I know that chainmail tends to hang from your shoulders, so your shoulders get very tired wearing it, whereas Plate mail hangs from your shoulders and waist... I think.
Yeah, I can see your point, but I know I wouldn't want a pinched inflexible area where I need to bend, which is the actual waist proper, rather than the 'on the hips' area 90% of people where there pants at. I do rotate from there, but I don't bend nearly as much there as I do above it at the true waist. Now, I do have an unusual physique, which may be colouring things a bit. I would personally prefer I suspect strapping at the shoulders, and on the pelvis (which in modern times is considered the waist for pants, and many people insist this is a preferred location to put a belt and thus hold weight), yet I must confess I personally wear my pants at belly button height, so that does kinda crap on my position, as I like to have the least flexible part of my outfit at the bending point of my back. I'll have to think about this more!
Well, my point was that the Romans definitely made overlapping plate armour for gladiators, so I hesitate to say they 'couldn't', but I think I'd need another colossal screed to explain why I think Roman armour was probably more effect8ve for actual soldiers on the battlefield than the much later full plate. I don't think it's a coincidence that as time went on, armour moved back to the 'breastplate and helm' model for professional soldiers. With a big roman shield, its hard for me to see how the knight is actually all that better protected, as knight's shields were generally strapped and couldn't be used with the kind of agility a roman shield could with it's centre boss/handle. I'd rather a sword whacked my shield than my armour! I suppose medieval helms offered better face protection, but I suspect the Roman helm was actually better, as reminiscent models with open faces became more prevalent.
Wait, you actually want to read a tremendous screed?! I am surprised, and will indeed work on that for you, and probably post it here. I myself have a kneejerk assumption that all being equal full plate is the best, but what if its rarity actually isn't a coicidence? I agree metal was very valued in the Roman era, but it wasn't exactly leaps and bounds cheaper by the middle ages iirc, and hardenable steel was still so valued as to be used carefully, like a cutting edge on an axe being steel, with the body iron.
Heat treatment is an area of great interest for me, but I know I've got lots to learn still. Still, some formal education has left me fairly well informed on some aspects, and some complications that come up in heat trestment.
@DreadKhan When I say waist, I'm talking about the natural waist, and there's relatively little movement happening there.
As for the efficiency of Roman plate armor?
The reason people "moved back to" breastplate and helm is that the weapons changed. That is not an argument unless you include firearms in the discussion of efficiency of armor. And even then, Roman armor would lose. People could actually expect their medieval armor to protect them from early firearms. The word "bullet-proof" comes from the mark that would be left on a plate after it had been shot at with a gun.
And there are usually good reasons why certain shields were strapped to the arms of knights. The kite shield for example is supposed to take very heavy blows that would be dangerous even to a knight in plate armor.
People wearing mail often used much lighter (often handheld) shields.
The point is, when you are wearing late-medieval full-plate armor, you don't need to concern yourself with most attacks, because those are not going to do anything. But given the amount of force that a lance can produce, you don't want to rely only on your armor when facing a cavalry charge.
Well, I bend front to back there pretty regularly, and would during battle, but I suppose a breastplate period would restrict that anyways!
Anyways, I wanted to type this post on a keyboard rather than a tablet, which I normally use, since I can do the post justice more readily, and are less likely to accidentally delete my post! Anyways, here goes:
So, full plate! It looks amazing, and is very, very hard to actually cut through in battle, even if a person is on the ground, meaning the only weapons that can realistically be used to cut through would be heavy axes, like poleaxes, perhaps some other polearms, but most swords aren't going to cut it (ha!). So, the main source of injury is concussive force delivered by blows. Now, you can use a shield with this armour, but the shields favoured were hefty strapped affairs that had limited mobility, and were hard to bash someone with, meaning you were fighting moreso with one hand than is normal with a shield. I suspect you might find a non-strapped shield unwieldly with full plate armour, as we don't really see it done much, with so much weight being carried by the wrist effectively.
The downside of course to a strapped shield is you can't gain much cover behind it! Now, if you used a Roman shield, a big, rounded squarish shield with a metal boss, you can actually hide behind the shield! Sure, people can hit it pretty hard, but with a disciplined force, you will have interlocked shields somewhat, so likely another man's strength will help steady your shield, and so you will close in from cover, with your trusty stabby/choppy gladius in hand, and when you can start punching your enemies with your shields, literally, you start stabbing and chopping, aiming especially for the groin and joints normally, which are even in full plate at least somewhat vulnerable, especially the groin. Now, the real question to me then is this: What would the man with a Roman shield gain from full plate? Well, he'd be burdened heavily, and need lots of time to prepare for battle, especially during an ambush. His helmet is already excellent at protecting vs blows to the head, arguably better than many medieval helms, and is much more comfortable to wear while offering both better breathability by far and better hearing, to say nothing of unimpeded view.
Incidentally, I think this is why the helmets moved back to a more Roman style after the awkwardness of the great helm, which I see as impractical in battle, especially to pilot a horse that's half blind by equipment. Now, you can't use the big bossed shield from a horse I'd say, so there is that to consider, and on horseback, yes, the strapped shield and full plate make more sense to me, along with the lance.
That brings me to lances... Yes, they were very effective, but it's not a secret that horses won't willing charge a wall of spears, so you have a front line of short sword and heavy shield wielding men, with a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and possibly even 5th line of various polearms lined up poking out vs the charging horsemen, who'll die enmasse if they keep up their charge. Note, if your troops aren't disciplined on foot here, they'll break rank and be trampled. So discipline is a big deal. Lance vs the bossed shield is a tough call, but I admit I wouldn't want to try to stop a lance using my one wrist. That's a recipe for a broken wrist! So vs a lance, might be an issue if you didn't have the polearm support, but really, why wouldn't you?
Would the large bossed shield user be much better protected by full plate? Well, maybe, a bit, but he's a sitting duck if he loses his shield anyways, and the weapons especially effective vs the shield are also super effective vs his armour, IE the falx warranted reinforcement of Roman equipment, in order to conquer Dacia. A falx would be pretty good vs plate too I'd bet. But, a falx vs your shield won't likely injure you immediately, so you could still just charge in blindly and start stabbing and cutting, but if you were relying on plate to stop the blow, you'd likely be stunned by the force, and possibly knocked off balance, a dangerous thing obviously. I tend to think the light armour worn by the peak Roman Legion was almost ideal, provided it wasn't freezing cold. It did nearly nothing to hinder any movement at all, could be packed up easily and donned very readily, and was so unencumbering that you could do day labours in armour, though not with the helmet on usually, and with the shields set aside, which was important when building a camp in enemy territory. I don't think you could do that in full plate! While you can't really while holding a shield, it is darn easy to just pick it up and draw your sword if enemies show up, while the full plate wearer will be lucky to be wearing his chainmail underarmour.
I find it interesting that I'm posting this, since I'm writing a fantasy setting featuring full plate wearing foot soldiers as ultra-elites, but I'm really seeing some issues. They'd almost require a support troop of equal numbers to hold off surprise attacks, and to serve as back ups in battle. Full plate really is a limiting form of protection, even if it is fairly good at what it does.
@DreadKhan I think you mean the Falx, yes? The Falcata is a one-handed sword from the Iberean peninsula. The Falx is the two-handed slashing weapon of the Dacians, with the "reverse" concave curve, that made the romans reinforce their helmets with extra bars to absorb the downwards force of Falx's reaching above and over their shields and slamming down on their heads.
Edit: Btw, thank you for sharing your knowledge about metallurgy. It was very interesting to read your posts!
Edit2: Btw, I don't think a Falx would be any better or worse than other swords vs fullplate. Considering its a slashing weapon and slashing cannot really be expected to cut through plate, nor have enough concussive impact to damage the body underneath, you would have to aim for weakspots which the curved blade would be poorly adapter to do.
To punish through plate (with mail under arms, groins etc) you need, from what I've read, a stiff blade that doesn't flex (like an Estoc) or you go for the weakspots (like with a Rondel dagger, through eye slits, armor chinks, straps etc) or you go for concussive/smashing damage (like with a mace of sorts, sometimes with flangs etc to prevent redirection at force of impact) or you try to force your way through with sheer power (like with a heavy (pole) axe, which could do much of the above).
@LadyRhian I know you already got a reply, but if you google any picture of a knight wearing chainmail you will see they all have belts. Often a belt + a sword belt or a combination belt. The belt, if strapped correctly, distributes the weight of the chainmail to the hips/waste area and from the shoulders. I have never worn on myself, but it seems to have been custom from what I've read. I remember as a youngling watching movies like Ivanhoe and one can even see in some depictions that men wore belts of this kind even as "fashion" when in gambeson only. This is of course from movies, so can't say it was that way for real, but it kinda makes sense.
One thing I like with Shadiversity, even though I don't think he's always correct, is that he often makes assumptions on what is/would have been logical and not only what is historically proven to be true.
First of all, I used the wrong term in my previous post: "Kite shield". I meant "Heater shield". And then there are different variants of that shield, made of thin wood with a leather covering and alternatively with a metal covering. I am speaking of the variety used to complement plate armor, which would not benefit from a shield that is too light for obvious reasons.
@DreadKhan If you used a Roman shield to protect yourself against the sort of punishment that a person in late medieval full plate would have to use a shield to protect himself against, then that Roman shield would be blown to pieces. The Roman shield is "nimble" despite its size because it's thin. The heater shield is small because it's thick.
