with giving the title to particular individuals? Of course, their lifelong training must have made the samurai reasonably competent in the use of their weapons and armor, but a uniform bunch of masters they weren't.
Third, the Spartans had lifelong training too--at least if by "Spartans" we mean the creme de la creme, the elite Spartiates/homoioi rather than the less distinguished groups like the perioikoi. So, absent any evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable to assume that they were competent with their weapons as well, regardless of whether this weapon was the spear, sword, javelin, or dagger.
| Quote: | | It's possible that not many knew that Ancient Greeks didn't train in sword techniques as part of military training. |
Any evidence of this?
| Quote: | | In direct contrast... The whole Katana "Soul of the Samurai", symbol of the warrior class thing... |
Is a myth, at least if by "samurai" we mean the people who actually fought in large-scale wars and battles before Ieyasu Tokugawa's final unification of Japan. The cult of the sword proper was an artifact of the Tokugawa era, when the Japanese no longer experienced frequent and prolonged episodes of open warfare. Thus the focus of martial culture shifted from a panoply of battlefield weapons (sword and spear and armor or sword and bow and armor or some other similar combination) to the sword, which was a weapon admirably suited to the close confines and unarmored opponents of urban "security duties".
| Quote: | | I had to edit this, because when I first wrote it, I was in a hurry. I think it better describes what I wanted to say now... To be honest, a "something vs something else" debate that I'd really like to see is "Ancient Greek Army/Navy vs Qin Dynasty Army/Navy". Anyone else keen to talk that one out with me? |
No, because it wouldn't be much of an exercise. The Qin would have been able to swamp any Greek army with sheer numbers. The "million-man army" might have been an exaggeration but no historian doubts that the Qin army was huge by the standards of its age, especially during the later years of its conquests (after it had absorbed many of its rival states.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good post Lafayette .
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Evans
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Lacedaemonian Army |
|
|
Just a tiny point. The Lacedaemonian army was at it'sheight in about the 3rd Century BC, from a probable birth of the Lacedaemonian state in about the early 8th Century. The Iron Age had reached the Greek proto City states by the 9t Century BC.
So a "classic Spartan" army would be using bronze armour and Iron and early steel weapons, steel first popping up in about the 4th Century BC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Montgomery
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: the Thermopylae win |
|
|
| Bennison N wrote: | | Was this debate a product of the Spartan fever that came about after the release of the movie "300"? Everyone seems to conveniently forget that the Athenian Navy had just as much to do with the Thermopylae win as the Spartan Hoplites did... [/i] |
I suppose this has been mentioned already, but Thermopylae was not a win for the Greek allies,which included Sparta and Athens. The battle was a win for the Persians. I feel like I am stating the obvious, but Herodotus in his "History" makes it very clear who won. Xerxes, according to Herodotus had the Spartan king beheaded and crucified. Obviously the Greeks sacrificed themselves and bought valuable time, but it was not a win.
"238. Having thus said Xerxes passed in review the bodies of the dead;
and as for Leonidas, hearing that he had been the king and commander
of the Lacedemonians he bade them cut off his head and crucify him." Retrieved from Project Gutenberg Etext The History of Herodotus V2 by Herodotus at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/2hofh10.txt on November 7, 2008.
Philip Montgomery
~-----~
"A broken sword blade fwipping through the air like a scythe through rye does demand attention."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timoc Calin
Location: Romania Joined: 07 Nov 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: Defence vs. Attack |
|
|
I find something unclear in this discution... why evrybody try to focus the problem of the Spatians??? We now that in History this Types of Warriors have meet in Battles> a good Suggestion I find in Middle Age by Russians against the Tatars, but closer to the our Subiect is the Battle of Constantinopolis (1453 AD), the Byzantine Fighters (descenders of the Greek hoplite) against the Turkish Infantrymens (fanatic Light Swordman)... Of course, the Samurai Warriors are a little different, and we now that Timur Lenk defeat the Turkish Army of the Sultan Baiazid Ilderim, that help us to know that Eastern Asia Warriors are very powerful & skillful in Battles (Fast & furious).
