>NEWS HAS ARRIVED OF A BRUTII ARMY SIEGING THE CITY, DO NOT FRET CITIZENS, AS THE FULL STACK SENATE ARMY IS ONE TURN AWAY AND WILL ARRIVE TO ATTACK THE TRAITORS AS THEY BUILD THEIR SIEGE TOWE- huh? >IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE TWO UNITS OF FIRST LEGIONARY COHORTS AND 70 YEAR OLD GENERAL DEFENDING THE WALLS HAVE SPOTTED THE ENEMY'S ONAGERS. THEIR ASSAULT OF THE TOWN WILL COMMENCE THIS TURN, WITH ONLY 500 SOLDIERS DEFENDING THE CITY >REMEMBER TO RE UP YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO ROMAZON PRIMUS FOR FREE DELIVERY ON ALL BREAD PRODUCED BY THE MILLER'S GUILD, TRUE ROMAN BREAD FOR TRUE ROMANS, NOW A SUBSIDIARY OF ROMAZON
But in all honesty, what games actually do this? I can't think of anything besides Skullgirls, and I only know that game from all the rage threads on this board. I hate fighting games.
The lorica segmentata was just too costly to mantain while the hamata offered all of its benefits without that one flaw.
Also the segmentata wasn't even as common as it appears in movies: In reality its dominance barely lasted two centuries, and from the very beginning legionares used stuff like scale mail and early chainmail alongside it.
>Also the segmentata wasn't even as common as it appears in movies: In reality its dominance barely lasted two centuries >it's dominance barely lasted two centuries
Did you actually write this with a straight face?
nta, BUT >This armor was used from about 14 BC to the late 3rd century AD. The lorica segmentata's use in the Roman army was geographically widespread, but the mail armor lorica hamata may have been more common at all times.
He's speaking the truth. It was mostly phased out before Diocletian reform never to return due to costs and inefficiency.
Rome's history is long, that's the point: the idea of the segmentata as THE roman armor is stupid because two centuries are barely anything in the grand scale.
A lot of the Late Classical/Eastern Roman/Byzantine armors are underrated as hell.
Well it was an unpopular opinion but now there's a pretty big group of Byzantiboos
not the person you're replying to, but being in production for barely two centuries is a drop in the bucket, considering how long Rome lasted in some form or another.
Rome existed centuries before the Empire and said Empire (its western half, that is) lasted four hundred years. In the grand scale of roman history the segmentata is far, far less relevant and widespread than what movies and videogames assume.
Mail was used earlier, and at the same time as segmentata. It worked well and required less maintainence because the constance jiggling kept it free of rust
there was a pc game where you manager a gladiator team that was pretty cool
cant remember the name of it though
early 2000s i think
might just be called gladitorr sword of venegence]
There must have been tactical reasons to change the armor, and to swap out the big shield and javelin with a sword and smaller shield. But what were the reasons? What changed about battle that made the gear on the left start to fail in battle?
Left was never some kind of absolute uniform: It was preferred for a century or two, but it always had competition like scale mail and early versions of the segmentata.
And what changed is that the enemies of Rome, unsurprisingly, adapted, and by the 3rd century the typical strategies became partially obsolete. That late roman solders and german barbarians look so similar in the 4-5th centuries is not because the romans became somehow stupid, but because the barbarians got smarter and, ironicaly enough, more roman.
Chain mail is literally cheaper and more effective (though requiring more man-hours to make) than segmentata, which was likely parade armor anyways and quite stiff and heavy.
Pila were always a meme intended to give heavy infantry a disposable skirmishing weapon, which just fell apart as archery became more advanced and melee conflict became centralized more and more around archery, massed infantry and cavalry with skirmishing/peltasts fading from relevance. It also became rapidly less useful as shields were made lighter and more durable.
The gladius was likely replaced with a longer northern style sword as latter was more versatile against cavalry.
Basically the right is an upgrade in every way to the less, it just looks less ostentatious. The heavy specialization of certain countries' arms and armor just trended towards a uniform optimal setup over time, same way virtually every military today fields an AR-15 or AR-15 derivative.
Actually the change was that towards the end Rome went from fighting offensive wars to defensive ones. Longer blades are better for defense and keeping enemies at a distance. Shorter blades are better for going on the offense.
>armor
The segmentata most likely provides better protection than the mail, but not by a huge amount. Mail was still extremely effective, and we had yet to really see weapons evolve to counter it. It was also easy to maintain and repair in the field, and could be manufactured locally easing supply issues. Remember that even though field armies were still a thing, there were a lot more garrison troops and dispersed border armies in period of the late Empire, so easing supply chains is a big deal. >Pila
These were replaced by plumbata, which were heavy throwing darts. A solider could carry a fair bit more (5+), and were more about disrupting and injuring enemies, especially when they were charging. >Sword
Spatha are just straight up longer with more reach than the gladius, possibly owing to technological development. Also cooler. >Round Shield
This one I'm not sure about. My initial thought is that it's because the late Roman infantrymen was more likely to fight in a tight shield wall. We tend to see round shields pop up with other cultures that do that (Greeks, Germanics), so perhaps it's a more beneficial design for the approach. The scutum was used during a period where the infantrymen was expected to be a bit more dispersed when fighting. Having a larger shield is more beneficial when you don't have some to your immediate left and right protecting your flanks.
The round shield is better structurally, especially as you're getting into layering materials. Scuta were squared off with a rim on the edges to reinforce those edges which made them bulky and heavy, and relied on being bent outwards at the center for structural support, while round shields with many layers of material just ate blows on the edge better naturally and could sacrifice surface area without losing structural rigidity. Just a better system all around.
The reason is that Rome's army went downhill in a huge way and people took less and less interest in joining up. This progressed until it got to a point where land owners would literally hide all the peasants when they heard that legion recruiters were coming to town both because they didn't want to lose laborers and because the peasants didn't want to join for the most part.
The cohesion of the Roman army and their once excellent standards for equipment fell with this + reliance on foreign mercenaries.
Chain mail is literally cheaper and more effective (though requiring more man-hours to make) than segmentata, which was likely parade armor anyways and quite stiff and heavy.
Pila were always a meme intended to give heavy infantry a disposable skirmishing weapon, which just fell apart as archery became more advanced and melee conflict became centralized more and more around archery, massed infantry and cavalry with skirmishing/peltasts fading from relevance. It also became rapidly less useful as shields were made lighter and more durable.
The gladius was likely replaced with a longer northern style sword as latter was more versatile against cavalry.
Basically the right is an upgrade in every way to the less, it just looks less ostentatious. The heavy specialization of certain countries' arms and armor just trended towards a uniform optimal setup over time, same way virtually every military today fields an AR-15 or AR-15 derivative.
>Chain mail is literally cheaper and more effective
No. Mail is
>which was likely parade armor anyways and quite stiff and heavy
You are fricking moronic and have no idea what you're talking about. They didn't have any "parade armor" for the common soldier. Segmentata was the standard for a very long time and that's very well documented.
Mail is also heavier than plat armor that offers the same coverage. The fact that you don't know this shows that you're just clueless about armor in general.
The spear is probably the most widespread, flexible yet simple weapon ever made. You know how to use one almost by instinct, and that makes it appear as the ultimate melee weapon to some.
Yet, again, no such thing exists and it depends, as I said, on the context and the equipment of your troops. In close quarter combat spears can quickly become useless.
Spear
The answer is always spear
You will never see an army with greatswords only because it will be too difficult to mass produce and too difficult to train warriors
Meanwhile spears are extremely common place and every ruler had the same idea >make spear longer
Because people say spear BTFOs 2 handed swords(Is Kwan dao 2 handed sword too?)
>You will never see an army with greatswords only
You would never see an army with spears only either you midwit. Greatswords are more specialized and less flexible to use, but there are plenty of situations where spears aren't the best option. FFS Rome, the civilization we're talking about itt, famously ditched spears for shortswords because they could consistently force a melee press against weaker enemies that had no cavalry.
Speargays are hypercontrarians that saw one HEMAgay video about le unbeatable spear and just assumed that every other weapon ever created was just completely useless in the face of the almighty spear. And in fact, that weapon that you thought was good in common use, was actually just a spear with extra steps. If not, it was secretly shit, even if it was fielded en masse, because "spears have this thing called reach"
You really are moronic needing a youtuber to tell you spear good
Its common fricking sense, It was cheap and easy to learn, didnt cost too much to make and you could arm your whole army with it >that every other weapon ever created was just completely useless
No one even fricking implied that you brain dead shit.
Stop watching youtube pedos and pick up a history book
Black person, there is a poster directly above you that implied that the gladius was secretly worthless in the face of the almighty spear and also implies that the gladius was actually just a shittier version of the spear.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Where he didnt say that did you put words in his mouth you disingenuous shit?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>hurr dey made da sords longer sose day be moah liek speer >as though the entire benefit of the gladius wasn't in being short and easy to slip past shields in a melee press
Pretending to be moronic and just actually being moronic are the same thing my g
3 months ago
Anonymous
>hurr durr
Ok you're a seething moron. Good to know
>until they learned they didn't work
Clearly implying that the gladius failed in the face of the almighty spear. >oh they made their spears longer too >Turns out having reach is very important
Clearly implying that the gladius was actually just used as a shittier version of the spear.
>until they learned they didn't work >Ctrl f Phrase not found >Until they learned that didnt work >and oh they made their spears longer too >Ctrl f Phrase not found >and oh they made their swords longer too
So i was right you do enjoy putting words into peoples mouth. He was clearly talking about the Spatha that replaced the Gladius you know a long sword that had more reach then a short sword.
These are the people that hate spears. No common sense just plain moronation and seething that their favorite weapons weren't chosen by the generals of antiquity.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I put my fricking wiener in his mouth, read his post.
>You would never see an army with spears only either you midwit.
Yes you would. The Celtics especially >FFS Rome, the civilization we're talking about itt, famously ditched spears for shortswords because they could consistently force a melee press against weaker enemies that had no cavalry.
Until they learned that didnt work and went back to spears, and oh they made their swords longer too
Turns out having reach is very important
. >Until they learned that didnt work
Sorry that speargays don't know how to use apostrophes.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I read it you were just adding up to change the meaning. Congrats I can do it to >I put my pussy in his mouth
GAY
3 months ago
Anonymous
>You were adding up to change the meaning
No you moronic Black person. He clearly implies that the gladius failed to deal with the spear. And he goes on to talk about how the increased the length of their swords (which is clearly meant to imply that they were just using them as spears with extra steps). He engaged in all the classic spearBlack persony that I pointed out, even doing the smug >erm... reach???
bullshit.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>smug
By the way where is this cowardly c**t who liked to talk shit behind peoples back and then frick off like a b***h when things get tough.
Come on pussy.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>until they learned they didn't work
Clearly implying that the gladius failed in the face of the almighty spear. >oh they made their spears longer too >Turns out having reach is very important
Clearly implying that the gladius was actually just used as a shittier version of the spear.
Oh really? And none of them ever discussed the Roman maniples?
3 months ago
Anonymous
You know they used spears too right.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>the spear was the dominant weapon >okay well maybe not for the maniples, but some of the triarii used them!
The gladius was the main weapon used by the Roman maniples. Don't even try to pretend it wasn't.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>javelins arent spears
Wow. You fricking Black folk really are the dumbest shit here.
No wonder you need Hepa to teach you how weapons work.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>erm javelins are spears!!!
This is just fricking moronic. You know damn well there is a difference between a thrusting spear used in a formation and a fricking thrown javelin.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I agree you are moronic.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Sure, we'll just completely ignore the clear difference in role between a javelin and a thrusting spear used by a spear formation. You disingenuous fricking homosexual.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>throwing spears >the disctinction between javelin and spear was slow to develop, but by classical times the HEAVY SPEAR was clearly distinguished
Can't read too but thats no surprise.
You're all pretty moronic.
>You would never see an army with spears only either you midwit.
Yes you would. The Celtics especially >FFS Rome, the civilization we're talking about itt, famously ditched spears for shortswords because they could consistently force a melee press against weaker enemies that had no cavalry.
Until they learned that didnt work and went back to spears, and oh they made their swords longer too
Turns out having reach is very important
>Until they learned that didnt work and went back to spears, and oh they made their swords longer too
NTA but this is stupid: The gladius was used very effectively for centuries and constently defeated spearmen armies, to the point that even the greek phanlax faltered against it. That later on the technological and cultural evolution of Rome's rivals made the army go back to spears as the primary weapon doesn't take away from the fact that the gladius worked.
Might as well say that horses are shit because we use tanks in modern warfare.
>take away from the fact that the gladius worked.
Until it stopped working because people used the spear differently
Meanwhile the Gladius had to be replaced whereas the spear never changed
The Celts abso-goddamn-lutely used any melee weapon or tool they had on hand along with skirmishing weapons like slung or thrown stones or javelins. We also know they had swords since the bronze age and some hints of later developments in the iron age.
Stop fricking posting.
>skirmishing weapons like slung or thrown stones or javelins
Javelins are throwing spears. thank you for proving my point. Someone so stupid he didnt even know that wants to lecture people.
>You were adding up to change the meaning
No you moronic Black person. He clearly implies that the gladius failed to deal with the spear. And he goes on to talk about how the increased the length of their swords (which is clearly meant to imply that they were just using them as spears with extra steps). He engaged in all the classic spearBlack persony that I pointed out, even doing the smug >erm... reach???
bullshit.
Yes reach motherfricker something thats actually a thing.
Its why in boxing people never shut up about it. Because a long arm means he can punch you and you cant punch back.
This is basic fighting 101 >He clearly implies that the gladius failed to deal with the spear.
Yeah because people found better formations for it and the gladius went to the way side never to reappear again. Meanwhile spear continued its domination. What do you call that? > he goes on to talk about how the increased the length of their swords
Yes you moronic shit thats the romans did they increased the length of their sword. This is all documented you demented loon.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Meanwhile the Gladius had to be replaced whereas the spear never changed
This is a lie: spears absolutely changed in shape, length and even use across roman history. By this line of argumentation you would need to say that "the gladius was always there" because romans never actually stopped using swords and instead changed for longer spathas.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>This is a lie
No its not, we name the different type of pole arms just like we name the different type of swords.