The Roman scutum is not a sensible addition to full plate armor. And if you start chopping with your gladius against full plate armor, you are getting exactly nowhere. People wearing sort of armor did not need shields to protect themselves against swords. Many didn't use any shields at all, but instead the kind of weaponry that would be needed to break through full plate armor (other than the obvious daggers). If they had only swords, then the fight would generally devolve into a wrestling match, as both combatants were trying to immobilize the opponent for long enough to stick a blade in one of the thin gaps between the plates. What would a scutum do in such a scenario other than occupy a valuable hand?
Your argument further falls apart when you speak of interlocking shields. How are your shields easy to move when they are interlocked? Not that interlocking them would make them any less prone to breaking (in fact it would make them more easily breakable). Trying to aim for gaps in full plate armor from an interlocked shield wall is impossible. Besides the merely difficult task of attacking with enough force to punch through both mail armor and a gambeson, you would first need to come from low angle while attacking from over the shield wall. Most soldiers are not Reed Richards.
You say that Romans stood in front of their enemies and aimed at each other's weak spots, and you ask what possible benefit they could gain from armor with less weak spots. I think the answer is obvious. But maybe you don't think that Romans would ever come under such attacks themselves because their enemies just passively accepted the onslaught. In that case I wonder what you think happened during the many Roman civil wars. Were they actually civil?
When you compare the Roman helmet and all medieval helmets at once and so readily dismiss all the openings of the Roman helmet as its strengths, not acknowledging that they are all openings, I wonder if you are merely joking.
Apparently you have never heard of visors either. They can be opened, and many people did open them in close combat. Even so, their necks and head were still much better protected than had they worn an open Roman helmet.
Also, people wore the great helmet only until around 1350. It disappeared before full plate armor came about. The flat top of the great helmet stands in great contrast with the rounded forms of properly designed full plate, so I think that's kind of a give-away.
Heavy cavalry did charge into spear formations, by the way. Yes, it generally caused massive horse casualties, but even if the knights lost their mounts, they were still wearing full plate armor and equipped with side-arms, standing in the middle of the enemy formation. The maneuver was risky, sure, and not performed regularly. But it was certainly an option.
Knights appeared long before full plate armor was a thing and in a time when everybody was doing spear formations. From that point onward and throughout the centuries, their protection against polearms only ever increased. There wasn't much that could be done to improve the thrusting capability of the spears. At the end of the middle ages, they had an excellent reputation of the tanks of the middle ages that would crush through any resistance that you might put up.
That whole thing only came to an end because of, again, firearms.
And when you say that anything that would break a bossheld shield would also screw up a person in full plate armor, I have to decidedly disagree. You really underestimate full plate armor, and the lengths people had to go through in order to kill people wearing that stuff. Wrestling was developed as a way of fighting armored opponents.
The rondel dagger, the standard dagger for late medieval knights, has a particularly thick and reinforced blade. It was designed with full plate armor in mind. Not to stab through any plates, obviously, but so you could force it through the gaps without it breaking. This was with much better metallurgy than the Romans had. Don't think that a gladius would so easily do its job against full plate.
You are right! lol. I feel like a buffoon! As for why I see a falx as being more effective vs plate than than a standard or curved back sword, because the forward curved sword in this case strikes with a descending point, a very favorable blow to strike. It excels better than anything at punching through sheet metal, and I use a similar idea to open cans of tuna with a small bladed pocket knife with a good point. You can punch through steel much easier than you can slice it, on this we both agree, but in truth once you have started a cut in steel, you can actually slide through it further. Extreme example, I have, using an axe of my own making (I diluted cast iron to make a very high carbon edge) has chopped in one blow through a hardened steel bolt (grade 5, which is pretty strong), because once it started to fail in a direction it kept doing it under strain. It's really cool stuff imho, but it's why a pick type weapon is incredibly nasty vs full plate, as you can punch clean through to the flesh of your enemy, and a falx gets a bit of that advantage. That's in part why they were so effective at hitting helms, and busting up shields.
I agree, Shad is usually not off his rocker, though you aren't always going to be on exactly the same page.
Interesting point regarding the metallurgy, cold working can make some pretty impressive things, ranging from modern nuts/bolts we cold press out in large numbers, auto bodies that get all their strength from micro-alloying and being bent and shaped, through to oddities, like the knife I made out of some lean austenitic stainless steel, which has almost no carbon incidentally. Lean austenitic stainless steel may not have the best corrosion resistance, but it does have one very big advantage, it responds very well to cold working, and will even form martensite apparently, and to test this out, I cold forged a knife and half-ruined my very cheap anvil which was too small anyways. Long story short, I found the metal surprisingly hard, and made a very good wood chisel I have only had to sharpen once. The metal is very hard, and was even heated up during the hammering (my god did my forearms burn doing this! The pain was staggering, swinging 3lb or 4lb hammers over and over, then upgrading to an 8lb hammer. Ugh. BUT IT WORKS! And its neat, because the leanness also makes the metal cheaper, as nickle is not the cheapest metal around.
Most of the time a heater wasn't being used vs a lance, as lances weren't something you normally used over and over during a battle, like a sword, they were a one and done generally in battle. Getting your knights to retreat after closing might be a dangerous thing, as disengaging can open you up, especially with a no cover strapped shield.
We agree then that full plate gains nothing from a Roman shield, but I think we disagree about the short sword vs armour issue, and I must point out a favourite strategy was in the full plate era to use a dagger, an even shorter and less impressive blade, to stab to death a knight, as it was able to get into weak points a big sword couldn't, like the groin, eye slits, etc. These daggers could be fairly big remember, and a gladius isn't all that much bigger I would argue, though I admit it is a bit bigger. It could still however be used up close to inflict nasty injuries to vulnerable areas. I could see the short sword being a bit awkward when in a grapple, but when simply up close you could probably poke in and do some injury, and do so from behind your shield. Full plate very obviously isn't 100% plate coverage or you couldn't move some areas, especially the groin, underarms, neck to an extent, etc. These areas would be vulnerable to a heavy stab from a piercing sword like a gladius.
Interlocking the shields means they all move more or less as one. They aren't pinned together or anything, just gaining support from one side and offering it on the other, and this was done for a very long time, really we know for sure from the era of Greek supremacy in the Med, to the middle ages, when it was still being done, and often the soldiers used spears as their weapon in this formation, not swords. I'm hardly out to lunch on this: if it didn't work, why did people do it for 1000s of years, and why did those doing it tend to beat those that didn't do it?
Romans periodically made additions to their equipment, including I will point out a face guard for use in some sieges, especially vs slingers, who could bash their face in with a stone. So there were situations where a face plate was needed, but they quickly discarded it when they didn't need it. Regarding neck protection, the helm of the Romans actually did a nice job of keeping the neck covered, as the brim thing on the back is quite big, and angled nicely to deflect blows away, to the armoured shoulders usually. Romans would have worn chainmail neck protectors if neck injuries were prominent, but they weren't. The Romans equipment really was pretty ideal. If not chainmail, at least they'd use leather, but they didn't bother, it wasn't needed.
Getting horses to charge a wall of spears means your horses have to be using blinders I bet, since thats suicide, and incase you weren't aware, a dead horse falling on your leg back then = you're dead too, and trying to dismount when your mount is killed under you? Yikes, in full plate!? Yeah right. You're dead too if your horse dies while charging in I'd say.
I think you're underestimating a couple things here with heavy cavalry, but I could be wrong. Anyways, 1) Big horses with barding with a metal man atop are very intimidating. Men don't want to fight against things that much taller than them, and that can kill them by stepping on them. It' s not a good time. So, this brings us to 2) Most medieval infantry in continental Europe wasn't especially well trained, and thus they'd break ranks quickly when confronted with 2000 lbs of flesh and steel charging at them in great numbers. There were some trained men I admit, but most infantry were peasant levies, and if you put the peasants at the front, as they liked to do, when they inevitably broke rank, they'd disorganize the heavy infantry behind them, resulting in disaster. 3) Cavalry is really good at exploiting an advantage, any advantage really. Horsemen can charge in and hit unprepared flanks, and cause massive casualties, and its no secret that large formations of men can't really turn quickly in battle, so often spear troops would be caught out of position by cavalry, and a charge would only be met with a few spears at the ready, and the losses would be ugly. So, if you had cavalry and were facing elite infantry with long heavy spears, you likely tried to go around their formation and charge at their back, possibly while infantry of your own attacks the front, to occupy them.
I think the Romans wouldn't have fared that poorly vs medieval troops, depending on some factors. Most legions apparently used spears as standard gear, and not just those bendy pila, though not overly long ones. The legion would take some losses on the charge, but they'd be well equipped to start killing knights up close I think.
Anyways, @Humanoid_Taifun I think we agree on some stuff at least, so that's nice. It's nice to use some of the stuff I've been stuffing into my head, and I partially hope you can convince me that full plate infantry wouldn't be a silly idea, since I'm a bit attached to it in my writing!
Of course short swords can work against full plate. My point was that they can't do it with nearly the ease that you imply (from a shield formation, and with overlapping shields no less), and that they have a good chance of breaking in the attempt unless they are of robuster make than the historical gladius. Its huge tip doesn't help either. There's a reason long swords generally ended in a fairly narrow point. You don't need those kinds of blades for normal thrusting against the kinds of armor the Romans were used to. But armor technology moved on since 300AD. And that includes the vulnerable areas you keep talking about. "Vulnerable" is always relative. If your blade is too thick, you'll have to burst not 1, but several rings of the mail armor underneath the plates (and then you're still not through the gambeson).
The Greeks (and other ancient powers) had a very different fighting style to the later Romans, you can't compare the two. Spear-shield formations do not work the same as the Roman sword-shield-formation. The Greek shields cannot be compared to the Roman ones either, on account of them being strapped to the forearm (with the center of the shield at the elbow). The purpose of this design was to have interlocked shields. The Romans did not have that.
