Men under fire vs men under javelins

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!<br>
All the above points are excellent. I'll add one more possible consideration: Noise. Guns and explosives make a lot, and that can be horribly intimidating. Frederick the Great, in the 18th century, had lots of opportunities to experiment with differen tactics and methods. He found that when his armies fired their muskets by companies, the fire was much more controlled and caused more causalties among the enemy. But when he had them fire altogether by much larger regiments or brigades, the physical effect was much less (fewer hits), but the psychological effect more than made up for it!<br>
<br>
Gunfire tends to make people hit the deck and burrow. You can even hear bullets going past, which would definitely make me cringe. And of course you can't see bullets unless they are tracers, so you don't necessarily know when something is coming your way. All of this would tend to make men not want to come up far enough to shoot back. There are accounts from the 18th century of soldiers clumping together in half-crouched clumps, as if trying to shelter from heavy rain, while under fire--it was very hard to keep orderly lines. (Invites a bayonet charge!)<br>
<br>
Javelins and even arrows, on the other hand, can be seen in time enough to dodge or block, though of course you can't necessarily avoid them all. It must have been bad to watch incoming pila, however, knowing that even if you blocked it, it could still punch through your shield and give you a second navel. There is at least one account of Germans (I think) who were catching Roman javelins in flight and chucking them back, so obviously they are watching carefully and not just cowering under their shields praying.<br>
<br>
But overall, the only noise in an ancient battle would come from the men themselves (or horns, or shield-pounding), not the same kind of impact as gunfire.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Matthew/Quintus <p></p><i></i>