Gladius was replaced by the spatha. The spear was replaced by (insert pole arm here)
But sure we can argue gladius was always there if you want to be disingenuous.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Polearms aren't all spears you dumb Black person. Arguably Pikes aren't even spears and they're the most similar to traditional Spears.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>pole arms subclass of spear >noooo theyre not
frick off you moronic mongoloid.
3 months ago
Anonymous
They're literally not and virtually nothing in your own posted picture could have been used effectively as a spear. Polearms are called Polearms because they are arms mounted on a fricking Pole. Spears are a subclass of polearm and not vice-versa. learn how to read.
To not engage mounted archers in a god damn open, flat field for one
homie you're in Turkey. It's horseBlack person land for a reason.
Top fricking playing total war dumb frick.
Take a samurai for example. He wouldn't be going to war using a katana only. He would have a yari or naginata as his main hand weapon or the yumi as his ranged weapon if he was on horseback.
There weren't armies of samurai and ashigaru using only swords. That's fricking moronic.
You're so out of your depth understanding my post that you're making my own point for me and that's funny.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>They're literally not
Again frick off with your moronation you stupid fricking piece of shit, Go watch your moronic youtubers larp instead.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>No its not, we name the different type of pole arms just like we name the different type of swords.
You said "the spear never changed" when comparing it with the gladius and that's what I called a lie because it is: Spears absolutely changed in shape and usage across roman and medieval history which is why we don't call a halberd "spear": There is no basis to pretend that the spear was somehow better than the roman gladius because the later got replaced: all of them got replaced or specialized later on.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Yeah because people found better formations for it and the gladius went to the way side never to reappear again
Oh wow, I guess I will just ignore the countless centuries of conquest and warfare which rested on the back of heavy infantry wielding the gladius. Yeah, no shit, later military and economic innovations would change the face of warfare. But we are switching back to >erm actually the gladius was completely useless and if I was the armchair commander of a phalanx, I would have crushed the maniples with the almighty spear because I know the super sekret spear formation to beat it 🙂 >Yes you moronic shit thats the romans did they increased the length of their sword
Mhm, and did they increase the length of their sword because they were using them as discount spears? Should they have just been using the almighty spear instead? You are engaging in the exact same fricking ridiculous speargay moronation that this whole argument started over. >erm actually, spears *were* better than the gladius, you just think that gladius were used effectively against spears for century, but sekretly they weren't! >erm actually the gladius could only hope to emulate half of the almighty spears power, ever heard of this thing called reach sweaty :^)
3 months ago
Anonymous
>back of heavy infantry wielding the gladius
Yeah you should when you realize Spears > Gladius >Mhm, and did they increase the length of their sword because they were using them as discount spears
Yes you dumb shit. mhmhmhmhm thats what they did you dumb c**t. Look at this sword moronation as if swords cant be used to thrust.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You are literally using the exact same arguments that you Black folk got upset at me for calling you out for. >that weapon that you thought was good in common use, was actually just a spear with extra steps >If not, it was secretly shit, even if it was fielded en masse, because "spears have this thing called reach"
3 months ago
Anonymous
>uhhh gladius superior >then why was it replaced with a long sword >uhhhhh you're using my arguments against me, why are you implying gladius are shit WAAAAAA why bully me speargay
I know it seems that way but that's really only because you're an unironic moronic shit,
3 months ago
Anonymous
>erm... why was it replaced with the long sword???
I don't know. Is that longer sword secretly a spear now? Or is it still a sword? You fricking enormous moron.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>duurrrr reach isnt a thing hurrrr durrrr
Black person i told you from post 1 that reach was a factor. But your moronic mind couldnt factor that swords need reach too and you thought that was bullshit.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Oh cool. So is the Spatha a spear now? Was it just used as a discount (yet still more expensive to manufacture) spear? Or maybe... it fulfilled a different role from the spear because it had certain advantages which spears did not have.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Thats right anon its a spear you illiterate shit now go back and read my post use that worthless brain your prostitute mother and drunk father gave you and
LEARN TO FRICKING READ
3 months ago
Anonymous
You dumb fricking Black person, you absolute fricking gorilla. No wonder you like spears so much, because all you know how to do is chuck spears and eat watermelon, you fricking pavement ape. The key point, the single individual thing that fricking matters, is that the gladius and the spatha had certain advantages over the spear that made it preferable for the Romans to use it. Why don't you pick up a goddamn book about fricking Roman maniples instead of listening to your Zulu shaman talk about Iswandala. You fricking Black person, you absolute fricking worthless Black person.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Why are swordgays always this self conscious about losing to us spearchads? Is it because they don't measure up?
3 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not the homosexual who can't read worth shit.
Your mother must have dropped you as child or bashed your head in and thats why you're such a fricking moron
Either that or your fathers drinking fricked up your iq
Regardless you are that stupid. That even now you cant go back and read,. But thats fitting for a mongoloid such as yourself.
Dont have sex and never have offspring the word doesn't need more idiots like you in the world. Also tell your prostitute mother to get her tubes tied and cut off your fathers testicle so they cant reproduce either.
The Celts abso-goddamn-lutely used any melee weapon or tool they had on hand along with skirmishing weapons like slung or thrown stones or javelins. We also know they had swords since the bronze age and some hints of later developments in the iron age.
Stop fricking posting.
wow bravo you beat the basic infantry unit with your heavy infantry that costs twice as much!
now see what happens when your homosexual ninjabros face a more comparable barbarian unit
Which heavily armored opponents? IIRC the Romans weren't really dealing with Persian/Saracen cataphracts until well past the heyday of the gladius. Either way heavy infantry had to be dealt with by cavalry.
Rome had have numerous civil wars and Roman legionaries were quite heavily armored. Also Rome was fighting the Parthians who were quite heavily armored, when the gladius was still in heavy use
>I forgot about the Parthians
Pardon me I am moronic.
Anyways the Romans got absolutely smoked at Carrhae so that about tells you what you need to know about how the tactic of forcing a heavy infantry melee press worked against highly mobile archers.
>take away from the fact that the gladius worked.
Until it stopped working because people used the spear differently
Meanwhile the Gladius had to be replaced whereas the spear never changed
[...] >skirmishing weapons like slung or thrown stones or javelins
Javelins are throwing spears. thank you for proving my point. Someone so stupid he didnt even know that wants to lecture people.
[...]
Yes reach motherfricker something thats actually a thing.
Its why in boxing people never shut up about it. Because a long arm means he can punch you and you cant punch back.
This is basic fighting 101 >He clearly implies that the gladius failed to deal with the spear.
Yeah because people found better formations for it and the gladius went to the way side never to reappear again. Meanwhile spear continued its domination. What do you call that? > he goes on to talk about how the increased the length of their swords
Yes you moronic shit thats the romans did they increased the length of their sword. This is all documented you demented loon.
>HURRR JAVELINS ARE SPEARS >DURR I'M GOING TO IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE POST
Breathen't
>Uhhh you should stop talking because they used javelins >and javelins arent spears huurrrr durrr >shut up moron >hurrr durrr ignore me
Ok, shut the frick up moron
and swords
and chariots
and slings
and axes, hammers, and similar easily available hand tools with which to beat foreign invaders to death
all of which I brought up in my earlier post
Give me back the air you've stolen from my atmosphere with neither my consent or blessing you gigantic mongoloid.
3 months ago
Anonymous
And spears so much so that their myth only talks about spear and nothing else. Not armor just spears.
But thats inconvenient for you. >Give me back the air you've stolen from my atmosphere
You unironically dont deserve any for being this moronic.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You don't know what the Celtic myths talk about any more than I do because their entire recorded mythology is modern figurative larp which you'd know if you were literate.
Also mythology isn't reality you, you... DOUBLE ILLITERATE.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>his story describes combat centered on the use of the spear (gae) and javelin (gá-ín) with no mention of helmets or metal armor, which is consistent and in keeping with archaeological evidence.
Yes you are DOUBLE ILLITERATE. Again you dont deserve the oxygen you breathe
3 months ago
Anonymous
That's from wikipedia you stupid homosexual and the same page talks about their bronze and iron age swords.
>They're literally not
Again frick off with your moronation you stupid fricking piece of shit, Go watch your moronic youtubers larp instead.
have a nice day now so you can die mad
3 months ago
Anonymous
Give me your address pussy. Ill meet you with a spear and you can bring a fricking knife
Lets see that reach difference you dumb c**t. You wont though
3 months ago
Anonymous
>pre bronze age >archaeological evidence suggest no armor or swords
how convenient you neglected that
3 months ago
Anonymous
evidence suggest no armor or swords
Since we're using wikipedia as a source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_sword
3 months ago
Anonymous
>800 bc sword >vs bronze age spear heads
wow you sure showed me
3 months ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#cite_ref-16
Getting real sick of doing your fricking homework for you timmy.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>the spear was used before the sword
Wow you sure showed me. Just like how you goal post moved from iron to bronze age and yet still fricked up.
You're in a thread about frickwads jerking off over manlet italians fricking over 6 foot tall northmen and celts anon. Also, the mongols conquered half the known world despite being manlets and riding fricking steppe ponies.
Did they really have helmets like that at the time? Because those helmets at the top straight up look like morion helmets hundreds of years in the future
Arguing vs spear/polearm and swords is like arguing vs combat rifles vs pistols. This is fricking moronic. The latter for the most part of history were either sidearms or specialist weapons, like how dragoons or light cavalry either used carbines or pistols because a full rifle or musket would be too unwieldy on horseback while the average line infantry used actual rifles. Likewise with swords. During the renaissance, swordsmen were a niche infantry unit often employed as mercenaries while the bulk of the army were pikemen and musketeers. Like the spanish rodeleros and the german and austrian landsknechts.
'swords were secondary sidearms for most of history just like pistols' is as moronic and reductionist as 'spears were the ultimate weapon and better than literally everything and anything they weren't better than was actually just a spear!' You're just couching your reductionism in further reductionism.
The concept of 'primary' and 'secondary' weapons didn't exist, different weapons had different roles in different situations.
Top fricking playing total war dumb frick.
Take a samurai for example. He wouldn't be going to war using a katana only. He would have a yari or naginata as his main hand weapon or the yumi as his ranged weapon if he was on horseback.
There weren't armies of samurai and ashigaru using only swords. That's fricking moronic.
Julius Caesar was 48 when he personally fought and lead his troops on the frontlines at the Battle of Alesia and was 55 when he died and was planning a military campaign into Parthia. Crassus was in his 60s when he died at the Battle of Carrhae. Two of Alexander the Great's generals, Lysimachus and Antigonus I Monophthalmus died in battle at the ripe old ages of 79 and 81 respectively. Alexander's elite Silver Shields unit was composed primarily of veterans over the age of 60. Was it normal in the ancient world to have old fricks regularly going into active combat like this? Most militaries today don't even allow soldiers anywhere close to these ages to serve in active duty on battlefields today.
>Generals
Immediate fitness is less important than lucidity and mental capacity. Some folks drop off a cliff at 60s, others are fine till they die. Charlie Munger died recently at 99 and he was still functional well mentally until he died. >Regular soldiers
If you build the strength and stamina young, you can maintain it for a long time with work. Also, discipline, experience and morale are supper important for a pike phalanx, even more so than most formations. And the Silver Shields had that in spades, hence why the flattened younger formations in the Diadochi Wars.
I love how you fricking homosexuals are just heavily focusing on the few centuries where a single empire dominated using a sword compared to the thousands of years in human history where foot soldiers used spears or polearms instead as a primary fighting weapon.
>HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI >HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI >HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI >HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI >HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI
How do you respond, as a Gaulian?
Speargays once again prove that they have exactly three arguments: >that weapon you like was actually secretly shit compared to the spear even if it was used en masse successfully against spear formations >that weapon you like was secretly a spear ALL ALONG! Everything is a spear! Even if it wasn't used like a thrusting spear at all! >*austistic screeching about reach and absolutely nothing else people weren't already fully aware of*
We all know that spears are underrated. They are good weapons. But you Black folk are fricking obnoxious.
Yes thats exactly it keep seething b***h. >dumb historylet that doesnt know formations and generals constantyl talking about spears >hurr durrr, swords are better
You're probably right, most spectacle helmets probably looked more like the Yarm helmet or Gjermundbu rather than fancypants stuff like the Sutton Hoo or Vendel XII. Hell, the ownership of a mail aventail knitted onto the helmet to cover the face or neck was probably as pricey as the entire helmet, if not more so, even if its a fancy-pants one
>the late romans lengthened their swords because the gladius wasn't a good enough spear! >even thought they re-adopted the spear at around the same time
It couldn't be that spears and swords do DIFFERENT things and weapons other than spears were used all the time when their specific utility was required...
>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII
How do you as a Carthaginian Elephant Herder respond?
>Rome develops massive crossbow siege weapons >China develops handheld crossbows >Rome and China communicate and trade >Romans continue throwing shit
Why were the Romans such brainlets?
this is the fourth (IV) thread you've made, take the hint.
>NEWS HAS ARRIVED OF A BRUTII ARMY SIEGING THE CITY, DO NOT FRET CITIZENS, AS THE FULL STACK SENATE ARMY IS ONE TURN AWAY AND WILL ARRIVE TO ATTACK THE TRAITORS AS THEY BUILD THEIR SIEGE TOWE- huh?
>IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE TWO UNITS OF FIRST LEGIONARY COHORTS AND 70 YEAR OLD GENERAL DEFENDING THE WALLS HAVE SPOTTED THE ENEMY'S ONAGERS. THEIR ASSAULT OF THE TOWN WILL COMMENCE THIS TURN, WITH ONLY 500 SOLDIERS DEFENDING THE CITY
>REMEMBER TO RE UP YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO ROMAZON PRIMUS FOR FREE DELIVERY ON ALL BREAD PRODUCED BY THE MILLER'S GUILD, TRUE ROMAN BREAD FOR TRUE ROMANS, NOW A SUBSIDIARY OF ROMAZON
But in all honesty, what games actually do this? I can't think of anything besides Skullgirls, and I only know that game from all the rage threads on this board. I hate fighting games.
XCOM 2012 to 2
dominions
The lorica segmentata was just too costly to mantain while the hamata offered all of its benefits without that one flaw.
Also the segmentata wasn't even as common as it appears in movies: In reality its dominance barely lasted two centuries, and from the very beginning legionares used stuff like scale mail and early chainmail alongside it.
>Also the segmentata wasn't even as common as it appears in movies: In reality its dominance barely lasted two centuries
>it's dominance barely lasted two centuries
Did you actually write this with a straight face?
nta, BUT
>This armor was used from about 14 BC to the late 3rd century AD. The lorica segmentata's use in the Roman army was geographically widespread, but the mail armor lorica hamata may have been more common at all times.
He's speaking the truth. It was mostly phased out before Diocletian reform never to return due to costs and inefficiency.
Anon he's pointing out that being dominant for 200 years is incongruent with saying the armor wasn't common.
Rome's history is long, that's the point: the idea of the segmentata as THE roman armor is stupid because two centuries are barely anything in the grand scale.
A lot of the Late Classical/Eastern Roman/Byzantine armors are underrated as hell.
Well it was an unpopular opinion but now there's a pretty big group of Byzantiboos
not the person you're replying to, but being in production for barely two centuries is a drop in the bucket, considering how long Rome lasted in some form or another.
Rome existed centuries before the Empire and said Empire (its western half, that is) lasted four hundred years. In the grand scale of roman history the segmentata is far, far less relevant and widespread than what movies and videogames assume.
How long do you think chainmail lasted buddy? Segmentata is a meme.
Mail was used earlier, and at the same time as segmentata. It worked well and required less maintainence because the constance jiggling kept it free of rust
Are there any good Roman games that aren't strategy?
Slaves of Rome
God I love this game so much. Me and my friend spent whole nights trying to get gold trophy in every arena and 100% the game.
How come this game wasn't more popular?
Gladius
expeditions: rome
Skyrim with mods
Ryse: Son of Rome
fallout nv
there was a pc game where you manager a gladiator team that was pretty cool
cant remember the name of it though
early 2000s i think
might just be called gladitorr sword of venegence]
Domina?
There must have been tactical reasons to change the armor, and to swap out the big shield and javelin with a sword and smaller shield. But what were the reasons? What changed about battle that made the gear on the left start to fail in battle?
Left was never some kind of absolute uniform: It was preferred for a century or two, but it always had competition like scale mail and early versions of the segmentata.
And what changed is that the enemies of Rome, unsurprisingly, adapted, and by the 3rd century the typical strategies became partially obsolete. That late roman solders and german barbarians look so similar in the 4-5th centuries is not because the romans became somehow stupid, but because the barbarians got smarter and, ironicaly enough, more roman.
Chain mail is literally cheaper and more effective (though requiring more man-hours to make) than segmentata, which was likely parade armor anyways and quite stiff and heavy.
Pila were always a meme intended to give heavy infantry a disposable skirmishing weapon, which just fell apart as archery became more advanced and melee conflict became centralized more and more around archery, massed infantry and cavalry with skirmishing/peltasts fading from relevance. It also became rapidly less useful as shields were made lighter and more durable.
The gladius was likely replaced with a longer northern style sword as latter was more versatile against cavalry.
Basically the right is an upgrade in every way to the less, it just looks less ostentatious. The heavy specialization of certain countries' arms and armor just trended towards a uniform optimal setup over time, same way virtually every military today fields an AR-15 or AR-15 derivative.
Actually the change was that towards the end Rome went from fighting offensive wars to defensive ones. Longer blades are better for defense and keeping enemies at a distance. Shorter blades are better for going on the offense.
Right, and who were they primarily defending against anon? Protip: highly nomadic/migratory peoples have cavalry.
They were defending against everyone they pissed off and were constantly getting pushed back and losing territory.
>armor
The segmentata most likely provides better protection than the mail, but not by a huge amount. Mail was still extremely effective, and we had yet to really see weapons evolve to counter it. It was also easy to maintain and repair in the field, and could be manufactured locally easing supply issues. Remember that even though field armies were still a thing, there were a lot more garrison troops and dispersed border armies in period of the late Empire, so easing supply chains is a big deal.
>Pila
These were replaced by plumbata, which were heavy throwing darts. A solider could carry a fair bit more (5+), and were more about disrupting and injuring enemies, especially when they were charging.
>Sword
Spatha are just straight up longer with more reach than the gladius, possibly owing to technological development. Also cooler.
>Round Shield
This one I'm not sure about. My initial thought is that it's because the late Roman infantrymen was more likely to fight in a tight shield wall. We tend to see round shields pop up with other cultures that do that (Greeks, Germanics), so perhaps it's a more beneficial design for the approach. The scutum was used during a period where the infantrymen was expected to be a bit more dispersed when fighting. Having a larger shield is more beneficial when you don't have some to your immediate left and right protecting your flanks.
The round shield is better structurally, especially as you're getting into layering materials. Scuta were squared off with a rim on the edges to reinforce those edges which made them bulky and heavy, and relied on being bent outwards at the center for structural support, while round shields with many layers of material just ate blows on the edge better naturally and could sacrifice surface area without losing structural rigidity. Just a better system all around.
The reason is that Rome's army went downhill in a huge way and people took less and less interest in joining up. This progressed until it got to a point where land owners would literally hide all the peasants when they heard that legion recruiters were coming to town both because they didn't want to lose laborers and because the peasants didn't want to join for the most part.
The cohesion of the Roman army and their once excellent standards for equipment fell with this + reliance on foreign mercenaries.
>Chain mail is literally cheaper and more effective
No. Mail is
>which was likely parade armor anyways and quite stiff and heavy
You are fricking moronic and have no idea what you're talking about. They didn't have any "parade armor" for the common soldier. Segmentata was the standard for a very long time and that's very well documented.
Mail is also heavier than plat armor that offers the same coverage. The fact that you don't know this shows that you're just clueless about armor in general.
I will never apologize for liking the segmentata. I will always default to the early empire. I never pretend Byzantium competes.
Rome will NEVER have anything as manly as the cataphract, sorry.
...Anon the Eastern Roman elite troops were all cataphracts.
Cataphracts were vanishingly rare in the Roman empire until the Byzantine period anon, mostly it was used by Rome's eastern enemies
Fair enough, you got me there: Cataphracts only become widespread during the Middle Ages.
Which is better, greatsword or spear?
That's like asking "What's better, a hammer or a saw?"
Both are tools you use depending on the context, the equipment of your army and your tactics.
Because people say spear BTFOs 2 handed swords(Is Kwan dao 2 handed sword too?)