So no, you don't "know".
I don't think the Romans normally interlocked their shields, because that seems like a bad thing to do when you are fighting with short swords. If, as you imagine it, the soldiers "simultaneously" open up their shields for a quick stab (with some super-special secret sign), then there will almost certainly be at least one idiot who accidentally attacks too early, signaling to the enemy that now is the time for an attack (or a defensive maneuver) because the shield wall is open. In that light, I am pretty sure that the Romans fought individually, with non-interlocked shields.
Yes, the Romans did periodically alter their equipment. And if they had had access to modern rifles, they would have used them. If they had had access to late medieval armor, they would have used that. Unfortunately for them, they lived before either were invented. So they had to make do with what they had. There were huge parts of their bodies that were not protected, and that's a fact. Yes, the Roman helmet had a nice brim that did a good job of protecting the gap at the soldier's neck, but full plate armor would have worked better. Why? Because there would have been no gap at all.
And the thing about the Roman armor is that the neck is not even the sole vulnerability. Short swords and no hand protection beyond the shield. There is a reason why individual Romans bought plate armor for their arms. They did not agree with your idea that if the Roman emperor thought the equipment was fine, then it must be perfect.
The Roman emperor had his finances to deal with after all. After 100 AD, when the conquests were largely over with, those finances looked exceedingly bad.
Again, the cavalry charges on spear formations are a historic fact. I agree with you that the Roman legions' discipline and depth of formation would them an excellent chance against such a charge.
But I was arguing full plate on foot against "the" Roman set-up. I only brought up lances as an example why somebody in full plate might want additional protection (other things he might be worried about: powerful ranged weapons at the visor [unless he was wearing a reinforced visor], crossbow bolts at close range, concussive weapons and arguably pole arms - one might be tempted to include daggers in the list, but what the knight would be looking out for would be people trying to wrestle him in order to get a shot at him with that dagger)
The problem with comparing Roman soldiers to average medieval soldiers to compare the efficiency of full plate armor is that most medieval soldiers did not have full plate armor.
If you however took a random sample of late medieval knights and pitted them against an equally large number of Roman soldiers, the Roman soldiers would get slaughtered. The Romans were not equipped to deal with heavy armor of that kind. At all. In order to wrestle down the soldiers (in order to attack the gaps between the plates), they would have to abandon their formation. But then their shields would only protect them in a single direction, their neck protection of their helmets would no longer work because the attacks would no longer necessarily come from the front, their arms and legs would be exposed; and anyway, poleaxes would obviously demolish any Roman armor.
First point: I am not arguing that Roman troops exactly as they were deployed are better equipped than late medieval troops, I'm saying similar style equipment, with appropriate advancements, results in better overall protection than relying purely on full plate. Roman stuff had it's flaws for sure, and metal working for one was much better in the medieval period than during the Roman Empire.
Historical Gladius' were not especially prone to failure, as they are based off a bronze age design that worked pretty well for a bronze sword. If the steel is decent, and if we're comparing full plate to gladius the steel of the gladius should be good quality, its a very viable sword. Romans jokes that they were made of forge welded horseshoes, and were notoriously durable, and pretty hefty for a short sword.
As for the tip, they varied a lot, with some pretty square, and others quite tapered and showy. They generally have a thick spine however, and were pretty good at getting past defenses. As for getting past the defenses of the groin, uh, hello, these are mostly guys you know? Getting whacked with a 1lb steel bar, even if you have good quality chainmail, is going to hurt the 'boys' more than a little bit, and make you a sitting duck. Gladius were used to chop as well as thrust, so they have heft. Supposedly you could hack a person a part with one in battle, a very effective chopper I'd say, so that groin shot will hurt badly.
The Roman shield wall didn't open all as one, they opened very much at random, with better warriors likely taking more 'stabs'. They hid behind the shield and struck at unprepared enemies, many of whom would have had some form of armour (IE any Greek or former Macedonian military, Carthaginians, etc all wore armour) and still got killed by this strategy that very definitely worked.
Romans used spears too actually, though I admit shorter than Greek ones. Most legions carried a spear as their primary weapon apparently, and not just throwing types, as I pointed out before. These wouldn't be giant pikes like the Macedonians used though.
I think you're dead wrong about the armour, and I think I have a pretty good bit of proof: The Romans had a good grasp of how to make chainmail, and could do so on a large scale, making hundreds of thousands of chainmail shirts, yet mail hauberks such as were worn by the Crusaders, did not show up. Why? Because there was no point with so large of a shield, despite the fact that the Romans could have done it. You can find more and more varied armour types as the Empire progresses, from banded plates to eventually scale mail, but they clearly did not think it was wise to overburden anywhere beyond the torso very much, and their helmets stayed fairly consistent. Later on people did adopt it full body armour, but if it would have been such an advantage, and the Roman army was obviously not skimping much as the banded mail was pretty tough to make, as were the helms, and they could have afforded to armour more heavily troops.
I think other than the lance a good bossed shield offers good protection, in part because it can give a bit, and avoid damage by being pushed, whereas a strapped shield must absorb all of the force of every single blow upon it. Now, I would argue that vs the exact Roman scutum, I'd prefer a shield that is a bit heavier, and perhaps a little bit smaller, but still quite sizable, able to take hits a bit better being the goal. Perhaps more like a gladiator's shield, as they usually used heavier equipment on defense. This heavier shield would be fine vs a mace or axe, or not really much worse, and vs a crossbow, if it managed to penetrate it wouldn't have enough force left to get through your armour, so you'd be fairly safe from that I'd wager. Not sure how a crossbow up close would do vs a good steel boss, but I'd tend to favour the crossbow tbh, but it's go through full plate up close too I'd say. So meh.
A good point neither of us has noted yet is that with a strapped shield, if you get wrestled with, you can't do so effectively with a shield STRAPPED TO YOUR ARM. You can't just drop it, it's stuck there, and you are in danger of getting stabbed in the eyeball with a dagger because you can't use both arms. Yikes.
English regularly used their heavily armoured knights on foot actually, and the Germanic armies had very heavy infantry, that often used a two-handed sword. They were like Main Battle Tanks of their day, a big strong guy with reach that's backed up by a horde of men with long spears etc, very nasty to face off with. Romans I think might lose the first battle, since they have to think of ways to adapt, but the overall war, in part because of their superior equipment choices, favour the Romans quite a bit. For one, their troops can be not only more mobile, but can be better protected while being mobile, as they can wear their torso protection and carry their shield apparently quite comfortably, with their sword and dagger sheathed. As I noted, they could even do construction work while in armour, something full plate would make impractical to say the least. The Romans could even build fortifications and hold out for reinforcements, which might get their first, since Roman infantry could cover crazy ground in a day for a military.
I think it's an interesting point to remember that both Romans and Knights fought expert mounted archers, and the Romans actually had quite a bit of success vs the Parthians, at least for a time. I don't think Europeans have a great record vs Mongolians, and even Alexander the Great, who had an elite cavalry at the time, was quite unwilling to take battle to the Scythians. I think you underestimate just how effective the Roman Military could be, and in large part because of it's equipment choices. You can't really march long distances in full body chainmail, and if you need to have mules carrying your armour, you likely are going to be slowed down, and will certainly need to watch water more closely. And, naturally, if you are ambushed while not wearing all your armour, you won't be used to fighting that way, and will be at a disadvantage.
To be clear: I will admit I'd rather be swung at by a sword while wearing full plate than while NOT wearing full plate, but I'd rather have a good shield to hide behind too if I could. Full plate offer lots of protection, I agree, and obviously more than medium weight torso armour like the Romans wore, but the enemy not knowing exactly where you are is a big advantage of hiding behind a shield, and I think coupled with the strategic advantages of lighter more efficient gear give the overall edge to the Roman type gear. I suppose maybe I'm at least in part arguing that Roman gear was extremely efficient use of resources, enabling a large army to be well equipped at a low cost to conquer the known world.
You raise a good point about a successful hit into the groin, though of course you'd have to succeed at it first. Aiming low always brings with it a reach disadvantage. Also, full plate armor that wasn't designed with horse combat in mind, would cover the groin quite effectively.
You ask why the Romans did not cover more of their bodies in mail. I already pointed out to you that it's expensive (and that there is the law of diminishing returns at play). Also it's heavy, and the Roman troops, differently from later European soldiers, often had to be deployed in a hurry and made to walk to a place half a continent away - carrying their own stuff.
Then you confuse me with a sudden change of position:
"it can give a bit, and avoid damage by being pushed,"
"The Roman shield wall didn't open all as one, they opened very much at random,"
This would agree with my position that they did not interlock their shields normally and that they did not "move more or less as one". It disagrees with yours that they did.
Your point about the danger of shields is correct but it only works insofar as the person in full plate armor uses a shield (which was very situational and certainly not the norm). And the argument loses its meaning when trying to turn it into an advantage of the Roman-equipped soldier. Yes, the Roman can drop his shield easily. But now the guy in full plate doesn't have to wrestle his opponent anymore. It's not difficult to hurt somebody whose arms and legs are unprotected and who's trying to wrestle with you.
I'm not sure how you expect the Romans to win against British knights or other people in full plate. What ways to adapt would there be for them? What "superior equipment choices" would save them?
You call them more mobile, but they are all on foot. They can't outrun an army that makes use of horses to carry their heavy equipment, and especially not when they have to build a fort every evening.
The mongols came to Europe a long time before full plate armor was developed. Their successes do not reflect on the effectiveness of full plate.
