Help support TMP


"Pre-Modern Battlefields Were Absolutely Terrifying" Topic


4 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Tactica


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

The Amazing Worlds of Grenadier

The fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.


Featured Profile Article

GameCon '98

The Editor tries out this first-year gaming convention in the San Francisco Bay Area (California).


858 hits since 2 Apr 2019
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0102 Apr 2019 9:06 p.m. PST

"Of the many books and articles published explaining the tactical mechanics of ancient and medieval warfare, none have influenced my views on the topic more than a short article by Philip Sabin titled "The Face of Roman Battle." In this article Sabin attempts to draw an accurate description of the way a Roman legion and its maniples actually worked on the battlefield. He is not the only one to attempt this feat. The clearest description of the pre-Marian armies is the account found in the eighteenth book of Polybius's Histories, and historians have been squabbling over just what Polybius's rather ambiguous report means for the better part of the last two centuries. I believe that Sabin's is the best of their efforts. What makes his description so convincing is the building blocks he uses to construct it. Sabin starts his reconstruction with a few general insights about the nature of ancient combat, especially the hand-to-hand sort. His most important insight is this: close combat is absolutely terrifying. When you realize just how terrifying it is much of what we find in the ancient and medieval source starts to make a lot more sense…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Pythagoras06 Apr 2019 4:56 a.m. PST

I'm thinking the modern variety of battlefields are also pretty terrifying…

Lewisgunner06 Apr 2019 11:43 a.m. PST

The modern battlefield is lonely. The soldier will likely not gave his mates shoulder to shouder and his officer within ten ir twenty paces. On a modern battlefield there are no shields. At least on an Ancient battlefield you had a piece of kit designed to ward off blows. If you wanted to you coukd concentrate on self defence unless your opponent made a mistake, on a midern battlefield you can hide, but there is no hiding pkace in an Ancient formation , though if you are fith in a file of hoplites you are safebunless it all goes Bleeped text up, ir an accudental arrow gets you. In Ancient battle the casualties ipon the winning side are normally about 5%, for the loser 15-20% , but a modern soldier does not fight one day, he fights day after day.
Lastly an Ancient soldier does not gave to worry about artillery or air unless Zeus is very pissed off. For the modern soldier death can come unseen abd almost unheard.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2019 7:15 a.m. PST

Actual battles are the same, it makes no difference if your leg is chopped of by an axe, ripped of by a cannonball or torn to shreds by shrapnel. It's all blood, guts and screams.
The difference is outside of contact with the enemies, rampant sickens and hunger (atleaet in western armies) is gone. Instead you have the eternal presence of artillery and air strikes.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.