As a Conclusion (and I agree Mike's Observations)> The Spartian, if he are in defence (alone & close formation) we can hope that the Shield will help him but he can move so fast that the Samurai and his Sword / Spear is not a good attack weapon (this can better used in defencefight)... if the the Samurai are in defence (alone & close formation) his fast Movements can help him to Evade and to hit the Spartians with his steelsword at the time!... My point of view is that we can hope that a rigid Phalanx Army are more better & practical in Fight against one more faster & elastiker! We have in History many Examples> the Romans have crush every Types of Greek Phalanx (Why?)
Jazyges Latrunculi
|
|
 |
|
|
Ohm D.
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from something i read i've heard that the spartans weren't fast while fighting. mostly because their armor and shields weighted them down, so with speed i would expect a samurai to win. also i'm guessing that the shields and armor of the spartans would be made of bronze so, even though it wouldn't be easy, the samurai could probably damage it enough to make it useless. another point i would like to make is that spartans used more of a brawler style of fighting while samurai used technique. not to say spartans didn't have any technique, its just that they go in more hacking and slashing rather than timed strikes and special movements.
so like i said in my post above. samurai > spartan (1 v 1 combat only)
btw i was just curious, does anyone know if samurai ever uses shields while fighting ??
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Nov, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ohm D. wrote: | | from something i read i've heard that the spartans weren't fast while fighting. mostly because their armor and shields weighted them down, so with speed i would expect a samurai to win. also i'm guessing that the shields and armor of the spartans would be made of bronze so, even though it wouldn't be easy, the samurai could probably damage it enough to make it useless. another point i would like to make is that spartans used more of a brawler style of fighting while samurai used technique. not to say spartans didn't have any technique, its just that they go in more hacking and slashing rather than timed strikes and special movements. |
Some of the best shield fighters I have come up against are the ones that move the least. In my training I am making a very conscience effort to learn to make the minimal movements necessary to get the job done. Large unnecessary movements only expend energy and create openings to get hit. Its kind of funny when you watch on fighter going off like a the Tazmanian Devil and then you watch a more experienced fighter calmly block every shot and then at his leisure make a one shot kill.
I think it is wrong to assume that the same the Greeks whole have proved to be one of the most progressive people in history... who put forth great works of literature and art... would resort to mindless hacking and slashing on a battlefield. I think it would be wiser to assume they they had a very effective fighting system for dealing with all foreseeable threats.
| Timoc Calin wrote: | | We have in History many Examples> the Romans have crush every Types of Greek Phalanx (Why?) |
This is an excellent approach to the question.There is a two part answer.
The first is political:
The Romans were nearly defeated by Pirus in Sicily. The reason they held out is because the Romans had well established alliances with other Italic cities. So as the Romans lost armies, they were able to replace them. The Greeks on the other hand were very proud of their City/State independence. For this reason they could never unite. They did not have the same alliance base of the Romans to replenish their lost men. Alexander the Great saw the error in this and sought to recruit non-Greeks to fight in his armies and even lead them. He received great resistance from his own nobles in this and upon his death they undid this. The subsequent Greek armies of the Helenistic age were ate a disadvantage to the Romans for this reason.
The second reason is tactical. The Romans were organized into smaller units called "Manipols". They consisted of about 250 men each (from what I remember). These units could be moved around more more easily on the battlefield. The Greek Phalanx was more of a large Monolith. It was not so easy to beak off one unit and move it off independently in the middle of a battle. At the first Macedonian battle between Greeks and Romans this made all the difference. After to a near stand-off the Roman General noticed a section of the Macedonian Phalanx that was not fully formed up. He ordered one of his units to hit that and then was able to swing it around from behind. A Phalanx is not set up to be maneuvered like this.