And while the Romans did what they could for strategic advantages at the cost of tactical supremacy by sacrificing full body protection for lighter equipment, the medieval countries, with much less territory under their control to support their war machines, could deploy fully armored knights all the way to the Holy Land. Their war machines had grown more efficient and so they could afford the improved protection, and even back in the first crusade, when it was all mail (+ a shield), it was better protection than what the Romans had.
So not only do the Romans lose out in terms of armor, but also in terms of logistics.
The Europeans experimented with armor and experienced all sorts of different armor combinations in their numerous military escapades over the centuries. The reason why their top-of-the-line kept getting more protective is that it worked. They quickly stopped with this line of thought when it stopped working.
This threads taken an interesting turn. I'd like to add a few things
During most of the ancient era, cavalry charges generally weren't a crash through the enemies ranks style attack. The Macedonian companion cavalry rode completely bare back, which means you literally have to hang onto the horse with your legs. Without a saddle or stirrups to keep you up on the horse, if you charged someone with full speed and your spear braced under your arm, you'd just get thrown off the horse. Ancient era horses were also much smaller than the huge chargers from the medieval era. Asides from hit and run tactics with horse archers, cavalry were mostly used to mop up the enemy after a rout. Charges against troop formations were more of flanking maneuver (generally going after their right flank, since people carried their shields on their left), and would turn right before getting to their line, and stab away with the spears as they went by. There are exceptions to this, particularly with Alexander, but until people were held onto the horse with saddles and stirrups, crashing through the enemies ranks was a great way to get knocked off your horse surrounded by the enemy.
The middle ages also mostly lacks the massive pitched battles in Western Europe until the late middle ages. They just couldn't field the huge numbers the Greeks, Romans and Persians could. A lot of medieval warfare was simply terrorizing the countryside. A group of knights would roll into an area, and if the local nobility couldn't handle it, they'd just hide out in their fortifications. The invaders would go after their resources, which frequently meant killing peasants and burning fields, and stealing anything not nailed down. At times combat between knights, wasn't lethal. If you bested another knight, you could take his armor, weapons and horse, worth a small fortune in of itself. Then you could ransom him to his family for even more cash. There are exceptions to these, of course.
And to interject on a few points you guys are debating. I'll agree that Roman era armor and weapons were inferior to mid to late medieval era weaponry and armor. Metallurgy was one of the few areas Europeans really improved on during the middle ages. During the early middle ages, you do get a regression in Western Europe, though, where techniques were lost and materials like good quality iron were hard to get in a lot of spots.
Logisitics-wise and mobility-wise, I'd say the Romans were superior. Sure they built some basic fortifications each night when making camp, but they were legion. They weren't necessarily building wooden walls around their camp most of the time. Generally it was just digging a ditch and using the dirt as a rampart. When you have tens of thousands of trained and disciplined troops, you can do that in an hour around your camp each night. You also only have to do that in hostile territory, when you're moving through your own territory, you don't need the fortifications. The road systems they built everywhere really sped up their troop movements and supply lines, too. They copied an idea from the Persians, that wasn't seen until the Napoleanic era, of way stations stocked with horses and messengers. A messenger could ride to a way station, pass the message to a fresh messenger with fresh horses, and they could carry it to the next way station. You could move information at what for the time was lightning speed over vast distances. The medieval Europeans did manage to send troops to the middle east for the crusades, but that was something the Romans did plenty of times themselves. A lot of the crusades were horribly organized, too, and got to Greece or Italy and had huge trouble getting the rest of the way. Just because the medieval Europeans used horses in combat, didn't make them any faster at getting around. Their armies still needed baggage trains and supply lines, and lot of them were not mounted, or were on slow carts.
Yes, my statement about medieval logistics beating Roman ones was really stupid. (Am I going to claim to have been joking or should I maintain that I didn't know any better?)
But you overestimate the importance of the stirrup. Historians used to give it the credit for the rise of the cavalry, but that has since been debunked.
Yes, my statement about medieval logistics beating Roman ones was really stupid. (Am I going to claim to have been joking or should I maintain that I didn't know any better?)
But you overestimate the importance of the stirrup. Historians used to give it the credit for the rise of the cavalry, but that has since been debunked.
I'm not just talking about the stirrup, but also the saddle. Imagine trying to ride a horse bareback and just hanging on with your legs like the Macedonions did. I'm not saying cavalry did not exist before the saddle/stirrups, but was generally used differently. There are exceptions, but ancient world cavalry generally did not crash through enemy lines. Smaller horses, with little to no armor on them, and nothing but your legs to keep you on the horse, did not make it practical. It was more for chasing down oppenents when they ran, so you could finish them off, instead of them getting away and having to fight them again later and flanking maneuvers like I mentioned earlier. There are exceptions, particularly with Alexander with charges targeted very specifically at gaps in formations, but charging right into enemy ranks with ancient era equipment on a horse was very risky and not done often.
And while the Romans did what they could for strategic advantages at the cost of tactical supremacy by sacrificing full body protection for lighter equipment, the medieval countries, with much less territory under their control to support their war machines, could deploy fully armored knights all the way to the Holy Land. Their war machines had grown more efficient and so they could afford the improved protection, and even back in the first crusade, when it was all mail (+ a shield), it was better protection than what the Romans had.
So not only do the Romans lose out in terms of armor, but also in terms of logistics.
The Europeans experimented with armor and experienced all sorts of different armor combinations in their numerous military escapades over the centuries. The reason why their top-of-the-line kept getting more protective is that it worked. They quickly stopped with this line of thought when it stopped working.
A few comments on the above:
Roman legions was in the many thousands, even smaller ones were 5k but bigger ones 20k or more. In ancient times, though I have no idea how or why, states could create much, much bigger armies than any nation during the medieval ages could. My personal opinion, not based on facts but my own so called logic, is that armoring the troops made them more resilient and that was good since you had less to spare and time needed to replace would have been high. Also, it would probably cost less to equip a 1000 soldiers than 10000 in absolute numbers even though the cost per person was higher.
In later eras, 16/17/18th century, one can see armies getting larger and larger again. Also, the training a soldier needed to fire a gun was much less then needed to ride and fight from horseback or to fire longbows, so it was quicker and easier to build up larger armies. So the need to protect every person again was reduced and the absolute costs to equip them all would have been a lot higher if they would have had higer-grade armor. And this is before cannons really took over (though of course they were used).
A little sidenote to your otherwise very interesting discussion.
Another little sidenote is I remember reading about muslim calling christians hedgehogs, or similar, because they could be completely covered in arrows yet still fight, by the power of gambeson+chainmail. I think it's an interesting note, if true, since arrows are so often depicted to easily punch through armor in books, movies and games. Probably even maille was in itself good enough to stop most arrows, and this was a few hundred years before plate took over.
Another little sidenote is I remember reading about muslim calling christians hedgehogs, or similar, because they could be completely covered in arrows yet still fight, by the power of gambeson+chainmail. I think it's an interesting note, if true, since arrows are so often depicted to easily punch through armor in books, movies and games. Probably even maille was in itself good enough to stop most arrows, and this was a few hundred years before plate took over.
I read that too a long time ago, and later searched for quite a while to find the source for that. And for those who don't want to search around forever like I did: it's from Saladin's biographer, Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad, and his description of the prelude to the battle of Arsuf.
Notice the lack of a saddle in all the depictions in that article and also how the spears are wielded. They're not braced under the arm, but thrust with an under arm motion and only held in the hand so as to not transfer all the impact to the rider and throw them off, unlike what you can do with a high backed saddle and couched lance. The article also mentions nothing contradictory my statement that a direct crash through enemy lines was used. The only major details mentioned tactically were they used mixed with horse archers to force Romans into a tortoise formation where they could ride up and stab away while they were stuck in the tortoise formation.
@Skatan The ancient empires were much more centralized than medieval Europe was. The reason Europe had so many castles was that in every single castle, there lived a ruler governing the surrounding villages. Some castles were tiny. But they were everywhere.
If a king wanted to produce an army to fight an enemy he had to start negotiating first. On wikipedia, for some medieval battles or wars, you can see things like the king of France being allied with some random bishop. The Romans generally did not have to deal with this sort of stuff. They had subordinate countries. When the emperor went to war, he sent a few thousand (or tens of thousands) of his troops and ordered his allies to add some more.
Under these circumstances, the first crusade deserves a bit more appreciation from you. Tens of thousands of troops left their homes undefended against their neighbors (potential enemies), traveled to Asia Minor and then went and conquered much of the Holy Land.
There are a number of reasons as for why Europe fell apart and took so long to recover from and produce real, functioning countries again.
Under these circumstances, the first crusade deserves a bit more appreciation from you. Tens of thousands of troops left their homes undefended against their neighbors (potential enemies), traveled to Asia Minor and then went and conquered much of the Holy Land.
What is it you want me to appreciate, have I spoken against that?
Notice the lack of a saddle in all the depictions in that article and also how the spears are wielded. They're not braced under the arm, but thrust with an under arm motion and only held in the hand so as to not transfer all the impact to the rider and throw them off, unlike what you can do with a high backed saddle and couched lance. The article also mentions nothing contradictory my statement that a direct crash through enemy lines was used. The only major details mentioned tactically were they used mixed with horse archers to force Romans into a tortoise formation where they could ride up and stab away while they were stuck in the tortoise formation.
The smiley should have given it away, that it was said with some jest. I know linking wiki is far from perfect, but it was a quick googling. I've read cataphracts clashing into enemies, and not just romans. I doubt they would have armored themselves from top to bottom only for deflecting arrows and then be used for hit and run flanking maneuvers. But hey, that's just my thinking.
