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.
yeah right... with the exception that Samurai were the least reliable thing Japan armies had in their ranks, and all the major fighting was done by Ashigaru forces.. Samurai usually were more interested in fighting each other than listening to orders... so your example falls very short here.. And whole idea that ancient people had different instincts than us, that they didnt had self-preservation instinct is a BS. Ancient soldiers were not machines, as i repeatedly wrote here. they didnt fought to the death, if there was other option (run away), same way as soldiers in more modern times (let say Napoleonic wars)
And again, I already told you your WW1 example is faulty - soldiers who did not charged when ordered were sentenced to death.. those men had no other choice, either be executed, or charge against the machinegun fire.. same thing with WW2 and Russian soldiers, who were sent into charges even without weapons. They had no choice, and human psychology accepts unknown danger more than certain one (death squad, KGB Komisaar with a handgun aiming at your head)
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.
Oh really, yet fun fact is, that Scutum is just a latin word describing a shield... could be used to describe ANY shield... so here goes your cultural tradition with it... Romans were practical people, had no issue actually using whatever worked best, be it Clippeus, Scutum or whatever shield they used over time..
Republican scutum is actually the least maneuverable shield available, with 7-10kg heavy it was definitely the heaviest shield in use by that time.. so there is obviously a reason why they rather used this heavy shield instead of lighter ones... and for warrior style duel combat outside of formation small bucklers would be much more preferable (as it was thorough the history, look at late Medieval/renaissance duel manuals, no swordsman would carry a Pavise into a duel against opponent with buckler - and im not taliking about light hand pavise but normal 125x75mm 7.5-10kg late medieval Pavise - Pavise was btw same weight and size as Roman Republican Scutum)... but for formation fighting, Scutum gave Romans advantage. Just because some historians (who are most likely not former Roman soldiers) wrote that they fought as individuals, it doesnt automatically mean they fought individually and did not rely on formations and support of others.. It actually doesnt matter how tight or open formation they used, they could easily just send men from second rank closer to form tighter formation when needed. Whole idea that they formed perfect square/rectangle formations and stood there like a tin soldiers is ridiculous. And yes, they didnt used shield wall in term of interlocked shields, yet shield wall of men having shields post on the ground and covering behind them was used often, and its something mentioned a lot. (Wars against Jugurtha, Socii wars, Civil Wars etc etc...)
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.
Nobody says they were outside of range of enemy missile weapons... both sides would use whatever ranged weapons they had at their disposal during luls.. why would it be otherwise??? Are you suggesting men would just stood there, having javelins in their arms and would just wait until got to them? or would they just put their javelins on the ground? NO. They would try to use them, and luls were ideal time when these weapons could be used. Another example - In 18-19.century, during bayonet charges, it was more common to get shot from charging enemy than being stabbed by bayonet.. soldiers chose to fire their weapon, than stab enemy into guts... Thing is, if you have a means to kill enemy at range, no matter how short that range is, you will take it... And with Romans, Pilum was considered to be a primary weapon, gladius was secondary... its more than probable heavy socketted pilum was used as a spear in close combat, and gladius was only used when Legionary already throw both his pila at the enemy.
oh and btw, thats not my theory, that's ZHMODIKOV's theory... Or you wanna say Zhmodikov is also a fraud and his work was disproved too???
And regarding self-preservation instinct... everybody has it, except for psychically very sick individuals.. its the instinct that prevents you from jumping from a tall building, or running yourself with a knife.. (i have a very personal experience with this one actually, one of my friends got a paranoia, he wanted to kill himself, run away from home, we were searching the woods for 2 days looking for him.. we found him eventually, luckily alive, he had a knife marks on his belly, as he wanted to run himself with a knife, but it was just too much for him and he couldnt do it.. he got treatment and is well now, yet he had few relapses..) Yes, self preservation instinct can be "overriden" but its not something just anybody is capable doing.. fanatism, belief that his death will grant him ethernal life is one thing.. yet even ISIS usually "drafts" psychically damaged people for suicide bombings...
