Conversation
Notices
-
I've already covered that. The Aztecs were well capable of operating in formation. And if conquering them should have been an easy job then the conquistadores were rank amateurs given that they were besieged and almost starved out more than once.
I'm not sure how comparing them to the mesopotamians makes them unorganised. And their buildings were largely comparable to those found in Spain at the time.
> you can look a everyone before Greece and Rome as they invented drill formations and line combat
No lol, no they did not.
> That's how thermopylae happened. Spartans worked together in disciplined lines and the Persians did not.
False on several counts:
1. The persians did work together in disciplined units
2. They weren't just fighting the persians, they were also fighting several other persian subjects who also fought together in disciplined units.
3. No... thermopylae happened because the spartans were aware of a choke point and guarded it. The persians had no choice but to fight their way through it until they found an alternate route, outflanked the spartans and easily dealt with them.
> The romans used line formations and the celts didn't
Again... no. Many celtic tribes used disciplined infantry formations. The romans adopted most of their armour and tactics from contact with celtic warbands. They also lost several major battles to them.
> the only time line formations and disciplined troops lost was rare and due to incompetence higher up.
I'm sorry but this just is not true. A very good example is caesar in Britain. Unlike the continental gauls the britons mostly fought with hit and run chariot tactics. So Caesar was worn down until he was forced to declare "victory" and run the fuck home.
Heavy infantry are a very effective method of warfare, but they have major weaknesses which is why ancient armies also had cavalry, artillery and light infantry.
- matrix07012 :thotpatrol: :cunnyEmpire: likes this.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Now you're just lying
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara The celts only tactic was a false retreat to break up formations so they could fight individually as they didn't use formations at all and didn't even advance with their shield in front of them hence why the Anglo-Saxon were successful against the picts. Persians didn't use drill formations they just used immortals as an infantry anchor while the cavalry flanked.
-
No lol. Go read a history book. If you think the greeks and romans invented heavy infantry then you really need to do a lot of basic reading. Not to mention that the didn't even exist by the time the greeks started using heavy infantry, so it'd be pretty hard for them to co-invent it.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Since you're being vauge i know your lying because you can't give specific examples. What formation preceeded the phanlax formation? I can say it was Phillip of Macedon who formed the first well drilled formations with the Macedonia style phalanxes employing sarissas instead of dories and a strap shield instead of a hoplon. So who invented the first formation? What was it called?
-
Where on earth do you get this stuff? 🤣
1. No, the celts had many tactics. They were also well capable of beating the "invincible" heavy infantry you're talking about: Look up Brennus and come back to me.
2. The romano-british who faced off against the saxons were using *Roman* tactics. They had been romanised for several centuries by that point.
3. Every ancient army tried to flank around their infantry with cavalry, including the romans and the greeks/macedonians. Not to mention that a good portion of the persians' armies were... greek.
-
@Eiregoat @SchizoCynic @matrix @caekislove Define "heavy infantry" of that era
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Picts are not romano british! The are from north of hadrians wall
-
Nice namedropping. But in reality you're the one being vague. You're just making up false (and easily disproven) statments after another, getting your ass kicked, then pretending nothing happened.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara You're intentionally not looking at dates like this is age of empires. The cavalry flank was invented by Persians and imported west
-
Heavy infantry are infantry formations where they drill and operate as a group. As opposed to light infantry which are more opportunistic and each soldier looks for individual opportunities.
Both heavy and light infantry have been employed by every major power in history about as far back as we have history. Heavy infantry absolutely were not a greek invention, and certainly not a roman one.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Lino thorax lamalar armor.
-
> The cavalry flank was invented by Persians and imported west
That is a bold claim with a capitol B. That's like saying the persians invented swords or shields. Flanking with cavalry has been around as long as there has been cavalry. Longer actually since chariots are a thing.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic But is there a difference on weapons? Armor? I'm not well versed on that era of warfare.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Greeks only used heavy infantry in the form of hoplits
-
It's a very broad term, it relates more to the density of the formation than any particular equipment. Heavy infantry fought in huge blocks whereas light infantry tended to be more spread out.
It's not even specific to the bronze or iron age either: Heavy infantry tactics lasted up until the early 19th century. It was only when automatic weapons happened that it became suicidal to march at the enemy in a big group.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Sounds Macedonian. Alexander the Great era?
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Like Gettysburg?
-
Yes, but also before him.
His father in particular brought a formation called the phalanx to it's greatest height. They fought with enormous 18ft spears and relatively light shields and armour compared to earlier formations.
In later conflicts though it proved too vulnerable to smaller units which could be individually ordered around to take advantage of terrain (the romans were excellent at this), so it was abandoned as a formation.
-
Yep. The US civil war, the crimean war and the franco prussian war were the tail end of that kind of warfare.