In the wikipedia article @Skatan linked to, it says that the cataphracts would have a chain to attach their lance to the horse to be able to charge. It sounds about as safe as duct taping chainsaws to your motorbike, but I guess it beats getting thrown off. It also mentions that they did use this kind of saddle that would compensate for the lack of stirrups.
Notice the lack of a saddle in all the depictions in that article and also how the spears are wielded. They're not braced under the arm, but thrust with an under arm motion and only held in the hand so as to not transfer all the impact to the rider and throw them off, unlike what you can do with a high backed saddle and couched lance. The article also mentions nothing contradictory my statement that a direct crash through enemy lines was used. The only major details mentioned tactically were they used mixed with horse archers to force Romans into a tortoise formation where they could ride up and stab away while they were stuck in the tortoise formation.
The smiley should have given it away, that it was said with some jest. I know linking wiki is far from perfect, but it was a quick googling. I've read cataphracts clashing into enemies, and not just romans. I doubt they would have armored themselves from top to bottom only for deflecting arrows and then be used for hit and run flanking maneuvers. But hey, that's just my thinking.
Sorry, It's always hard to tell if someone's kidding or being smug
Flanking might've been too narrow of a description. They would have frequently have been used in the mop up techniques I mentioned earlier, though. I know the Scythians, who they mention in the article liked to use hit and run tactics, attack with horse archers to get the opposing army to give chase, retreat, attack with archers again, rinse and repeat until the opposing army did something stupid or got tired, then send in the cavalry to mop up once the formations had broken up.
Not all of them armored their horses as heavily as that guy with the scale mail over his horse had in that article, particularly further back in history, but armor over the horse still makes sense even if you're not crashing directly into enemy formations, horses are expensive. Even with the turn and stab as you ride by attacks I mentioned earlier, you and your horse could still be in melee range, so armor would help.
Like I said earlier, there are exceptions, but generally you didn't want your cavalry just slamming straight into the enemy line until better methods of keeping the rider on their horse were developed. You can crash through loose formations and into gaps, but charging straight into a dense line was a great way to be surrounded and knocked off your horse if you only have your legs to keep you on the horse.
@DrHappyAngry, no worries, written text can be hard to interpret.
I'm not arguing against your point, but I do want to state that you may be underestimating how widespread the use of very heavy cavalry (cataphracts) was in ancient times. The Seleucid empire, Parthia, Pontus and Armenia had them, as far as I know, and probably others as well I don't know of. Scythians was not like the more advanced states like these four (or rome) and can probably not be put into the same category, even though they too had lots of archers.
@DrHappyAngry, no worries, written text can be hard to interpret.
I'm not arguing against your point, but I do want to state that you may be underestimating how widespread the use of very heavy cavalry (cataphracts) was in ancient times. The Seleucid empire, Parthia, Pontus and Armenia had them, as far as I know, and probably others as well I don't know of. Scythians was not like the more advanced states like these four (or rome) and can probably not be put into the same category, even though they too had lots of archers.
The Scythians weren't as organized, but they defeated the Persians and killed Cyrus The Great. They weren't that different from each other and were pretty closely related. The Persians were basically Scythians that settled down and conquered an empire.
I don't dispute heavy cavalry was used, but that it generally wasn't used in the head on crash through the lines that a lot of people think they were in ancient times. The Parthians also used a similar technique to the Scythians, with hit and run tactics with horse archers, the Parthian Shot was their most famous maneuver. This is a general statement, and there are exceptions, though. I'm not saying it never happened, it just was not the common way they were used because of the huge risks involved. By the time of the Parthians, saddles had become more in use, and they could start pulling off head on charges, but we're talking more classical era by then.
Hm.. it seems you are better educated than me. When, which year I mean, do you say that saddles was improved to the state that they could support head-on charges?
Wow, we have some forumites that are pretty knowledgeable about Medieval warfare! As a Game of Thrones fan I'm wondering how realistic are some of the major fights/battles portrayed in that show. In particular what do you think of the following scenes?
The Mountain vs. The Snake
The Hound vs. Brienne of Tarth
Arya's spar with Brienne
The Battle of the Bastards
Stannis vs. Mance Rader
Eddard Stark vs. Jaime Lannister
The Dolthraki vs. The Lannisters (minus the dragon of course)
They all seemed fairly realistic to me except The Battle of the Bastards might have been a bit far-fetched. Thoughts?
Comments
Well, my point was that the Romans definitely made overlapping plate armour for gladiators, so I hesitate to say they 'couldn't', but I think I'd need another colossal screed to explain why I think Roman armour was probably more effect8ve for actual soldiers on the battlefield than the much later full plate. I don't think it's a coincidence that as time went on, armour moved back to the 'breastplate and helm' model for professional soldiers. With a big roman shield, its hard for me to see how the knight is actually all that better protected, as knight's shields were generally strapped and couldn't be used with the kind of agility a roman shield could with it's centre boss/handle. I'd rather a sword whacked my shield than my armour! I suppose medieval helms offered better face protection, but I suspect the Roman helm was actually better, as reminiscent models with open faces became more prevalent.
Wait, you actually want to read a tremendous screed?! I am surprised, and will indeed work on that for you, and probably post it here. I myself have a kneejerk assumption that all being equal full plate is the best, but what if its rarity actually isn't a coicidence? I agree metal was very valued in the Roman era, but it wasn't exactly leaps and bounds cheaper by the middle ages iirc, and hardenable steel was still so valued as to be used carefully, like a cutting edge on an axe being steel, with the body iron.
Heat treatment is an area of great interest for me, but I know I've got lots to learn still. Still, some formal education has left me fairly well informed on some aspects, and some complications that come up in heat trestment.
Anyways, I wanted to type this post on a keyboard rather than a tablet, which I normally use, since I can do the post justice more readily, and are less likely to accidentally delete my post! Anyways, here goes:
So, full plate! It looks amazing, and is very, very hard to actually cut through in battle, even if a person is on the ground, meaning the only weapons that can realistically be used to cut through would be heavy axes, like poleaxes, perhaps some other polearms, but most swords aren't going to cut it (ha!). So, the main source of injury is concussive force delivered by blows. Now, you can use a shield with this armour, but the shields favoured were hefty strapped affairs that had limited mobility, and were hard to bash someone with, meaning you were fighting moreso with one hand than is normal with a shield. I suspect you might find a non-strapped shield unwieldly with full plate armour, as we don't really see it done much, with so much weight being carried by the wrist effectively.
The downside of course to a strapped shield is you can't gain much cover behind it! Now, if you used a Roman shield, a big, rounded squarish shield with a metal boss, you can actually hide behind the shield! Sure, people can hit it pretty hard, but with a disciplined force, you will have interlocked shields somewhat, so likely another man's strength will help steady your shield, and so you will close in from cover, with your trusty stabby/choppy gladius in hand, and when you can start punching your enemies with your shields, literally, you start stabbing and chopping, aiming especially for the groin and joints normally, which are even in full plate at least somewhat vulnerable, especially the groin. Now, the real question to me then is this: What would the man with a Roman shield gain from full plate? Well, he'd be burdened heavily, and need lots of time to prepare for battle, especially during an ambush. His helmet is already excellent at protecting vs blows to the head, arguably better than many medieval helms, and is much more comfortable to wear while offering both better breathability by far and better hearing, to say nothing of unimpeded view.
Incidentally, I think this is why the helmets moved back to a more Roman style after the awkwardness of the great helm, which I see as impractical in battle, especially to pilot a horse that's half blind by equipment. Now, you can't use the big bossed shield from a horse I'd say, so there is that to consider, and on horseback, yes, the strapped shield and full plate make more sense to me, along with the lance.
That brings me to lances... Yes, they were very effective, but it's not a secret that horses won't willing charge a wall of spears, so you have a front line of short sword and heavy shield wielding men, with a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and possibly even 5th line of various polearms lined up poking out vs the charging horsemen, who'll die enmasse if they keep up their charge. Note, if your troops aren't disciplined on foot here, they'll break rank and be trampled. So discipline is a big deal. Lance vs the bossed shield is a tough call, but I admit I wouldn't want to try to stop a lance using my one wrist. That's a recipe for a broken wrist! So vs a lance, might be an issue if you didn't have the polearm support, but really, why wouldn't you?
Would the large bossed shield user be much better protected by full plate? Well, maybe, a bit, but he's a sitting duck if he loses his shield anyways, and the weapons especially effective vs the shield are also super effective vs his armour, IE the falx warranted reinforcement of Roman equipment, in order to conquer Dacia. A falx would be pretty good vs plate too I'd bet. But, a falx vs your shield won't likely injure you immediately, so you could still just charge in blindly and start stabbing and cutting, but if you were relying on plate to stop the blow, you'd likely be stunned by the force, and possibly knocked off balance, a dangerous thing obviously. I tend to think the light armour worn by the peak Roman Legion was almost ideal, provided it wasn't freezing cold. It did nearly nothing to hinder any movement at all, could be packed up easily and donned very readily, and was so unencumbering that you could do day labours in armour, though not with the helmet on usually, and with the shields set aside, which was important when building a camp in enemy territory. I don't think you could do that in full plate! While you can't really while holding a shield, it is darn easy to just pick it up and draw your sword if enemies show up, while the full plate wearer will be lucky to be wearing his chainmail underarmour.
I find it interesting that I'm posting this, since I'm writing a fantasy setting featuring full plate wearing foot soldiers as ultra-elites, but I'm really seeing some issues. They'd almost require a support troop of equal numbers to hold off surprise attacks, and to serve as back ups in battle. Full plate really is a limiting form of protection, even if it is fairly good at what it does.