The spear is probably the most widespread, flexible yet simple weapon ever made. You know how to use one almost by instinct, and that makes it appear as the ultimate melee weapon to some.
Yet, again, no such thing exists and it depends, as I said, on the context and the equipment of your troops. In close quarter combat spears can quickly become useless.
Spear
The answer is always spear
You will never see an army with greatswords only because it will be too difficult to mass produce and too difficult to train warriors
Meanwhile spears are extremely common place and every ruler had the same idea
>make spear longer
>Kwan dao
Thats a polearm a subclass of spear
>You will never see an army with greatswords only
You would never see an army with spears only either you midwit. Greatswords are more specialized and less flexible to use, but there are plenty of situations where spears aren't the best option. FFS Rome, the civilization we're talking about itt, famously ditched spears for shortswords because they could consistently force a melee press against weaker enemies that had no cavalry.
Speargays are hypercontrarians that saw one HEMAgay video about le unbeatable spear and just assumed that every other weapon ever created was just completely useless in the face of the almighty spear. And in fact, that weapon that you thought was good in common use, was actually just a spear with extra steps. If not, it was secretly shit, even if it was fielded en masse, because "spears have this thing called reach"
You really are moronic needing a youtuber to tell you spear good
Its common fricking sense, It was cheap and easy to learn, didnt cost too much to make and you could arm your whole army with it
>that every other weapon ever created was just completely useless
No one even fricking implied that you brain dead shit.
Stop watching youtube pedos and pick up a history book
Black person, there is a poster directly above you that implied that the gladius was secretly worthless in the face of the almighty spear and also implies that the gladius was actually just a shittier version of the spear.
Where he didnt say that did you put words in his mouth you disingenuous shit?
>hurr dey made da sords longer sose day be moah liek speer
>as though the entire benefit of the gladius wasn't in being short and easy to slip past shields in a melee press
Pretending to be moronic and just actually being moronic are the same thing my g
>hurr durr
Ok you're a seething moron. Good to know
>until they learned they didn't work
>Ctrl f Phrase not found
>Until they learned that didnt work
>and oh they made their spears longer too
>Ctrl f Phrase not found
>and oh they made their swords longer too
So i was right you do enjoy putting words into peoples mouth. He was clearly talking about the Spatha that replaced the Gladius you know a long sword that had more reach then a short sword.
These are the people that hate spears. No common sense just plain moronation and seething that their favorite weapons weren't chosen by the generals of antiquity.
I put my fricking wiener in his mouth, read his post.
.
>Until they learned that didnt work
Sorry that speargays don't know how to use apostrophes.
I read it you were just adding up to change the meaning. Congrats I can do it to
>I put my pussy in his mouth
GAY
>You were adding up to change the meaning
No you moronic Black person. He clearly implies that the gladius failed to deal with the spear. And he goes on to talk about how the increased the length of their swords (which is clearly meant to imply that they were just using them as spears with extra steps). He engaged in all the classic spearBlack persony that I pointed out, even doing the smug
>erm... reach???
bullshit.
>smug
By the way where is this cowardly c**t who liked to talk shit behind peoples back and then frick off like a b***h when things get tough.
Come on pussy.
>until they learned they didn't work
Clearly implying that the gladius failed in the face of the almighty spear.
>oh they made their spears longer too
>Turns out having reach is very important
Clearly implying that the gladius was actually just used as a shittier version of the spear.
>historylet calling one else hypercontrarians
The audacity when every history book ever talks about the dominance of the spear.
Oh really? And none of them ever discussed the Roman maniples?
You know they used spears too right.
>the spear was the dominant weapon
>okay well maybe not for the maniples, but some of the triarii used them!
The gladius was the main weapon used by the Roman maniples. Don't even try to pretend it wasn't.
>javelins arent spears
Wow. You fricking Black folk really are the dumbest shit here.
No wonder you need Hepa to teach you how weapons work.
>erm javelins are spears!!!
This is just fricking moronic. You know damn well there is a difference between a thrusting spear used in a formation and a fricking thrown javelin.
I agree you are moronic.
Sure, we'll just completely ignore the clear difference in role between a javelin and a thrusting spear used by a spear formation. You disingenuous fricking homosexual.
>throwing spears
>the disctinction between javelin and spear was slow to develop, but by classical times the HEAVY SPEAR was clearly distinguished
Can't read too but thats no surprise.
You're all pretty moronic.
>You would never see an army with spears only either you midwit.
Yes you would. The Celtics especially
>FFS Rome, the civilization we're talking about itt, famously ditched spears for shortswords because they could consistently force a melee press against weaker enemies that had no cavalry.
Until they learned that didnt work and went back to spears, and oh they made their swords longer too
Turns out having reach is very important
>Until they learned that didnt work and went back to spears, and oh they made their swords longer too
NTA but this is stupid: The gladius was used very effectively for centuries and constently defeated spearmen armies, to the point that even the greek phanlax faltered against it. That later on the technological and cultural evolution of Rome's rivals made the army go back to spears as the primary weapon doesn't take away from the fact that the gladius worked.
Might as well say that horses are shit because we use tanks in modern warfare.
>take away from the fact that the gladius worked.
Until it stopped working because people used the spear differently
Meanwhile the Gladius had to be replaced whereas the spear never changed
>skirmishing weapons like slung or thrown stones or javelins
Javelins are throwing spears. thank you for proving my point. Someone so stupid he didnt even know that wants to lecture people.
Yes reach motherfricker something thats actually a thing.
Its why in boxing people never shut up about it. Because a long arm means he can punch you and you cant punch back.
This is basic fighting 101
>He clearly implies that the gladius failed to deal with the spear.
Yeah because people found better formations for it and the gladius went to the way side never to reappear again. Meanwhile spear continued its domination. What do you call that?
> he goes on to talk about how the increased the length of their swords
Yes you moronic shit thats the romans did they increased the length of their sword. This is all documented you demented loon.
>Meanwhile the Gladius had to be replaced whereas the spear never changed
This is a lie: spears absolutely changed in shape, length and even use across roman history. By this line of argumentation you would need to say that "the gladius was always there" because romans never actually stopped using swords and instead changed for longer spathas.
>This is a lie
No its not, we name the different type of pole arms just like we name the different type of swords.
Gladius was replaced by the spatha. The spear was replaced by (insert pole arm here)
But sure we can argue gladius was always there if you want to be disingenuous.
Polearms aren't all spears you dumb Black person. Arguably Pikes aren't even spears and they're the most similar to traditional Spears.
>pole arms subclass of spear
>noooo theyre not
frick off you moronic mongoloid.
They're literally not and virtually nothing in your own posted picture could have been used effectively as a spear. Polearms are called Polearms because they are arms mounted on a fricking Pole. Spears are a subclass of polearm and not vice-versa. learn how to read.
homie you're in Turkey. It's horseBlack person land for a reason.
You're so out of your depth understanding my post that you're making my own point for me and that's funny.
>They're literally not
Again frick off with your moronation you stupid fricking piece of shit, Go watch your moronic youtubers larp instead.
>No its not, we name the different type of pole arms just like we name the different type of swords.