So the questions are: Did the Japanese have the political structure to replace lost men like the Romans??? Did the Japanese have the small unit organization of the Romans???
I am ignoring for now the 4 foot tall scutum shields that the Romans used in tight formation.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: Re: Lacedaemonian Army |
|
|
| David Evans wrote: | | The Lacedaemonian army was at it'sheight in about the 3rd Century BC |
Nope--the Lacedaemonian hegemony and its army had its glory days in the late 5th century and early to mid-4th century BC. In the 3rd century BC it probably had regained some of the power it had previously lost to its Greek rivals and the Macedonians, but it was only a shadow of its former glory and in any case the establishment of Roman hegemony at the end of the century pretty much spelled the end of Sparta as a major political and military power.
| Timoc Calin wrote: | | I find something unclear in this discution... why evrybody try to focus the problem of the Spatians? |
Because the original question was about Spartans, and regardless of whatever tangents we go into we'd eventually have to come back and review what the Spartans (and the samurai) actually were like...
| Quote: | | We have in History many Examples> the Romans have crush every Types of Greek Phalanx (Why?) |
Not quite. The Romans themselves probably used Greek-style phalanxes at first, and only borrowed the more flexible manipular formations later from enemies who managed to clobber them repeatedly--probably the Samnites. Of course, afterwards they went to develop the borrowed tactics further and use them against other, more Hellenized peoples who stuck more faithfully to Greek methods of warfare (Tarentines, Campanians, and the like).
Tactically speaking, there were a number of notable occasions where Greek hoplite phalanxes and/or Macedonian-style pike phalanxes managed to defeat Roman or similar opponents. One was Alexander of Epirus's ill-fated campaign to help the Tarentines, where he defeated a Samnite army in battle at least once. Afterwards, Pyrrhus of Epirus is best known for his tragic fate, but people tend to forget that he won at least two major battles against Roman armies, even if the later of the two (Asculum) might not have had unequivocally favorable strategic results. Finally, let's not forget that at the two classic Roman vs. Macedonian battles--Cynoscephalae and Pydna--the Macedonian phalanx proved to be practically impenetrable in a frontal encounter on unbroken ground, and the Romans only managed to win when they managed to mob an isolated Macedonian wing with the help of elephants and Greek allies (Cynoscephalae) or had been pushed to broken terrain where their smaller and more maneuverable formations could seek and exploit the gaps that eventually opened in the Macedonian lines (Pydna).
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | The Romans were nearly defeated by Pirus in Sicily. The reason they held out is because the Romans had well established alliances with other Italic cities. So as the Romans lost armies, they were able to replace them. |
This is more applicable to Hannibal than to Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus only campaigned for a total of about five years, fought three major battles against the Romans, and never really seemed to have posed a direct and focused threat against the Roman polity; Hannibal, on the other hand, campaigned in Italy for more than twice as long, fought many more battles, and nearly brought the Roman state to its knees on more than one occasion. Unfortunately some of Hannibal's political moves to gain the support of certain Italian allies actually alienated other Italians and brought them more firmly into the Roman sphere of influence than ever before, and so he was effectively prevented from capitalizing on the string of early victories that culminated with Cannae.
| Quote: | | The subsequent Greek armies of the Helenistic age were ate a disadvantage to the Romans for this reason. |
Not always. The larger Successor states (especially the Seleucids and Ptolemaics) were actually quite capable of taking on Rome at equal terms when Rome began its imperial expansion in earnest during the 3rd century BC. The factors that caused the eventual Roman victory were many and not all of them were military in nature.
| Quote: | | The second reason is tactical. The Romans were organized into smaller units called "Manipols". They consisted of about 250 men each (from what I remember). |
The number varied. The most famous manipular army--that of the Second Punic Wars (also known as the Polybian period for the historian who recorded it)--used 120-men maniples for the hastati and principes and 60-men ones for the triarii. And, as has been mentioned before, it is quite probable that the maniple was not an original Roman invention, being adopted (or adapted) from the fighting methods of their opponents.