Edited to fix falcatta to falx.
Edit: Btw, thank you for sharing your knowledge about metallurgy. It was very interesting to read your posts!
Edit2: Btw, I don't think a Falx would be any better or worse than other swords vs fullplate. Considering its a slashing weapon and slashing cannot really be expected to cut through plate, nor have enough concussive impact to damage the body underneath, you would have to aim for weakspots which the curved blade would be poorly adapter to do.
To punish through plate (with mail under arms, groins etc) you need, from what I've read, a stiff blade that doesn't flex (like an Estoc) or you go for the weakspots (like with a Rondel dagger, through eye slits, armor chinks, straps etc) or you go for concussive/smashing damage (like with a mace of sorts, sometimes with flangs etc to prevent redirection at force of impact) or you try to force your way through with sheer power (like with a heavy (pole) axe, which could do much of the above).
@LadyRhian I know you already got a reply, but if you google any picture of a knight wearing chainmail you will see they all have belts. Often a belt + a sword belt or a combination belt. The belt, if strapped correctly, distributes the weight of the chainmail to the hips/waste area and from the shoulders. I have never worn on myself, but it seems to have been custom from what I've read. I remember as a youngling watching movies like Ivanhoe and one can even see in some depictions that men wore belts of this kind even as "fashion" when in gambeson only. This is of course from movies, so can't say it was that way for real, but it kinda makes sense.
One thing I like with Shadiversity, even though I don't think he's always correct, is that he often makes assumptions on what is/would have been logical and not only what is historically proven to be true.
@DreadKhan If you used a Roman shield to protect yourself against the sort of punishment that a person in late medieval full plate would have to use a shield to protect himself against, then that Roman shield would be blown to pieces. The Roman shield is "nimble" despite its size because it's thin. The heater shield is small because it's thick.
The Roman scutum is not a sensible addition to full plate armor. And if you start chopping with your gladius against full plate armor, you are getting exactly nowhere. People wearing sort of armor did not need shields to protect themselves against swords. Many didn't use any shields at all, but instead the kind of weaponry that would be needed to break through full plate armor (other than the obvious daggers). If they had only swords, then the fight would generally devolve into a wrestling match, as both combatants were trying to immobilize the opponent for long enough to stick a blade in one of the thin gaps between the plates. What would a scutum do in such a scenario other than occupy a valuable hand?
Your argument further falls apart when you speak of interlocking shields. How are your shields easy to move when they are interlocked? Not that interlocking them would make them any less prone to breaking (in fact it would make them more easily breakable). Trying to aim for gaps in full plate armor from an interlocked shield wall is impossible. Besides the merely difficult task of attacking with enough force to punch through both mail armor and a gambeson, you would first need to come from low angle while attacking from over the shield wall. Most soldiers are not Reed Richards.
You say that Romans stood in front of their enemies and aimed at each other's weak spots, and you ask what possible benefit they could gain from armor with less weak spots. I think the answer is obvious. But maybe you don't think that Romans would ever come under such attacks themselves because their enemies just passively accepted the onslaught. In that case I wonder what you think happened during the many Roman civil wars. Were they actually civil?
When you compare the Roman helmet and all medieval helmets at once and so readily dismiss all the openings of the Roman helmet as its strengths, not acknowledging that they are all openings, I wonder if you are merely joking.
Apparently you have never heard of visors either. They can be opened, and many people did open them in close combat. Even so, their necks and head were still much better protected than had they worn an open Roman helmet.
Also, people wore the great helmet only until around 1350. It disappeared before full plate armor came about. The flat top of the great helmet stands in great contrast with the rounded forms of properly designed full plate, so I think that's kind of a give-away.
Heavy cavalry did charge into spear formations, by the way. Yes, it generally caused massive horse casualties, but even if the knights lost their mounts, they were still wearing full plate armor and equipped with side-arms, standing in the middle of the enemy formation. The maneuver was risky, sure, and not performed regularly. But it was certainly an option.
Knights appeared long before full plate armor was a thing and in a time when everybody was doing spear formations. From that point onward and throughout the centuries, their protection against polearms only ever increased. There wasn't much that could be done to improve the thrusting capability of the spears. At the end of the middle ages, they had an excellent reputation of the tanks of the middle ages that would crush through any resistance that you might put up.
That whole thing only came to an end because of, again, firearms.
And when you say that anything that would break a bossheld shield would also screw up a person in full plate armor, I have to decidedly disagree. You really underestimate full plate armor, and the lengths people had to go through in order to kill people wearing that stuff. Wrestling was developed as a way of fighting armored opponents.
The rondel dagger, the standard dagger for late medieval knights, has a particularly thick and reinforced blade. It was designed with full plate armor in mind. Not to stab through any plates, obviously, but so you could force it through the gaps without it breaking. This was with much better metallurgy than the Romans had. Don't think that a gladius would so easily do its job against full plate.
I agree, Shad is usually not off his rocker, though you aren't always going to be on exactly the same page.
Interesting point regarding the metallurgy, cold working can make some pretty impressive things, ranging from modern nuts/bolts we cold press out in large numbers, auto bodies that get all their strength from micro-alloying and being bent and shaped, through to oddities, like the knife I made out of some lean austenitic stainless steel, which has almost no carbon incidentally. Lean austenitic stainless steel may not have the best corrosion resistance, but it does have one very big advantage, it responds very well to cold working, and will even form martensite apparently, and to test this out, I cold forged a knife and half-ruined my very cheap anvil which was too small anyways. Long story short, I found the metal surprisingly hard, and made a very good wood chisel I have only had to sharpen once. The metal is very hard, and was even heated up during the hammering (my god did my forearms burn doing this! The pain was staggering, swinging 3lb or 4lb hammers over and over, then upgrading to an 8lb hammer. Ugh. BUT IT WORKS! And its neat, because the leanness also makes the metal cheaper, as nickle is not the cheapest metal around.
Most of the time a heater wasn't being used vs a lance, as lances weren't something you normally used over and over during a battle, like a sword, they were a one and done generally in battle. Getting your knights to retreat after closing might be a dangerous thing, as disengaging can open you up, especially with a no cover strapped shield.
We agree then that full plate gains nothing from a Roman shield, but I think we disagree about the short sword vs armour issue, and I must point out a favourite strategy was in the full plate era to use a dagger, an even shorter and less impressive blade, to stab to death a knight, as it was able to get into weak points a big sword couldn't, like the groin, eye slits, etc. These daggers could be fairly big remember, and a gladius isn't all that much bigger I would argue, though I admit it is a bit bigger. It could still however be used up close to inflict nasty injuries to vulnerable areas. I could see the short sword being a bit awkward when in a grapple, but when simply up close you could probably poke in and do some injury, and do so from behind your shield. Full plate very obviously isn't 100% plate coverage or you couldn't move some areas, especially the groin, underarms, neck to an extent, etc. These areas would be vulnerable to a heavy stab from a piercing sword like a gladius.
Interlocking the shields means they all move more or less as one. They aren't pinned together or anything, just gaining support from one side and offering it on the other, and this was done for a very long time, really we know for sure from the era of Greek supremacy in the Med, to the middle ages, when it was still being done, and often the soldiers used spears as their weapon in this formation, not swords. I'm hardly out to lunch on this: if it didn't work, why did people do it for 1000s of years, and why did those doing it tend to beat those that didn't do it?
Romans periodically made additions to their equipment, including I will point out a face guard for use in some sieges, especially vs slingers, who could bash their face in with a stone. So there were situations where a face plate was needed, but they quickly discarded it when they didn't need it. Regarding neck protection, the helm of the Romans actually did a nice job of keeping the neck covered, as the brim thing on the back is quite big, and angled nicely to deflect blows away, to the armoured shoulders usually. Romans would have worn chainmail neck protectors if neck injuries were prominent, but they weren't. The Romans equipment really was pretty ideal. If not chainmail, at least they'd use leather, but they didn't bother, it wasn't needed.
Getting horses to charge a wall of spears means your horses have to be using blinders I bet, since thats suicide, and incase you weren't aware, a dead horse falling on your leg back then = you're dead too, and trying to dismount when your mount is killed under you? Yikes, in full plate!? Yeah right. You're dead too if your horse dies while charging in I'd say.
I think you're underestimating a couple things here with heavy cavalry, but I could be wrong. Anyways, 1) Big horses with barding with a metal man atop are very intimidating. Men don't want to fight against things that much taller than them, and that can kill them by stepping on them. It' s not a good time. So, this brings us to 2) Most medieval infantry in continental Europe wasn't especially well trained, and thus they'd break ranks quickly when confronted with 2000 lbs of flesh and steel charging at them in great numbers. There were some trained men I admit, but most infantry were peasant levies, and if you put the peasants at the front, as they liked to do, when they inevitably broke rank, they'd disorganize the heavy infantry behind them, resulting in disaster. 3) Cavalry is really good at exploiting an advantage, any advantage really. Horsemen can charge in and hit unprepared flanks, and cause massive casualties, and its no secret that large formations of men can't really turn quickly in battle, so often spear troops would be caught out of position by cavalry, and a charge would only be met with a few spears at the ready, and the losses would be ugly. So, if you had cavalry and were facing elite infantry with long heavy spears, you likely tried to go around their formation and charge at their back, possibly while infantry of your own attacks the front, to occupy them.
I think the Romans wouldn't have fared that poorly vs medieval troops, depending on some factors. Most legions apparently used spears as standard gear, and not just those bendy pila, though not overly long ones. The legion would take some losses on the charge, but they'd be well equipped to start killing knights up close I think.