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.
funny that you say that..as each time i ask you to back your claim with some sources, i get nothing, you tend to just bashing my posts, how wrong they are, but you give nothing relevant back.. so no surprise im getting upset with your style of response..
yeah right... with the exception that Samurai were the least reliable thing Japan armies had in their ranks, and all the major fighting was done by Ashigaru forces.. Samurai usually were more interested in fighting each other than listening to orders... so your example falls very short here.. And whole idea that ancient people had different instincts than us, that they didnt had self-preservation instinct is a BS. Ancient soldiers were not machines, as i repeatedly wrote here. they didnt fought to the death, if there was other option (run away), same way as soldiers in more modern times (let say Napoleonic wars)
And again, I already told you your WW1 example is faulty - soldiers who did not charged when ordered were sentenced to death.. those men had no other choice, either be executed, or charge against the machinegun fire.. same thing with WW2 and Russian soldiers, who were sent into charges even without weapons. They had no choice, and human psychology accepts unknown danger more than certain one (death squad, KGB Komisaar with a handgun aiming at your head)
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.
Oh really, yet fun fact is, that Scutum is just a latin word describing a shield... could be used to describe ANY shield... so here goes your cultural tradition with it... Romans were practical people, had no issue actually using whatever worked best, be it Clippeus, Scutum or whatever shield they used over time..
Republican scutum is actually the least maneuverable shield available, with 7-10kg heavy it was definitely the heaviest shield in use by that time.. so there is obviously a reason why they rather used this heavy shield instead of lighter ones... and for warrior style duel combat outside of formation small bucklers would be much more preferable (as it was thorough the history, look at late Medieval/renaissance duel manuals, no swordsman would carry a Pavise into a duel against opponent with buckler - and im not taliking about light hand pavise but normal 125x75mm 7.5-10kg late medieval Pavise - Pavise was btw same weight and size as Roman Republican Scutum)... but for formation fighting, Scutum gave Romans advantage. Just because some historians (who are most likely not former Roman soldiers) wrote that they fought as individuals, it doesnt automatically mean they fought individually and did not rely on formations and support of others.. It actually doesnt matter how tight or open formation they used, they could easily just send men from second rank closer to form tighter formation when needed. Whole idea that they formed perfect square/rectangle formations and stood there like a tin soldiers is ridiculous. And yes, they didnt used shield wall in term of interlocked shields, yet shield wall of men having shields post on the ground and covering behind them was used often, and its something mentioned a lot. (Wars against Jugurtha, Socii wars, Civil Wars etc etc...)
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.
Nobody says they were outside of range of enemy missile weapons... both sides would use whatever ranged weapons they had at their disposal during luls.. why would it be otherwise??? Are you suggesting men would just stood there, having javelins in their arms and would just wait until got to them? or would they just put their javelins on the ground? NO. They would try to use them, and luls were ideal time when these weapons could be used. Another example - In 18-19.century, during bayonet charges, it was more common to get shot from charging enemy than being stabbed by bayonet.. soldiers chose to fire their weapon, than stab enemy into guts... Thing is, if you have a means to kill enemy at range, no matter how short that range is, you will take it... And with Romans, Pilum was considered to be a primary weapon, gladius was secondary... its more than probable heavy socketted pilum was used as a spear in close combat, and gladius was only used when Legionary already throw both his pila at the enemy.
oh and btw, thats not my theory, that's ZHMODIKOV's theory... Or you wanna say Zhmodikov is also a fraud and his work was disproved too???
And regarding self-preservation instinct... everybody has it, except for psychically very sick individuals.. its the instinct that prevents you from jumping from a tall building, or running yourself with a knife.. (i have a very personal experience with this one actually, one of my friends got a paranoia, he wanted to kill himself, run away from home, we were searching the woods for 2 days looking for him.. we found him eventually, luckily alive, he had a knife marks on his belly, as he wanted to run himself with a knife, but it was just too much for him and he couldnt do it.. he got treatment and is well now, yet he had few relapses..) Yes, self preservation instinct can be "overriden" but its not something just anybody is capable doing.. fanatism, belief that his death will grant him ethernal life is one thing.. yet even ISIS usually "drafts" psychically damaged people for suicide bombings...
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.
funny that you say that..as each time i ask you to back your claim with some sources, i get nothing, you tend to just bashing my posts, how wrong they are, but you give nothing relevant back.. so no surprise im getting upset with your style of response..
Jaroslav Jakubov