The last wars with really huge heavy infantry formations were the napoleonic wars. Part of the reason they did it was to help defend against cavalry, but by the end of the 19th century cavalry was becoming too vulnerable to automatic fire to be a serious threat to well formed infantry.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic @UnityOstara amongst the celts and germans there would be a central group of professional warriors with good equipment who would be the core, and much larger militia with much lighter equipment and training forming the bulk. The professionals would do most of the killing in the shield wall while the militia provided the bulk.
-
Which incidentally was also true of the greeks and romans. The romans had plenty of velites and other units who couldn't afford proper armour and had relatively little training, supporting hardened professionals with full armour.
The greeks also had "naked" slingers/archers etc. harassing around the flanks while the wealthy hoplites did the real work in the center.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic I've been to Gettysburg. Not the best venue for an invader. Learned alot those days. One of those things was respect for all that die for country.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Crimean War was pointless. I never understood why Britain and France would give a damn about the Black Sea.
-
I don't think it was about the black sea as such, more about smacking down Russia before they got too powerful. It's probably comparable to proxy wars like Vietnam or the Soviet Afghan war.
-
@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic @UnityOstara its a common way to fight.
Athough the roman republic would place their least experienced troops in the front, and hold the most experienced in the back.
-
@AlbinoMutant @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Everyone did before and after
-
@UnityOstara @AlbinoMutant @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic The Roman maniple formation was designed with experienced velites in front, inexperienced hastati in the middle, and the experienced principes in the rear. The velites were lightly armed pleb skirmishers who had enough experience to know how to handle themselves on the front line. The inexperienced hastati were pleb spearmen since their job was to just listen to commands and stick the pointy ends in one direction. The principes were well armed patrician heavy infantry. The velites would engage with the enemy while the hastati would poke at them from behind. If the line started to fold the principes would charge in to shore it up before the line buckled. There were also the triarii who were the richest and most well armed patricians, but were not strictly part of the maniple formation as they were cavalry and were used to make attacks of opportunity and turn the tide of battle by performing flanking maneuvers and charges outside of the formation itself.
It replaced the contubernium formation during the Samnite wars and remain the standard Roman formation until the Marian reforms introduced Cohorts replaced it.
-
@Bead @UnityOstara @matrix @Eiregoat @AlbinoMutant @SchizoCynic Holy shit, dude. You seem to really know what you're talking about!
-
@caekislove @matrix @Eiregoat @AlbinoMutant @SchizoCynic @UnityOstara I spent all day listening to Dovahhatty's Unbiased History of Rome today. It has to be true because a Brazilian titled his video series unbiased, so it must be objectively correct and without any slant or misdirection.
youtube.com/watch?v=9EOzr15h8S8&list=PLp5VE4P1YBhc05cDqiOazzTTu1WSh8MHg
-
@Bead @UnityOstara @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic the triari were heavily armoured spearmen who fought in the phalanax and were usually used to hold the line for a retreat or to deliver the decisive blow. the horsemen were the equestrians, drawn from the middle class.
-
@AlbinoMutant @Bead @UnityOstara @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove "It came down to the triarii " was a saying for when the romans had a particularly brutal battle
-
@UnityOstara @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove Yes. Greek bronze was cold forged which made it very effective and superior to most bronze weapons. The Greeks were forced to invent heavy infantry tactics due to the mountainous terrain of Greece where you didn't have many maneuvering options (except Thessaly if I remember correctly who created the wedge formation for cavalry). So unlike everyone else the Greeks started using heavy infantry and spear formations because of the passes. Meanwhile everyone else used chariots and light infantry as support yet completely unaware of rank and file fighting side by side with each other. It was mostly two mobs fighting while the charioteers fired pot shots or used the chariot as an uber to and from the battle . Heavy infantry wasn't really viable due to the extreme heat so Egypt and Persian didn't utilize them until after the Macedonian conquest. Most armies consisted of light infantry with shields and chariots or cavalry as support. Most Persians didn't have any form of armor save for wicker shields and cuirasses, the immortals being the exception because they had tin scale armor. Zthe greeks used bronze greaves, the Corinthian helm, a large hoplon shield and glued linen armor that had broze and iron scales or plates inside.
-
@caekislove @Bead @matrix @Eiregoat @AlbinoMutant @UnityOstara He does
-
@Bead @UnityOstara @AlbinoMutant @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove Romans never used their own cavalry when possible however choosing gaulic cavalry auxiliaries for that instead because they had a better cavalry tradition
:spinnenrad: Festivegoat :spinnenrad:
BASTARD BEAST
UnityOstara
Dr.AlbinoMutant PHD Critical Zionist Studies
DeadBead
Caek Islove 🍰 ❤️
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the