Anyways, @Humanoid_Taifun I think we agree on some stuff at least, so that's nice. It's nice to use some of the stuff I've been stuffing into my head, and I partially hope you can convince me that full plate infantry wouldn't be a silly idea, since I'm a bit attached to it in my writing!
The Greeks (and other ancient powers) had a very different fighting style to the later Romans, you can't compare the two. Spear-shield formations do not work the same as the Roman sword-shield-formation. The Greek shields cannot be compared to the Roman ones either, on account of them being strapped to the forearm (with the center of the shield at the elbow). The purpose of this design was to have interlocked shields. The Romans did not have that.
So no, you don't "know".
I don't think the Romans normally interlocked their shields, because that seems like a bad thing to do when you are fighting with short swords. If, as you imagine it, the soldiers "simultaneously" open up their shields for a quick stab (with some super-special secret sign), then there will almost certainly be at least one idiot who accidentally attacks too early, signaling to the enemy that now is the time for an attack (or a defensive maneuver) because the shield wall is open. In that light, I am pretty sure that the Romans fought individually, with non-interlocked shields.
Yes, the Romans did periodically alter their equipment. And if they had had access to modern rifles, they would have used them. If they had had access to late medieval armor, they would have used that. Unfortunately for them, they lived before either were invented. So they had to make do with what they had. There were huge parts of their bodies that were not protected, and that's a fact. Yes, the Roman helmet had a nice brim that did a good job of protecting the gap at the soldier's neck, but full plate armor would have worked better. Why? Because there would have been no gap at all.
And the thing about the Roman armor is that the neck is not even the sole vulnerability. Short swords and no hand protection beyond the shield. There is a reason why individual Romans bought plate armor for their arms. They did not agree with your idea that if the Roman emperor thought the equipment was fine, then it must be perfect.
The Roman emperor had his finances to deal with after all. After 100 AD, when the conquests were largely over with, those finances looked exceedingly bad.
Again, the cavalry charges on spear formations are a historic fact. I agree with you that the Roman legions' discipline and depth of formation would them an excellent chance against such a charge.
But I was arguing full plate on foot against "the" Roman set-up. I only brought up lances as an example why somebody in full plate might want additional protection (other things he might be worried about: powerful ranged weapons at the visor [unless he was wearing a reinforced visor], crossbow bolts at close range, concussive weapons and arguably pole arms - one might be tempted to include daggers in the list, but what the knight would be looking out for would be people trying to wrestle him in order to get a shot at him with that dagger)
The problem with comparing Roman soldiers to average medieval soldiers to compare the efficiency of full plate armor is that most medieval soldiers did not have full plate armor.
If you however took a random sample of late medieval knights and pitted them against an equally large number of Roman soldiers, the Roman soldiers would get slaughtered. The Romans were not equipped to deal with heavy armor of that kind. At all. In order to wrestle down the soldiers (in order to attack the gaps between the plates), they would have to abandon their formation. But then their shields would only protect them in a single direction, their neck protection of their helmets would no longer work because the attacks would no longer necessarily come from the front, their arms and legs would be exposed; and anyway, poleaxes would obviously demolish any Roman armor.
Historical Gladius' were not especially prone to failure, as they are based off a bronze age design that worked pretty well for a bronze sword. If the steel is decent, and if we're comparing full plate to gladius the steel of the gladius should be good quality, its a very viable sword. Romans jokes that they were made of forge welded horseshoes, and were notoriously durable, and pretty hefty for a short sword.
As for the tip, they varied a lot, with some pretty square, and others quite tapered and showy. They generally have a thick spine however, and were pretty good at getting past defenses. As for getting past the defenses of the groin, uh, hello, these are mostly guys you know? Getting whacked with a 1lb steel bar, even if you have good quality chainmail, is going to hurt the 'boys' more than a little bit, and make you a sitting duck. Gladius were used to chop as well as thrust, so they have heft. Supposedly you could hack a person a part with one in battle, a very effective chopper I'd say, so that groin shot will hurt badly.
The Roman shield wall didn't open all as one, they opened very much at random, with better warriors likely taking more 'stabs'. They hid behind the shield and struck at unprepared enemies, many of whom would have had some form of armour (IE any Greek or former Macedonian military, Carthaginians, etc all wore armour) and still got killed by this strategy that very definitely worked.
Romans used spears too actually, though I admit shorter than Greek ones. Most legions carried a spear as their primary weapon apparently, and not just throwing types, as I pointed out before. These wouldn't be giant pikes like the Macedonians used though.
I think you're dead wrong about the armour, and I think I have a pretty good bit of proof: The Romans had a good grasp of how to make chainmail, and could do so on a large scale, making hundreds of thousands of chainmail shirts, yet mail hauberks such as were worn by the Crusaders, did not show up. Why? Because there was no point with so large of a shield, despite the fact that the Romans could have done it. You can find more and more varied armour types as the Empire progresses, from banded plates to eventually scale mail, but they clearly did not think it was wise to overburden anywhere beyond the torso very much, and their helmets stayed fairly consistent. Later on people did adopt it full body armour, but if it would have been such an advantage, and the Roman army was obviously not skimping much as the banded mail was pretty tough to make, as were the helms, and they could have afforded to armour more heavily troops.
I think other than the lance a good bossed shield offers good protection, in part because it can give a bit, and avoid damage by being pushed, whereas a strapped shield must absorb all of the force of every single blow upon it. Now, I would argue that vs the exact Roman scutum, I'd prefer a shield that is a bit heavier, and perhaps a little bit smaller, but still quite sizable, able to take hits a bit better being the goal. Perhaps more like a gladiator's shield, as they usually used heavier equipment on defense. This heavier shield would be fine vs a mace or axe, or not really much worse, and vs a crossbow, if it managed to penetrate it wouldn't have enough force left to get through your armour, so you'd be fairly safe from that I'd wager. Not sure how a crossbow up close would do vs a good steel boss, but I'd tend to favour the crossbow tbh, but it's go through full plate up close too I'd say. So meh.
A good point neither of us has noted yet is that with a strapped shield, if you get wrestled with, you can't do so effectively with a shield STRAPPED TO YOUR ARM. You can't just drop it, it's stuck there, and you are in danger of getting stabbed in the eyeball with a dagger because you can't use both arms. Yikes.
English regularly used their heavily armoured knights on foot actually, and the Germanic armies had very heavy infantry, that often used a two-handed sword. They were like Main Battle Tanks of their day, a big strong guy with reach that's backed up by a horde of men with long spears etc, very nasty to face off with. Romans I think might lose the first battle, since they have to think of ways to adapt, but the overall war, in part because of their superior equipment choices, favour the Romans quite a bit. For one, their troops can be not only more mobile, but can be better protected while being mobile, as they can wear their torso protection and carry their shield apparently quite comfortably, with their sword and dagger sheathed. As I noted, they could even do construction work while in armour, something full plate would make impractical to say the least. The Romans could even build fortifications and hold out for reinforcements, which might get their first, since Roman infantry could cover crazy ground in a day for a military.
I think it's an interesting point to remember that both Romans and Knights fought expert mounted archers, and the Romans actually had quite a bit of success vs the Parthians, at least for a time. I don't think Europeans have a great record vs Mongolians, and even Alexander the Great, who had an elite cavalry at the time, was quite unwilling to take battle to the Scythians. I think you underestimate just how effective the Roman Military could be, and in large part because of it's equipment choices. You can't really march long distances in full body chainmail, and if you need to have mules carrying your armour, you likely are going to be slowed down, and will certainly need to watch water more closely. And, naturally, if you are ambushed while not wearing all your armour, you won't be used to fighting that way, and will be at a disadvantage.
To be clear: I will admit I'd rather be swung at by a sword while wearing full plate than while NOT wearing full plate, but I'd rather have a good shield to hide behind too if I could. Full plate offer lots of protection, I agree, and obviously more than medium weight torso armour like the Romans wore, but the enemy not knowing exactly where you are is a big advantage of hiding behind a shield, and I think coupled with the strategic advantages of lighter more efficient gear give the overall edge to the Roman type gear. I suppose maybe I'm at least in part arguing that Roman gear was extremely efficient use of resources, enabling a large army to be well equipped at a low cost to conquer the known world.
You ask why the Romans did not cover more of their bodies in mail. I already pointed out to you that it's expensive (and that there is the law of diminishing returns at play). Also it's heavy, and the Roman troops, differently from later European soldiers, often had to be deployed in a hurry and made to walk to a place half a continent away - carrying their own stuff.
Then you confuse me with a sudden change of position:
"it can give a bit, and avoid damage by being pushed,"
"The Roman shield wall didn't open all as one, they opened very much at random,"
This would agree with my position that they did not interlock their shields normally and that they did not "move more or less as one". It disagrees with yours that they did.
Your point about the danger of shields is correct but it only works insofar as the person in full plate armor uses a shield (which was very situational and certainly not the norm). And the argument loses its meaning when trying to turn it into an advantage of the Roman-equipped soldier. Yes, the Roman can drop his shield easily. But now the guy in full plate doesn't have to wrestle his opponent anymore. It's not difficult to hurt somebody whose arms and legs are unprotected and who's trying to wrestle with you.
I'm not sure how you expect the Romans to win against British knights or other people in full plate. What ways to adapt would there be for them? What "superior equipment choices" would save them?
You call them more mobile, but they are all on foot. They can't outrun an army that makes use of horses to carry their heavy equipment, and especially not when they have to build a fort every evening.
The mongols came to Europe a long time before full plate armor was developed. Their successes do not reflect on the effectiveness of full plate.