| Quote: | | The Greek Phalanx was more of a large Monolith. It was not so easy to beak off one unit and move it off independently in the middle of a battle. At the first Macedonian battle between Greeks and Romans this made all the difference. After to a near stand-off the Roman General noticed a section of the Macedonian Phalanx that was not fully formed up. He ordered one of his units to hit that and then was able to swing it around from behind. A Phalanx is not set up to be maneuvered like this. |
Actually this statement would have to be qualified a great deal; the Macedonian pike phalanxes that the Romans faced were supposed to have been split into smaller sub-units, and one of the principal maneuver units was the taxis--a 128-man unit that was strikingly similar in size to a Polybian maniple. It is quite likely, however, that the training standards of the Macedonian army had declined a great deal since the days of Alexander the Great; the various parts of the Macedonian armies at Pydna didn't seem to have coordinated with each other as actively or as aggressively as Philip's or Alexander's armies--their performance seemed rather dismal compared even to earlier Successor armies, which were often able to conduct some fairly complicated maneuvers in their battles against each other.
Once again, let's not forget the difference between Greek hoplite phalanxes and Macedonian pike phalanxes. The latter might have been indirectly descended from the former through the hypothetical "Iphicratean peltasts," but basically they didn't fight in the same way and worked best in different tactical situations. In particular, the Macedonian phalanxes--despite having larger formations and armed with longer weapons--were often more maneuverable than the earlier Greek hoplite phalanxes, which were indeed often quite monolithic.
| Quote: | | So the questions are: Did the Japanese have the political structure to replace lost men like the Romans??? Did the Japanese have the small unit organization of the Romans??? |
The answer to this question actually brings us back to one issue that has been brought up several times but never seemed to stick: which samurai and which Spartans? Even the Spartans--the more homogeneous of the two--underwent an evolution from a messy warband to a tightly-packed hoplite phalanx and finally into a Macedonian-style pike phalanx, and throughout the period they had a highly stratified social system that was also reflected in a gradation of military efficiency from the best (the professional homoioi--yes, this most exclusive and snobbish group of aristocrats actually called themselves "equals") to the worst (helots hastily pressed into hoplite service). The samurai covered an even longer span of time and an even larger variety of tactical methods, from the mixed horse-and-foot formations of the Heian and Kamakura eras to the massive combined-arms armies of the Sengoku era and even into the semi-modernized or thoroughly modernized armies that fought during the 19th-century Bakumatsu period. Like Max Chouinard had said, if we're going to speculate about a free-for-all...well, I'd actually go even further than him and say that a 19th-century samurai would simply have picked up a percussion rifle and riddled an ancient Spartan full of holes before the Spartan could get within 200 paces.
|
|
|
|
|
Bennison N
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette,
Here is a SFI discussion I previously followed, and posted into a few times, on Greek Swordsmanship:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=88979
I joined in because I was looking for records of Kopis use outside the red and black jar images to apply to my own Kopis use. Very hard to find, mate. I've heard of great Greek Swordsmen too... Heroes and the like... Carving up with a sword in pitched battle. But apparently sword-skill just wasn't considered as important to being a Hoplite as holding the line and maneouvering in a group was. And you had to seek out teachers to get specialised sword training, which was often included as a part of your wrestling training. In a way, the existence of these teachers proved my point that there was organised sword systems, and skilled Greek swordsmen (the teachers at least)... But I really did expect swordsmanship to be much more widespread than it apparently actually was. And that something in some way instructional would be still available today...
Maybe you could help me out with where to look, because none of those guys could that time... In the end, we just agreed to disagree.
Also, why all the talk of Romans? Aren't we discussing Spartans?
"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius
अजयखड्गधारी
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic