Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. #11
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,092
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeFan View Post
    You could always purchase Cold Steel's Self Defense with a Spear, which is funny in itself
    Cold Steel's fighting with the spear doesn't really account for the use of the shield in one hand (just sometimes transferring to a secondary weapon like a knife to counter someone grabbing your spear). It seems that if you actually got some training spears and shields with the correct design you could figure things out pretty well if you have a background in weapon arts. Might be fun to make some of them shields.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    117
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I doubt the spear would be dropped the soldier would have wanted a reach advantage thus a sword especially the short sword of the roman empire would be employed only has a last resort weapon.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    220
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Angrydog View Post
    I doubt the spear would be dropped the soldier would have wanted a reach advantage thus a sword especially the short sword of the roman empire would be employed only has a last resort weapon.
    Actually, the Roman army was the only standing army* ever which used the sword as a primary weapon. Unlike the greeks beforehand, whose phalanx relied on spears first and swords secondarily, the romans used their spears almost exclusively for throwing, relying on their short, heavy and ugly gladii for close combat.

  4. #14
    Putting the "ow" back in "flowery technique"
    NJM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,681
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by odysseus_dallas View Post
    Actually, the Roman army was the only standing army* ever which used the sword as a primary weapon. Unlike the greeks beforehand, whose phalanx relied on spears first and swords secondarily, the romans used their spears almost exclusively for throwing, relying on their short, heavy and ugly gladii for close combat.
    Which period of Roman history are we talking? What about the pilum, wasn't that used as a primary weapon before the gladius?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Ive done my dissertation and am doing my postgrad research on the practical nature of Greek warfare, because most scholarshi[p on the matter is based on theoretics and assumptions with no real weight behind them. The best up to date secondary material on the matter available is 'Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities by Hans Van Wees', 'The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson' as posted above is a very outdated and theoretical intepretation of Greek warfare, stating that Greek warfare mainly conformed to set rules, entire hoplite battles in the Classical period consisted of drawn out scrums ( the othismos), and that hoplites needed no weapon training, all weightless theories which have now been disproven.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    220
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by NJM View Post
    Which period of Roman history are we talking? What about the pilum, wasn't that used as a primary weapon before the gladius?
    The pilum was exactly that- a heavy, throwing javelin designed to be thrown when closing in.



    See how the metal tip is rather long? This was intended so that if the Pilum didn't hit its mark, it would bend so as not to be immediately usable and re-throwable by an opponent (something that often happened to Greeks).

    We're talking classical Rome, mostly- early Rome is too Greek, and late Rome (200 AD etc) is slowly changing towards more medieval terms (lots of mounted cavalry, for starters).

  7. #17
    Putting the "ow" back in "flowery technique"
    NJM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,681
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm still not seeing swords as primary weapons, though.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    220
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by NJM View Post
    I'm still not seeing swords as primary weapons, though.
    Seeing as a Roman Infantryman went to war with tree main offensive weapons- his spear, sword and dagger-, and the first was one-shot while the third was a last-resort weapon, it does appear to me as a primary weapon.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by NJM View Post
    I'm still not seeing swords as primary weapons, though.
    The sword was a primary weapon in Roman warfare, hence the training regime of using much heavier swords against training targets so that when a Roman soldier actually used his gladius it would be easier to maneuver. Mediterranean warfare went through three main stages of development:

    NOTE: all armies had daggers as last resort weapons, but with the Greek hoplites, it was probably who could afford them in the earlier periods

    Greek Warfare: Bronze faced Hoplon shield, (3 feet in diameter) a two metre long spear which was the primary weapon (could gain much more leverage to pierce hoplite armour with a spear) and a short stabbing sword (the Spartan 'Jugglers sword' was notoriously small, hence its secondary nature).

    Macedonian Warfare: The long 'Sarissa' spear (13-14ft) wielded by two hands, lighter armour than a hoplite, and a smaller shield than the hoplite which could be slung over the shoulder by means of a leather strap when the sarissa was being used. This type of equipment was developed by Philip II to defeat the professional hoplite front lines (the long Sarissa nulified the attacking ability of the front lines due to their supreme length).

    Roman Warfare: Pilum, throwing javelin (60cm long), larger shield covering the body (42 inches high) and a gladius (sword). The large roman shield was unprecendented as main equipment of an army in the mediterranean, and allowed the Roman legions to nulify the use of the Sarissa because of the large amount of full body protection they had with it, which aided their win at Pydna. The Roman Gladius also was not a stabbing sword in particular, but rather a hacking and stabbing sword, which was also slightly heavier than its Greek predecessor.

    So the large amount of frontal protection the Roman shields offered allowed them to have a shorter range weapon (the gladius) to attack with, and the attacking motion of hacking was easier to do over the top of this large shield.

    Hope this helps.
    Last edited by rydam; 3/02/2009 8:29pm at .

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    117
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I tried to qoute Oddyssyeus but couldnt so I,m sorry about this having no qoute. Yes I actually remember hearing that somewhere So only apply what I said to the greeks, my bad.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO