Page 21 of 31
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:51 am
by Sionnach Glic
Mikey wrote:I'd still rather see contemporaries, such as a centurion versus a Gallic warrior or Goth.
Personally, I prefer the show's concept of pitting warriors that would never have really encountered each other.
Though if it's barbarian vs centurion, I'd actually put my money on the barbarians for that.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:05 pm
by Mikey
In individual combat I'd agree, except for the pilum (as I mentioned in my naswer to Lighthawk.) An Ostrogoth trying to charge and defend with a full-length spear hanging from his shield tends to be at a disadvantage.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:20 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Quite true, that could easily swing it for the Roman.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:56 pm
by Tyyr
Tweaking the show to give it some legitimacy wouldn't be that hard. Simply subjecting similar weapons to the same test would solve a lot of issue. Going back to the egregious Spetznaz vs. Green Berets show give the grenades the same test (something non-subjective like dummies in the ground as opposed to a washing machine... wtf?), have the same neutral guy fire the guns from a bench rest, etc. Make the testing a bit more rigorous rather than showy and it'll up its credibility a ton.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:00 pm
by Captain Seafort
Sionnach Glic wrote:Quite true, that could easily swing it for the Roman.
Not only that but the typical Roman squaddie, especially one experienced enough and good enough to reach Centurion, was a skilled fighter in his own right. The Legions certainly relied on discipline and teamwork to achieve what they did, but individual skill was crucial. Indeed, the formation wasn't designed to work as a single block, but as mutually supporting individuals. They didn't even form a shield wall, as that would have inhibited individual freedom of action, but left enough space around each legionary to allow him to fight his own battles while staying close enough to his colleagues to support them and be supported himself.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:22 pm
by Mikey
Captain Seafort wrote:They didn't even form a shield wall
The common use of the
testudo (tortoise) formation would sort of contradict that:
I'm not sure individual skill would be a determinant in this case anyway. Remember that the typical Goth or Vandal warrior spent his life developing, and based his manhood and reputation, on fighting prowess. Rather, I believe the difference would be kit - the pilum as I mentioned, as well as better armor and more role-specific weaponry. Historically, the difference was in coordination and leadership, until that broke down for Rome. If the individual skill of the Roman legionnaire was superior, they wouldn't have ended up paying a yearly ransom and ceding Hungary to Attila.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:33 pm
by Deepcrush
The testudo wasn't an attack formation but a defensive formation.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:38 pm
by Captain Seafort
Mikey wrote:The common use of the testudo (tortoise) formation would sort of contradict that:
The testudo was an assault formation - I'm talking about their typical formation in a pitched battle between armies.
I'm not sure individual skill would be a determinant in this case anyway. Remember that the typical Goth or Vandal warrior spent his life developing, and based his manhood and reputation, on fighting prowess.
As did the Romans. The legionaries have become stereotyped as successful solely due to their discipline and formation which, while largely true, isn't the whole story. Individual prowess in battle was both encouraged and rewarded, so long as it worked to further the collective success rather than against it.
Rather, I believe the difference would be kit - the pilum as I mentioned, as well as better armor and more role-specific weaponry.
Certainly, but the individual skill would also play a great role. I'm simply trying to counter the common tendency to see the legionaries as kit, discipline and formation, and not much else.
Historically, the difference was in coordination and leadership, until that broke down for Rome. If the individual skill of the Roman legionnaire was superior, they wouldn't have ended up paying a yearly ransom and ceding Hungary to Attila.
Why? Outnumbered, with coordination breaking down and with more and more foreigners incorporated into the army to maintain numbers, it's not surprising that the Empire fell apart despite the skill of the individuals. There's also the issue, again, of who we're talking about - the legionaries from the height of the Empire, with the lÅrÄ«ca segmentÄta and curved shield that form the popular public image of the legions, or the somewhat differently attired legionaries of the latter Imperial period, with chain mail and oval shield.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:57 pm
by Mikey
Captain Seafort wrote:I'm talking about their typical formation in a pitched battle between armies.