And while the Romans did what they could for strategic advantages at the cost of tactical supremacy by sacrificing full body protection for lighter equipment, the medieval countries, with much less territory under their control to support their war machines, could deploy fully armored knights all the way to the Holy Land. Their war machines had grown more efficient and so they could afford the improved protection, and even back in the first crusade, when it was all mail (+ a shield), it was better protection than what the Romans had.
So not only do the Romans lose out in terms of armor, but also in terms of logistics.
The Europeans experimented with armor and experienced all sorts of different armor combinations in their numerous military escapades over the centuries. The reason why their top-of-the-line kept getting more protective is that it worked. They quickly stopped with this line of thought when it stopped working.
During most of the ancient era, cavalry charges generally weren't a crash through the enemies ranks style attack. The Macedonian companion cavalry rode completely bare back, which means you literally have to hang onto the horse with your legs. Without a saddle or stirrups to keep you up on the horse, if you charged someone with full speed and your spear braced under your arm, you'd just get thrown off the horse. Ancient era horses were also much smaller than the huge chargers from the medieval era. Asides from hit and run tactics with horse archers, cavalry were mostly used to mop up the enemy after a rout. Charges against troop formations were more of flanking maneuver (generally going after their right flank, since people carried their shields on their left), and would turn right before getting to their line, and stab away with the spears as they went by. There are exceptions to this, particularly with Alexander, but until people were held onto the horse with saddles and stirrups, crashing through the enemies ranks was a great way to get knocked off your horse surrounded by the enemy.
The middle ages also mostly lacks the massive pitched battles in Western Europe until the late middle ages. They just couldn't field the huge numbers the Greeks, Romans and Persians could. A lot of medieval warfare was simply terrorizing the countryside. A group of knights would roll into an area, and if the local nobility couldn't handle it, they'd just hide out in their fortifications. The invaders would go after their resources, which frequently meant killing peasants and burning fields, and stealing anything not nailed down. At times combat between knights, wasn't lethal. If you bested another knight, you could take his armor, weapons and horse, worth a small fortune in of itself. Then you could ransom him to his family for even more cash. There are exceptions to these, of course.
And to interject on a few points you guys are debating. I'll agree that Roman era armor and weapons were inferior to mid to late medieval era weaponry and armor. Metallurgy was one of the few areas Europeans really improved on during the middle ages. During the early middle ages, you do get a regression in Western Europe, though, where techniques were lost and materials like good quality iron were hard to get in a lot of spots.
Logisitics-wise and mobility-wise, I'd say the Romans were superior. Sure they built some basic fortifications each night when making camp, but they were legion. They weren't necessarily building wooden walls around their camp most of the time. Generally it was just digging a ditch and using the dirt as a rampart. When you have tens of thousands of trained and disciplined troops, you can do that in an hour around your camp each night. You also only have to do that in hostile territory, when you're moving through your own territory, you don't need the fortifications. The road systems they built everywhere really sped up their troop movements and supply lines, too. They copied an idea from the Persians, that wasn't seen until the Napoleanic era, of way stations stocked with horses and messengers. A messenger could ride to a way station, pass the message to a fresh messenger with fresh horses, and they could carry it to the next way station. You could move information at what for the time was lightning speed over vast distances. The medieval Europeans did manage to send troops to the middle east for the crusades, but that was something the Romans did plenty of times themselves. A lot of the crusades were horribly organized, too, and got to Greece or Italy and had huge trouble getting the rest of the way. Just because the medieval Europeans used horses in combat, didn't make them any faster at getting around. Their armies still needed baggage trains and supply lines, and lot of them were not mounted, or were on slow carts.
But you overestimate the importance of the stirrup. Historians used to give it the credit for the rise of the cavalry, but that has since been debunked.
I'm not just talking about the stirrup, but also the saddle. Imagine trying to ride a horse bareback and just hanging on with your legs like the Macedonions did. I'm not saying cavalry did not exist before the saddle/stirrups, but was generally used differently. There are exceptions, but ancient world cavalry generally did not crash through enemy lines. Smaller horses, with little to no armor on them, and nothing but your legs to keep you on the horse, did not make it practical. It was more for chasing down oppenents when they ran, so you could finish them off, instead of them getting away and having to fight them again later and flanking maneuvers like I mentioned earlier. There are exceptions, particularly with Alexander with charges targeted very specifically at gaps in formations, but charging right into enemy ranks with ancient era equipment on a horse was very risky and not done often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
A few comments on the above:
Roman legions was in the many thousands, even smaller ones were 5k but bigger ones 20k or more. In ancient times, though I have no idea how or why, states could create much, much bigger armies than any nation during the medieval ages could. My personal opinion, not based on facts but my own so called logic, is that armoring the troops made them more resilient and that was good since you had less to spare and time needed to replace would have been high. Also, it would probably cost less to equip a 1000 soldiers than 10000 in absolute numbers even though the cost per person was higher.
In later eras, 16/17/18th century, one can see armies getting larger and larger again. Also, the training a soldier needed to fire a gun was much less then needed to ride and fight from horseback or to fire longbows, so it was quicker and easier to build up larger armies. So the need to protect every person again was reduced and the absolute costs to equip them all would have been a lot higher if they would have had higer-grade armor. And this is before cannons really took over (though of course they were used).
A little sidenote to your otherwise very interesting discussion.
Another little sidenote is I remember reading about muslim calling christians hedgehogs, or similar, because they could be completely covered in arrows yet still fight, by the power of gambeson+chainmail. I think it's an interesting note, if true, since arrows are so often depicted to easily punch through armor in books, movies and games. Probably even maille was in itself good enough to stop most arrows, and this was a few hundred years before plate took over.
I read that too a long time ago, and later searched for quite a while to find the source for that. And for those who don't want to search around forever like I did: it's from Saladin's biographer, Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad, and his description of the prelude to the battle of Arsuf.
Notice the lack of a saddle in all the depictions in that article and also how the spears are wielded. They're not braced under the arm, but thrust with an under arm motion and only held in the hand so as to not transfer all the impact to the rider and throw them off, unlike what you can do with a high backed saddle and couched lance. The article also mentions nothing contradictory my statement that a direct crash through enemy lines was used. The only major details mentioned tactically were they used mixed with horse archers to force Romans into a tortoise formation where they could ride up and stab away while they were stuck in the tortoise formation.
If a king wanted to produce an army to fight an enemy he had to start negotiating first. On wikipedia, for some medieval battles or wars, you can see things like the king of France being allied with some random bishop. The Romans generally did not have to deal with this sort of stuff. They had subordinate countries. When the emperor went to war, he sent a few thousand (or tens of thousands) of his troops and ordered his allies to add some more.
Under these circumstances, the first crusade deserves a bit more appreciation from you. Tens of thousands of troops left their homes undefended against their neighbors (potential enemies), traveled to Asia Minor and then went and conquered much of the Holy Land.
There are a number of reasons as for why Europe fell apart and took so long to recover from and produce real, functioning countries again.
What is it you want me to appreciate, have I spoken against that?
The smiley should have given it away, that it was said with some jest. I know linking wiki is far from perfect, but it was a quick googling. I've read cataphracts clashing into enemies, and not just romans. I doubt they would have armored themselves from top to bottom only for deflecting arrows and then be used for hit and run flanking maneuvers. But hey, that's just my thinking.
Sorry, It's always hard to tell if someone's kidding or being smug
Flanking might've been too narrow of a description. They would have frequently have been used in the mop up techniques I mentioned earlier, though. I know the Scythians, who they mention in the article liked to use hit and run tactics, attack with horse archers to get the opposing army to give chase, retreat, attack with archers again, rinse and repeat until the opposing army did something stupid or got tired, then send in the cavalry to mop up once the formations had broken up.
Not all of them armored their horses as heavily as that guy with the scale mail over his horse had in that article, particularly further back in history, but armor over the horse still makes sense even if you're not crashing directly into enemy formations, horses are expensive. Even with the turn and stab as you ride by attacks I mentioned earlier, you and your horse could still be in melee range, so armor would help.
Like I said earlier, there are exceptions, but generally you didn't want your cavalry just slamming straight into the enemy line until better methods of keeping the rider on their horse were developed. You can crash through loose formations and into gaps, but charging straight into a dense line was a great way to be surrounded and knocked off your horse if you only have your legs to keep you on the horse.
I'm not arguing against your point, but I do want to state that you may be underestimating how widespread the use of very heavy cavalry (cataphracts) was in ancient times. The Seleucid empire, Parthia, Pontus and Armenia had them, as far as I know, and probably others as well I don't know of. Scythians was not like the more advanced states like these four (or rome) and can probably not be put into the same category, even though they too had lots of archers.
The Scythians weren't as organized, but they defeated the Persians and killed Cyrus The Great. They weren't that different from each other and were pretty closely related. The Persians were basically Scythians that settled down and conquered an empire.
I don't dispute heavy cavalry was used, but that it generally wasn't used in the head on crash through the lines that a lot of people think they were in ancient times. The Parthians also used a similar technique to the Scythians, with hit and run tactics with horse archers, the Parthian Shot was their most famous maneuver. This is a general statement, and there are exceptions, though. I'm not saying it never happened, it just was not the common way they were used because of the huge risks involved. By the time of the Parthians, saddles had become more in use, and they could start pulling off head on charges, but we're talking more classical era by then.
The Mountain vs. The Snake
The Hound vs. Brienne of Tarth
Arya's spar with Brienne
The Battle of the Bastards
Stannis vs. Mance Rader
Eddard Stark vs. Jaime Lannister
The Dolthraki vs. The Lannisters (minus the dragon of course)
They all seemed fairly realistic to me except The Battle of the Bastards might have been a bit far-fetched. Thoughts?