4 ms·
We're not really sure what actually happens when two phalanxes meet. We're also not sure how the Romans swapped lines of men out during combat. Lots of the deta
by cdot2 5y ago
We're not really sure what actually happens when two phalanxes meet. We're also not sure how the Romans swapped lines of men out during combat. Lots of the details about ancient combat just werent written about in detail and its not something we can (ethically) test
- spywaregorilla 5y agoHow would you unethically test ancient combat tactics? Unless you mean have people try it until it seems to work, in which case, I'm sure you would find many willing LARPers
- hutzlibu 5y agoReplaying something with toy weapons, is not really the same, as fighting for real. But it would probably make for some approximation.
- kbenson 5y agoI think the issue is that LARPing battle is a poor substitute for what the body can take and how people respond to real pain and damage. We might be getting to the point that we can get somewhat of a foot take on the damage with VR eventually.
- Apocryphon 5y agoVR? What if we just tried it out in a Mount and Blade mod.
- willcipriano 5y agoDo you find that your behavior in Mount and Blade is close to real life?
- Apocryphon 5y agoI wouldn't know, I don't actually play that game.
- willcipriano 5y agoI've been playing Blade and Sorcery in VR for a week or so. It's scary at first, but after a while I don't mind getting hit and play in a way that I would never do with my own body at risk. In the real world I'd get somewhere up high with a bow, but I run around like Conan the Barbarian in the game.
- jay_kyburz 5y agoYou also have to grow up in a society that is completely alien to ours, your entire outlook on life, how long you might live, and how willing you are to give up your life is different. Imagine living in a world where how tough you are, how well you can fight determines everything about your status in the world.
- cdot2 5y agoThe conjecture is that people will not willingly throw themselves on a line of spears and so the phalanxes would stop short of actually hitting each other. I don't think larpers would be able to test that well. I'm not sure how you would test that unethically
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI feel like a great deal of melee warfare involved group A smashing itself upon group B. Phalanxes, as I understand it, were effective because they were particularly good at this part. So given that we already had lots of other varieties of troops throwing themselves at the spears, why do we doubt that other phalanxes would specifically be unwilling to do the same?
- boomboomsubban 5y agoThe idea is that a phalanx trained under the assumption that their formation was nearly invincible as long as they were experienced enough and worked together well. Both the members of the phalanxes and the generals would be hesitant to risk that by sending them against another phalanx where they lose all their inherent advantage and would need to fight in a different way.
- netcan 5y ago..and these things were of major concern to important, literate people whose writings we do have. What actually happens when two phalanxes meet was (intermittently) a really major determinant of world events for a long time. It was top of mind for Alexander, Cesar, and other generals and kings until the renaissance. Generals who wrote about pikes and shields and war stuff. Still, we don't know.
- teh_klev 5y agoMaybe you mean "empirically" rather than "ethically"?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hnbad 5y agoWhat we do know about pre-modern warfare though is that people generally didn't want to die, didn't want to kill each other and many times battles ended with one of the two armies losing morale and fleeing or surrendering. Individual battles could also last for days with very little time actually being spent physically clashing. Two phalanxes meeting face-to-face with neither side drastically outnumbering the other was likely the worst case scenario because it meant a war of attrition rather than a quick and decisive victory.