You said "the spear never changed" when comparing it with the gladius and that's what I called a lie because it is: Spears absolutely changed in shape and usage across roman and medieval history which is why we don't call a halberd "spear": There is no basis to pretend that the spear was somehow better than the roman gladius because the later got replaced: all of them got replaced or specialized later on.
>Yeah because people found better formations for it and the gladius went to the way side never to reappear again
Oh wow, I guess I will just ignore the countless centuries of conquest and warfare which rested on the back of heavy infantry wielding the gladius. Yeah, no shit, later military and economic innovations would change the face of warfare. But we are switching back to
>erm actually the gladius was completely useless and if I was the armchair commander of a phalanx, I would have crushed the maniples with the almighty spear because I know the super sekret spear formation to beat it 🙂
>Yes you moronic shit thats the romans did they increased the length of their sword
Mhm, and did they increase the length of their sword because they were using them as discount spears? Should they have just been using the almighty spear instead? You are engaging in the exact same fricking ridiculous speargay moronation that this whole argument started over.
>erm actually, spears *were* better than the gladius, you just think that gladius were used effectively against spears for century, but sekretly they weren't!
>erm actually the gladius could only hope to emulate half of the almighty spears power, ever heard of this thing called reach sweaty :^)
>back of heavy infantry wielding the gladius
Yeah you should when you realize Spears > Gladius
>Mhm, and did they increase the length of their sword because they were using them as discount spears
Yes you dumb shit. mhmhmhmhm thats what they did you dumb c**t. Look at this sword moronation as if swords cant be used to thrust.
You are literally using the exact same arguments that you Black folk got upset at me for calling you out for.
>that weapon that you thought was good in common use, was actually just a spear with extra steps
>If not, it was secretly shit, even if it was fielded en masse, because "spears have this thing called reach"
>uhhh gladius superior
>then why was it replaced with a long sword
>uhhhhh you're using my arguments against me, why are you implying gladius are shit WAAAAAA why bully me speargay
I know it seems that way but that's really only because you're an unironic moronic shit,
>erm... why was it replaced with the long sword???
I don't know. Is that longer sword secretly a spear now? Or is it still a sword? You fricking enormous moron.
>duurrrr reach isnt a thing hurrrr durrrr
Black person i told you from post 1 that reach was a factor. But your moronic mind couldnt factor that swords need reach too and you thought that was bullshit.
Oh cool. So is the Spatha a spear now? Was it just used as a discount (yet still more expensive to manufacture) spear? Or maybe... it fulfilled a different role from the spear because it had certain advantages which spears did not have.
Thats right anon its a spear you illiterate shit now go back and read my post use that worthless brain your prostitute mother and drunk father gave you and
LEARN TO FRICKING READ
You dumb fricking Black person, you absolute fricking gorilla. No wonder you like spears so much, because all you know how to do is chuck spears and eat watermelon, you fricking pavement ape. The key point, the single individual thing that fricking matters, is that the gladius and the spatha had certain advantages over the spear that made it preferable for the Romans to use it. Why don't you pick up a goddamn book about fricking Roman maniples instead of listening to your Zulu shaman talk about Iswandala. You fricking Black person, you absolute fricking worthless Black person.
Why are swordgays always this self conscious about losing to us spearchads? Is it because they don't measure up?
I'm not the homosexual who can't read worth shit.
Your mother must have dropped you as child or bashed your head in and thats why you're such a fricking moron
Either that or your fathers drinking fricked up your iq
Regardless you are that stupid. That even now you cant go back and read,. But thats fitting for a mongoloid such as yourself.
Dont have sex and never have offspring the word doesn't need more idiots like you in the world. Also tell your prostitute mother to get her tubes tied and cut off your fathers testicle so they cant reproduce either.
The Celts abso-goddamn-lutely used any melee weapon or tool they had on hand along with skirmishing weapons like slung or thrown stones or javelins. We also know they had swords since the bronze age and some hints of later developments in the iron age.
Stop fricking posting.
Romans were always gay. Medieval europe>Rome
Yeah. When did 2 handed sword appear in Europe?
>Romans were always gay
Gay marriage was illegal.
They had to adapt to avoid getting fricking bifurcated by the DACIAN BVLLS
Nothing personnell, kid.
But Varian wrynn showed that twin sword sucks.
wow bravo you beat the basic infantry unit with your heavy infantry that costs twice as much!
now see what happens when your homosexual ninjabros face a more comparable barbarian unit
>gar's
Byzantines had better armor.
Bipennis 😀
How did the gladius fair against heavily armored opponents?
Which heavily armored opponents? IIRC the Romans weren't really dealing with Persian/Saracen cataphracts until well past the heyday of the gladius. Either way heavy infantry had to be dealt with by cavalry.
Rome had have numerous civil wars and Roman legionaries were quite heavily armored. Also Rome was fighting the Parthians who were quite heavily armored, when the gladius was still in heavy use
>I forgot about the Parthians
Pardon me I am moronic.
Anyways the Romans got absolutely smoked at Carrhae so that about tells you what you need to know about how the tactic of forcing a heavy infantry melee press worked against highly mobile archers.
>HURRR JAVELINS ARE SPEARS
>DURR I'M GOING TO IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE POST
Breathen't
>Uhhh you should stop talking because they used javelins
>and javelins arent spears huurrrr durrr
>shut up moron
>hurrr durrr ignore me
Ok, shut the frick up moron
and swords
and chariots
and slings
and axes, hammers, and similar easily available hand tools with which to beat foreign invaders to death
all of which I brought up in my earlier post
Give me back the air you've stolen from my atmosphere with neither my consent or blessing you gigantic mongoloid.
And spears so much so that their myth only talks about spear and nothing else. Not armor just spears.
But thats inconvenient for you.
>Give me back the air you've stolen from my atmosphere
You unironically dont deserve any for being this moronic.
You don't know what the Celtic myths talk about any more than I do because their entire recorded mythology is modern figurative larp which you'd know if you were literate.
Also mythology isn't reality you, you... DOUBLE ILLITERATE.
>his story describes combat centered on the use of the spear (gae) and javelin (gá-ín) with no mention of helmets or metal armor, which is consistent and in keeping with archaeological evidence.
Yes you are DOUBLE ILLITERATE. Again you dont deserve the oxygen you breathe
That's from wikipedia you stupid homosexual and the same page talks about their bronze and iron age swords.
have a nice day now so you can die mad
Give me your address pussy. Ill meet you with a spear and you can bring a fricking knife
Lets see that reach difference you dumb c**t. You wont though
>pre bronze age
>archaeological evidence suggest no armor or swords
how convenient you neglected that
evidence suggest no armor or swords
Since we're using wikipedia as a source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_sword
>800 bc sword
>vs bronze age spear heads
wow you sure showed me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#cite_ref-16
Getting real sick of doing your fricking homework for you timmy.
>the spear was used before the sword
Wow you sure showed me. Just like how you goal post moved from iron to bronze age and yet still fricked up.
I thought the defeat at Carrhae was mainly because of strategic error and that Romans had better success against the Parthians later
What strategy would you have had the legions employ at Carrhae that would have miraculously made heavy infantry able to keep up with horse archers?
