[Low-tech] Historical "enemies"

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by John Smith

You are right, although most conflicts consisted of the men in the front ranks of both armies (those who actually knew how to fight; we're talking small armies here) killing a few dozen of each other then the least disciplined side (or the one that took the most casualties) would rout without being pursued. Often, the outnumbered side would just walk away and the "winners" would be recognised as winning the dispute that started the war. In bigger wars with combined arms, things were, of course, different - but most Greeks never saw one.

I think the point was that their simply wasn't enough room in a phalanx for fighting skill to be in high demand.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by John Smith

1. No. They are supposed to represent the boiled cowhide armor some hoplites did wear. Also, the REAL linothorax is actually bronze plate faced with linen. All-linen armor is plain ridiculous, as is thinking hoplites held their spears in Reverse Grip.

Homer is the only person who ever used the term linothorax in a Greek text and it isn't a label but an adjective that simply refers to someone who is "armoured in linen". He likely invented the word so that it didn't upset the meter of his poem. Classical texts also just call them "linen armour" - e.g. thorakes linoi or thorakes hoi linoi. It definitely was NOT bronze plate faced with linen but a rigid construction of multiple layers of textile (usually linen) quilted together. There is one confirmed surviving example and one or two other possible examples. It is exactly the same construction that has been used by other cultures for at least 3000 years. Examples include the European padded jack, Indian peti, Aztec ichcahuipilli, Spanish escaupil, etc etc and it has been demonstrated that it provides far better protection than hardened leather of a similar weight.

Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that hoplites DID hold their spears in reverse grip.

[DanHoward]

The phalanx is no more fancy than a shield wall. The whole point of it was to make untrained fighters effective in combat. Discipline was more important than skill. If the shield wall remained intact then the men stood a good chance of surviving. Most fatalities occurred after one side broke and routed.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Given that knowing how to fight in a phalanx was a default skill for any Greek citizen with Average Status, maybe Soldier skill would cover it rather then give it a special skill of it's own. Unless there are enough barbarians in the campaign for there to be a need to emphasize skill at the Greek fighting style.

I think we need to make a distinction between a hoplite who is participating in his cities phalanx as a matter of civic duty, and the professional mercenary who fights for pay. Conflicts between most cities and their phalanx were likely bloodless, with one side losing nerve before the shields ever meet, and fleeing the battlefield. Mercenaries, on the other hand, were noted for their ability to march long distances, perform difficult battlefield maneuvers(such as Counter marching) and fight well.

The Phalanx is not a magical formation: cramming men together with shields and spears has been a battle-tested technique for millenia, predating the classical greeks. The classical greek argive shield, on the otherhand, is somewhat unique amongst shields for it's construction and especially suited for the massed shoving of greek warfare.

Soldier skill should cover fighting in a greek phalanx(though a simple style lens of hoplamachia "stripped down" would work well, too, and compliment soldier), but most greeks should not be especially skilled at this. The "professional" soldier is a mercenary, not a farmer who picks up his aspis and dory and goes to war.

Ninjad by Dan, of course. Dagnabbit.

[John Smith]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that hoplites DID hold their spears in reverse grip.

What evidence?
This and this suggest otherwhise, based on common sense. Why would you ever use a 7-foot spear in reverse grip? It would basically halve your reach, limit the angles from which you can attack, make it more awkward to aim your thrusts, and make it basically useless for parrying... while giving you a slightly stronger thrust. Also, it made you look cooler, which is why that pose is often found in vase paintings.

Also, there is only one example, a small piece, of what you'd call a "linothorax", from a Mycenian tomb, and nothing suggests it was used as armor; the only time the word was ever used is, as you say, by Homer. It would be like thinking modern soldiers use flintlocks because of poems written in the 1700s... actually, the gap between the time of Homer and that of Pericles is bigger.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by John Smith

Egyptian New Kingdom soldier
ST 10 1d-2/1d BL 20 HP 10
DX 10
HT 10 FP 10
IQ 10 Will 10 Per 10

Skills: Spear-11, Shield-12, Bow-11, Knife-11, Soldier/TL1-11
Equipment: Bronze spear($40); Light Medium Shield($45); Short Bow($50); Cheap bronze long knife($48); Cheap medium layered leather vest (Protects the torso, DR2, $88).

The only evidence for Egyptian leather armour is scale, which, coincidentally, would use layered leather stats in Low-Tech. But it was found in Tut's tomb so was not worn by common infantry. The only armour worn by most Egyptian fighters was a helmet if they were lucky. If anyone is interested then I have a book coming out this year that covers all of this.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bronze-Age-M...=5336432714-21

[Polydamas]

Because it gives power, lets you hit scary targets, lets you throw your spear effectively, makes it easy to adjust if you and your enemy close in, and keeps the butt out of the way of your comrades?

The trouble with "common sense" is that it assumes that knowledge about the topic is common. Very, very few people have played with spear and shield where both the face and the shin are valid targets. Ten years ago we didn't even have a very good idea about what Greek aspides and dorata were like, and we still don't know as much as we would like.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by John Smith

What evidence?
This and this suggest otherwhise, based on common sense. Why would you ever use a 7-foot spear in reverse grip? It would basically halve your reach, limit the angles from which you can attack, make it more awkward to aim your thrusts, and make it basically useless for parrying... while giving you a slightly stronger thrust. Also, it made you look cooler, which is why that pose is often found in vase paintings.

Youtube is hardly a source for scholarly research. Go over to the RAT website and ask the experts.

Also, there is only one example, a small piece, of what you'd call a "linothorax", from a Mycenian tomb, and nothing suggests it was used as armor; the only time the word was ever used is, as you say, by Homer. It would be like thinking modern soldiers use flintlocks because of poems written in the 1700s... actually, the gap between the time of Homer and that of Pericles is bigger.

That is one of the "possible" examples I mentioned. The confirmed example was recently found at Patras and is intact enough to be pretty certain that it is body armour but we'll have to wait for the final report to be published.

[John Smith]

If you seriously think hoplites held their spears overarm, then I can't even imagine what kind of rubbish your book will be full of.
Drawings from books depict Egyptians wearing some sort of leather vest, although it might as well be padded cloth.

[DanHoward]

If anyone is seriously interested in hoplite warfare then check out the Roman Army Talk forum. Many of today's experts frequent that site.

Here are a couple of the most recent relevant threads
http://www.ancient-warfare.org/rat.h...d=19&id=287026
http://www.ancient-warfare.org/rat.h...=130921#131034