You are clearly asserting that because the Romans carried a large shield, that was heavy, it meant they didn't want to expose themselves to kill the enemy. You're wrong. The large shield is what allowed them to close with the enemy close enough to kill them. No matter which MMA fighter you bring up, no matter the Vikings, naked Gauls, or any other, you are wrong because you just don't get that having a good defense allows one to have a great offense. Its not one or the other. A counter puncher is a defensive boxer who attacks as a riposte, but that doesn't make them overly cautious, hesitant, or fearful, its just the style they choose to use because for them it suits them and more importantly, helps them win fights and beat the crap out of other people. The Roman fighting method up close was very similar, they relied a lot on counter attacks as a way of defeating the enemy. Take a sword to the scutum, block it and attack around it. Etc. It didn't speak for timid soldiers, which is what you keep promoting, what Lindy keeps promoting, because neither of you really understand the mindset or fighting.
you clearly misunderstood what i was writing about. You are overgeneralizing the subject, making it sound like ancient soldiers were some superhuman or robots who killed without any concern to own safety, and would throw themselves into danger just to have a chance for hitting the enemy (like of they were zombies), yet every single battle description of ancient battle describes over and over that majority of casualties happened only after one side routed, while actual casualties from direct combat were very small.. Your view is flawed because you failed to take these into assumption and you are mistakenly assuming just because there were individuals that would throw their lives in vain, EVERY SINGLE ANCIENT SOLDIER WOULD DO THE SAME...
By all means can I say that Hannibal's victory was due in no small number to the Spanish infantry, who made up about half of the infantry line, who performed the complicated maneuver (retreat in contact, without routing) remarkably well. Who was Hannibal fighting with during the battle? The Spanish and Celtic infantry, that's who, because they intricate for his overall plan to work. And they did do exactly what they wanted, because they were skilled enough to pull it off. Two thousand and some years later you don't get to take away their achievement simply because you don't understand how shields work.
And i call it BS, composition of Hannibal's army was just a minor feature, other Carthaginian generals who on Iberian troops were defeated thoroughly when facing Romans. Iberians were just a tool Hannibal used, he would have won that battle with different nationality of troops available.. and besides, Iberians were not composing 50% of his infantry, Hannibal had also his African Infantry with him, and it was them who decided the battle by attacking the flanks. Besides, Iberians and Celts did not feinted retreat, but were slowly pushed back. If anything, Hannibal considered both Celts and Iberians expendable and that is why he placed them in the front. he expected them to be pushed back, same way as they were pushed back at Trebia. Two thousands years later you dont get to take away Hannibal's achievement because you dont understand his tactics... (besides, what exactly his have to do with the shields..)
I know exactly what goes into producing a high quality fighting man, because I SERVED FOR 11 YEARS AS IN INFANTRYMAN IN THE US MILITARY, INCLUDING TWO YEARS IN ACTUAL COMBAT, WITH BULLETS FLYING, PEOPLE DYING.
I know a lot of veterans from that war, yet not single one claim to be expert on ancient combat because of that experience.. you are the first...
you clearly misunderstood what i was writing about. You are overgeneralizing the subject, making it sound like ancient soldiers were some superhuman or robots who killed without any concern to own safety, and would throw themselves into danger just to have a chance for hitting the enemy (like of they were zombies), yet every single battle description of ancient battle describes over and over that majority of casualties happened only after one side routed, while actual casualties from direct combat were very small.. Your view is flawed because you failed to take these into assumption and you are mistakenly assuming just because there were individuals that would throw their lives in vain, EVERY SINGLE ANCIENT SOLDIER WOULD DO THE SAME...
By all means can I say that Hannibal's victory was due in no small number to the Spanish infantry, who made up about half of the infantry line, who performed the complicated maneuver (retreat in contact, without routing) remarkably well. Who was Hannibal fighting with during the battle? The Spanish and Celtic infantry, that's who, because they intricate for his overall plan to work. And they did do exactly what they wanted, because they were skilled enough to pull it off. Two thousand and some years later you don't get to take away their achievement simply because you don't understand how shields work.
And i call it BS, composition of Hannibal's army was just a minor feature, other Carthaginian generals who on Iberian troops were defeated thoroughly when facing Romans. Iberians were just a tool Hannibal used, he would have won that battle with different nationality of troops available.. and besides, Iberians were not composing 50% of his infantry, Hannibal had also his African Infantry with him, and it was them who decided the battle by attacking the flanks. Besides, Iberians and Celts did not feinted retreat, but were slowly pushed back. If anything, Hannibal considered both Celts and Iberians expendable and that is why he placed them in the front. he expected them to be pushed back, same way as they were pushed back at Trebia. Two thousands years later you dont get to take away Hannibal's achievement because you dont understand his tactics... (besides, what exactly his have to do with the shields..)
I know exactly what goes into producing a high quality fighting man, because I SERVED FOR 11 YEARS AS IN INFANTRYMAN IN THE US MILITARY, INCLUDING TWO YEARS IN ACTUAL COMBAT, WITH BULLETS FLYING, PEOPLE DYING.
I know a lot of veterans from that war, yet not single one claim to be expert on ancient combat because of that experience.. you are the first...
Jaroslav Jakubov