To not engage mounted archers in a god damn open, flat field for one
>mogs you
Sorry wh*toids, the Han BVLLS keep winning.
>run you through the side of the leg
What now chinaman?
>5ft fat chink thinks he would win
lol
You're in a thread about frickwads jerking off over manlet italians fricking over 6 foot tall northmen and celts anon. Also, the mongols conquered half the known world despite being manlets and riding fricking steppe ponies.
what is this armor specifically called? Google is of no help here.
Heavy infantry armour of the Song Dynasty in China 900 years ago
Lamellar armor the byzantines wore it too
looks very hard to move in
*slices ur elbow*
Why was late antiquity stuff so gay?
You see gay I see KINO
Did they really have helmets like that at the time? Because those helmets at the top straight up look like morion helmets hundreds of years in the future
That's Frankish Migration Era ("Dark Ages"), from the Carolingian period - circa 700-900 AD.
Also the Dark Ages were based, frick the Romans, frick the High Middle Ages. Rex quondam, Rexque futurus.
>guy on lower left
*TOOT*
>dark ages
>it's not dark at all
Looks kino to me
Arguing vs spear/polearm and swords is like arguing vs combat rifles vs pistols. This is fricking moronic. The latter for the most part of history were either sidearms or specialist weapons, like how dragoons or light cavalry either used carbines or pistols because a full rifle or musket would be too unwieldy on horseback while the average line infantry used actual rifles. Likewise with swords. During the renaissance, swordsmen were a niche infantry unit often employed as mercenaries while the bulk of the army were pikemen and musketeers. Like the spanish rodeleros and the german and austrian landsknechts.
'swords were secondary sidearms for most of history just like pistols' is as moronic and reductionist as 'spears were the ultimate weapon and better than literally everything and anything they weren't better than was actually just a spear!' You're just couching your reductionism in further reductionism.
The concept of 'primary' and 'secondary' weapons didn't exist, different weapons had different roles in different situations.
Top fricking playing total war dumb frick.
Take a samurai for example. He wouldn't be going to war using a katana only. He would have a yari or naginata as his main hand weapon or the yumi as his ranged weapon if he was on horseback.
There weren't armies of samurai and ashigaru using only swords. That's fricking moronic.
Julius Caesar was 48 when he personally fought and lead his troops on the frontlines at the Battle of Alesia and was 55 when he died and was planning a military campaign into Parthia. Crassus was in his 60s when he died at the Battle of Carrhae. Two of Alexander the Great's generals, Lysimachus and Antigonus I Monophthalmus died in battle at the ripe old ages of 79 and 81 respectively. Alexander's elite Silver Shields unit was composed primarily of veterans over the age of 60. Was it normal in the ancient world to have old fricks regularly going into active combat like this? Most militaries today don't even allow soldiers anywhere close to these ages to serve in active duty on battlefields today.
>Generals
Immediate fitness is less important than lucidity and mental capacity. Some folks drop off a cliff at 60s, others are fine till they die. Charlie Munger died recently at 99 and he was still functional well mentally until he died.
>Regular soldiers
If you build the strength and stamina young, you can maintain it for a long time with work. Also, discipline, experience and morale are supper important for a pike phalanx, even more so than most formations. And the Silver Shields had that in spades, hence why the flattened younger formations in the Diadochi Wars.
did i miss an artbook thread, what's with all the hyper-attentive illustrations of armor lately?
I love how you fricking homosexuals are just heavily focusing on the few centuries where a single empire dominated using a sword compared to the thousands of years in human history where foot soldiers used spears or polearms instead as a primary fighting weapon.
>HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI
>HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI
>HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI
>HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI
>HASTATI HASTATI HASTATI
How do you respond, as a Gaulian?
hope i have some of these because i know my basic infantry ain't doing SHIT
Speargays once again prove that they have exactly three arguments:
>that weapon you like was actually secretly shit compared to the spear even if it was used en masse successfully against spear formations
>that weapon you like was secretly a spear ALL ALONG! Everything is a spear! Even if it wasn't used like a thrusting spear at all!
>*austistic screeching about reach and absolutely nothing else people weren't already fully aware of*
We all know that spears are underrated. They are good weapons. But you Black folk are fricking obnoxious.
Yes thats exactly it keep seething b***h.
>dumb historylet that doesnt know formations and generals constantyl talking about spears
>hurr durrr, swords are better
Why the frick isn't there any good Rome game? Ancient Greece got Odyssey at least. I'm stuck only playing Imperator Rome.
Expeditions: Rome
For me, it's Anglo-Saxons.
If only Valhalla's armor designs actually looked like that for the most part.
They do - for the NPCs. Problem is, YOU CAN'T WEAR ANY OF THEM BECAUSE YOU'RE A SUPER SPESHUL WARCRAFT FANTASY VIKING LITERAL REINCARNATION OF ODIN
I'm willing to bet only the very wealthy had that sort of detailing on the nasal and around the eye.
You're probably right, most spectacle helmets probably looked more like the Yarm helmet or Gjermundbu rather than fancypants stuff like the Sutton Hoo or Vendel XII. Hell, the ownership of a mail aventail knitted onto the helmet to cover the face or neck was probably as pricey as the entire helmet, if not more so, even if its a fancy-pants one
disgusting vile race
>RAM RAM RAM RAM RAM
>RAM RAM RAM RAM RAM>RAM RAM RAM RAM RAM>RAM RAM RAM RAM RAM>RAM RAM RAM RAM RAM>RAM RAM RAM RAM RAM
How do you respond as a city gate?
boiling oil and fire
Send cavalry through that breaks the AI because you can’t ram an open gate, then immediately route the town watch ramming it
what was the full plate that some gladiators wore called?
Maybe the Secutor or the Provocator? I don't think any gladiator types used actual full plate, but those were pretty heavily armored.
Both a insignificant compared to a dude with a trident and a net.
>the late romans lengthened their swords because the gladius wasn't a good enough spear!
>even thought they re-adopted the spear at around the same time
It couldn't be that spears and swords do DIFFERENT things and weapons other than spears were used all the time when their specific utility was required...
No anon, they lengthened their swords to mimic a fraction of the power of spears because they didn't have wood or something idk.
Thats exactly right
Good to see you morons finally get it.
>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII>PRINCIPES TRIARII PRINCIPES TRIARII
How do you as a Carthaginian Elephant Herder respond?
chainmail pajamas > gay skirts
copius she-male bearded barbarian
But right looks better, I am sick of plateslop
but the stats are lower 🙁
>Rome develops massive crossbow siege weapons
>China develops handheld crossbows
>Rome and China communicate and trade
>Romans continue throwing shit
Why were the Romans such brainlets?
Senator Publius Maximus Erroneous has a monopoly on manufacturing ballistae for the empire and has anyone with a better idea killed
many such cases
>China develops handheld crossbows.
>He believes china.
You need to have an IQ of 95 or higher to use Ganker.
you moronic shit
Looks better. Also, they used hamata earlier too.
>thread is reposted a day later