(11-16-2016, 08:22 PM)JaM Wrote: you should then probably start to actually listen what other people are saying.. that video for example, is actually stating same thing you wrote, and I was practically advocating this the whole time (small minority did the actual fighting). It was you who declined all my posts as false, and then pushing the warrior part forward, while i was always trying to say that not all men were aggressive, not all would be willing to take those risks... you tend to dismay a video the first moment you hear name SLA Marshal, ignoring other valid comments and sources in it, together with a valid conclusion that has been made at the end.. so do yourself a favor, and watch that video to the end if you want to dismay it...
And yes, i went into extremes, but that was just to show you how ridiculous your propositions sounds, that was the main reason behind the shield example, and by no means i was trying to dismay the usefulness of the shield..But over those few months i've been active on this forum, i noticed your tendency to fight the discussion battles just for sake to win an argument, no matter what cost (like when you celebrated when i admitted that overarm might be also used in combat, forgetting that i said ALSO, and not that it was exclusive use btw)... Personally, i have no time for a troll fights, as i said before, i came here to look for interesting information to expand my knowledge, i've been using in my gaming or modding work.
Troll attacks? I'm not the one who only recently started posting on RAT to discuss things that the rest of us have been discussing for years. You tried throwing Grossman in our faces, then Marshall, not even knowing that the more you mentioned it revealed how little you actually know about this subject. As I've discussed before, mentioning either name is akin to trying to lecture others about Roman history while using Dando-Collins as a source, it says more about the speaker's ignorance than they'd wish it to, better to remain silent.
I dismissed the video because Lindybiege often talks out his butt about things he doesn't really understand at all, and I didn't care to waste another 15 minutes listening to him trying to prove anything when the very first source he lists is the most blatant lie in the entire subject. I don't care what you have to say about the subject if you start out with "And as it was written, the sun revolves around the earth", or any other outdated and incorrect piece of historical knowledge. Marshall, and all who use his work to discuss the subject of combat psychology, all are wrong and the minute someone uses them as a source they discredit themselves automatically because it proves their ignorance on the subject.
Let me be clear on my view that Roman culture was a warrior culture. They didn't think like you. They believed in concepts like virtus, which is so alien to modern culture we have trouble even defining it. They believed in a level of Stoicism more reminiscent of Imperial Japan than modern America or Europe. Stop trying to place your values and understanding of violence and fighting, which appears limited to what you learned on the internet, to the historical record which says the complete opposite of what you are preaching. So if you don't understand them at all, if you simply refuse to accept that their culture is as alien to your own as yours is to say Vikings or Samurai, then you will have no ability to describe how they fought. Because you don't understand them.
Frankly, the more you try to use shield size to defend your theory, the deeper the hole you dig. Romans didn't choose the scutum because it allowed them to hide better. It was a shield type tied to them by cultural tradition. They kept using it because it was relatively cheap and easy to make, durable, had offensive capabilities as well as defensive, and because it protected the whole body, head to toe, while being light enough to maneuver easy enough to not be a hindrance in close combat or on the march. Its large size didn't mean the men who carried them were timid fighters hiding behind a wall, especially since numerous sources describing Romans in battle specifically say they didn't fight in a shield wall, they fought up close as individual swordsman.
If you want info to help your gaming mod, then the best way would be to ask questions instead of drawing conclusions and then getting upset and defensive when others correct them.
(09-05-2016, 08:46 AM)JaM Wrote: my few lines on this topic:
Human Psychology is the same, it doesn't changes just because society values life less or more. Every single normal human being is not suicidal,and would struggle against dangers where he could possible lose life. His instincts would kick in and would try to survive, its coded into our DNA..
Explain Crastinus' Charge. Explain Spartans at Thermopylae. Explain the Samurai and later Imperial Japanese Army.
but back to combat psychology - large majority of men would not put themselves into danger. Of course, as in any society, there would be a certain percentage of men who are psychologically "changed" and would actually seek direct danger, but that's not what the average human would do. Average soldier would look at his own protection, hitting and killing an enemy in close combat would be his last concern, and he would only do that if he is sure with own safety. Plus, a large amount of population would be practically "cowards" who would just turn and run once in vicinity of danger.
Explain why large numbers of young men put themselves in grave danger during WWI and WWII.
So actual close combat would be a clash of two groups of men, where everybody tries to keep himself at distance from the danger, and strike from protected position, while on both sides there would be few "brave" who would actually fight to kill, not looking for own safety. Yet, if one group gets into slightly disadvantageous position, those cowardly would just turn and run away, while others, knowing they don't have anybody backing them would have no choice but run as well..
Explain why the "brave" men of ancient, medieval, and modern warfare all used defensive means of protecting themselves, while still trying to kill the enemy. And how their equipment differed in almost no way from the common soldier.
Personally, i like the work of Alexander Zhmodikov on this topic, who suggested that Roman Legionarii didn't only use their pila at the charge, but actually used them continuously during entire battle. Units clashed for few minutes, then separated, reorganized, and clashed again, and javelins were quite ideal weapon to reach not so distant enemy before another clash. Battles therefore were practically a sum of multiple luls and clashes on the battlefield, with relatively low losses from direct fighting, until one side's morale broke. Typically, there was about 5% casualties taken from direct fighting, which was usually same on both sides, then when rout happened, routing side was just decimated by the victors, creating those huge casualties we are reading about..
Zhmodikov demonstrated that there was more than one way of killing the enemy. And by throwing the pila and hit an enemy that would put the Romans within range of their enemy's missile weapons as well, meaning they too were put in a risky situation where they could become a casualty. Did they stay out of missile range of the enemy? No. Which means your theory is wrong.
Human Psychology is also main reason why i dont buy the teories about Hoplite pushing matches. Soldiers in front would really hate to be pushed towards the enemy while they are
fighting them.. to fight, you need space, but if you are pushed in the back from behind, your own men are denying you the space to fight effectively, which would just create a rout much easily
Why is it then that when people watch videos of knife fights they see one or both fighters rapidly closing with the enemy to stick them?
If you stack warriors deeply and the lead ranker closes the distance with the enemy infantry, and everyone else follows the promachoi, then it creates a crush of body when the promachoi hits the enemy rank. The next logical thing that happens is that this crush turns into a shoving match, with close range stabbing and cutting happening with swords and daggers, which is othismos.
Some more info on why you're wrong. You're in italics.