Very well. I read this:
Captain Seafort wrote:They didn't even form a shield wall, as that would have inhibited individual freedom of action, but left enough space around each legionary to allow him to fight his own battles while staying close enough to his colleagues to support them and be supported himself.
Captain Seafort wrote:Individual prowess in battle was both encouraged and rewarded, so long as it worked to further the collective success rather than against it.
Captain Seafort wrote: I'm simply trying to counter the common tendency to see the legionaries as kit, discipline and formation, and not much else.
Oh, I agree with you. My point is just that I don't think individual martial skill would be significantly one-sided toward either a Goth or a Roman legionnaire.
Captain Seafort wrote:Why? Outnumbered, with coordination breaking down and with more and more foreigners incorporated into the army to maintain numbers, it's not surprising that the Empire fell apart despite the skill of the individuals.
Well, that's sort of my whole point. Individual skill of a Roman soldier couldn't have dropped off markedly enough to effect that change - rather, the difference (and therefore significant impact) was in coordination, leadership, and ultimately internal politics.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:59 am
by The piman
could this testudo formation be compared to the technique used by the Urak-Hai in the Two Towers during the battle for Helm's Deep?
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:03 am
by Tsukiyumi
I just watched the Spartan vs Ninja episode, and I have to say: nobody on earth ever could fight effectively after having glass thrown in their eyes. I have to call bullsh*t on that. The chili eggs, maybe, but glass? It would blind you within seconds, I don't care how tough you are.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:51 am
by Deepcrush
The piman wrote:could this testudo formation be compared to the technique used by the Urak-Hai in the Two Towers during the battle for Helm's Deep?
They did use it at the Battle of the Hornburg.
Tsukiyumi wrote:I just watched the Spartan vs Ninja episode, and I have to say: nobody on earth ever could fight effectively after having glass thrown in their eyes. I have to call bullsh*t on that. The chili eggs, maybe, but glass? It would blind you within seconds, I don't care how tough you are.
Remember, the final fight you see is the combined effects of 1000 simulated fights. In fact, the glass egg was a large part of the Ninja's successful kills. Another problem was the range needed meant that the Ninja would use the "Glass egg attack" at the same time as the Spartan used a spear, sword or shield "attack". The tests are meant to be simo.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:59 am
by Mark
Here are some of the advertised matchups for season 2!
Attila the Hun vs. Alexander the Great,
Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior,
Jesse James Gang vs. Al Capone Gang,
Persian Immortal vs. Celt,
Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior,
Somali Pirate vs. Medellin Cartel,
Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong,
KGB vs. CIA,
Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu,
Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer,
Comanche vs. Mongol
and
Navy Seal vs. Israeli Commando
courtasy of
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/small ... 20-preview
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:13 am
by Deepcrush
Looking good, I've already got some bets in mind.
Mark wrote:Attila the Hun vs. Alexander the Great,
I'm betting on Alexander. Both are great horsemen, both are skilled fighters, Alexander has the advantage in armor.
Jesse James Gang vs. Al Capone Gang,
Al Capone, we're talking tommy's vs six-shooters.
Persian Immortal vs. Celt,
Celt, powerhouse of bloodshed vs a warrior who've I've never been impressed with.
Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior,
Roman Centurion, the best of what Roman had to offer as far as superior heavy infantry. Though I think a lot of it will come to the ranged weapons and if the Rajput can get past the Roman shield.
Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu,
Sun Tzu, the man who designed modern combat doctrine. I've never heard anything to make me believe Vlad could even touch him.
Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer,
This is hardly fair but I'd say the Musketeer. He could get several shots off before the Ming Warrior could even get to him. Even after that, Musketeers were no joke with sword fighting.
Comanche vs. Mongol
If it were just a ranged fight I'd give it to the Mongol but I doubt it will stay a ranged fight. Up close I'd bet on the Comanche.
Re: Weapons and Warfare
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:24 am
by Tsukiyumi
Mark wrote:Comanche vs. Mongol
Mongol is f*cked, up close or at a distance.
No, it's not just personal bias; the Comanche were the last tribe to surrender to the US, and our battle tactics were supreme. We just didn't have the numbers or resources to keep fighting.