Submitted by Horror_in_Vacuum t3_zsqlpc in history
ThoDanII t1_j1bgz4v wrote
Reply to comment by ptahonas in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum
>There were plenty of cheap long blades like German (not that it was Germany at the time...) messers and such that were often used.
messers were made by knifesmiths not swordsmiths
​
>In a fight whether, is one-on-one, or 100 on 100, pole arms are generally better... to say nothing of you know, being able to shoot people if they're unarmoured. Which makes sense and the Roman's knew that, thus their love of the javelin and darts.
the romans won at pydna and other battles against polearm wielders
Intranetusa t1_j1kbaxg wrote
I'd say it was less of a weapons advantage and more due to a tactical advantage of better army composition and more flexible troops. The Roman pila could double as a 7 foot thrusting spear, and many of the Macedonian or Successor State troops also had short swords as backup weapons.
At Pydna and other battles, the Macedonian or Successor state armies had their formations fall apart due to poor tactics and/or inflexible formations that broke apart chasing after the enemy or broke apart due to rough terrain. They also had an overreliance on pike infantry and neglected their supporting troops and cavalry wing that were crucial to a successful mixed unit formation. Alexander's army was less than 1/3 pikemen iirc and was mostly non pikemen.
ThoDanII t1_j1lnx36 wrote
Exactly Weapons are less important than their use, skill, Organisation, tacticst and operations
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments