Westeros warfare and armor glitches

[Ser Lepus]

Were swords even deployed in formation after the Romans?

The spaniards deployed sword-and-board soldiers during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

Don Gonzalo de Córdoba created the original tercios by dividing his troops between gunmen, pikemen and swordmen; the purpose of the swordmen was to penetrate the gaps created by the gunmen in the pike blocks and slaughter the pikemen of the enemy (a tactic similar to the roman one, replacing pilums with arquebusses); later, the swordmen and gunmen become the same corp (each carrying a sword, shield and arquebuss), and a few soldiers armed with halberds and archas (a weapon similar to a glaive or naginata) were added to give more versatility to the mix.

[TrueMetis]

Horses were common animal by the medieval time everywhere except Americas, you probably meant number of well trained mounted sword-fighters.... ;)

No I mean horses, since the English army was almost entirely infantry. While the Normans had a lot of Calvary, who were mostly Lance and Archers. They had swords sure, but then odds are so did most of the English infantry.

[seeyouintee]

... sometimes I'm convinced half of you are trolls. It's common knowledge the Mongols dominated because of horses.

[Kozma]

It's common knowledge the Mongols dominated because of horses.

Sure, but this is only one of many factors.

[Fire Eater]

Sure, but this is only one of many factors.

Very true, the Mongols had more than just horses. Their military leaders were some of the most intelligent in the world at the time with Subutai having won 65 major battles, and conquered 32 countries.

Horses did play a part in granting mobility to the Mongol army. Each soldier had three or four horses allowing them to travel high speed without stop or wearing out the animals. They also traveled light. In the Hungary campaign they could travel 100 miles(160km) a day.

Mongols also knew how to live off the land unlike their agrarian counterparts. They hunted and fished for food as well as milking their mares.

They also trained for virtually any possibility so when it occurred they would react accordingly.

[seeyouintee]

Very true, the Mongols had more than just horses. Their military leaders were some of the most intelligent in the world at the time with Subutai having won 65 major battles, and conquered 32 countries.

Horses did play a part in granting mobility to the Mongol army. Each soldier had three or four horses allowing them to travel high speed without stop or wearing out the animals. They also traveled light. In the Hungary campaign they could travel 100 miles(160km) a day.

Mongols also knew how to live off the land unlike their agrarian counterparts. They hunted and fished for food as well as milking their mares.

They also trained for virtually any possibility so when it occurred they would react accordingly.

Basically:

'Horses. Horses. And... they were good at horses.'

Thanks, I had thought it wasn't clear.

[Pallantides]

Romans with swords almost always beat barbarians.

Romans did not just use swords. The entire Roman military machine was combined arms. The legionaries used javelins and swords (pilum and gladius), auxilia were outfitted in many different ways. Spears, slings, bows, etc, as well as taking the predominant cavalry role, but there were other cavalries as well. The role of auxilia is heavily downplayed by most, even though they were a very significant factor in regards to winning battles for the legions.

It's not so much that sword beats axe, as it is that frequent drilling and training and discipline, as well has having a general standardization for equipment (although the Roman legions were not as uniformed as we tend to think they are), beats a warband called up by a tribe, that had a large mixture of differently trained warriors. If you were a barbarian commander, you couldn't rely on the standardization that the Romans relied on.

With the Romans, they knew that even if one legion had not seen battle at all, they would know that the troops have been trained, and were as competent as they could possibly get, without actual battlefield experience.

But ultimately the victories for any army go down to tactics, planning, logistics, and morale.

[Kozma]

Romans did not just use swords. The entire Roman military machine was combined arms.

Did they use axes? ..... Why? Meanwhile axes were part of the fasces? Well, fasces were not functionnal

[Pallantides]

Did they use axes? ..... Why? Meanwhile axes were part of the fasces? Well, fasces were not functionnal

Arrian described the Roman cavalry as using axes in battle against the Alans. There are also depictions of an axe used by a horseman on the Gamzigrad tombstone. They also had a tool that was described in certain accounts as being used as a weapon of last resort, known as a dolabara. Essentially it had a pick on one end, and a regular axehead on the other.

There are axes being used by legionaries on Trajan's column.

http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/2.33.h.jpg

They're using dolabrae, axes, and regular weapons here while fighting the Dacians, in what appears to be a surprise attack while the soldiers were working.

Foederati from different tribes (Franks, Vandals, Goths, etc) would have used axes as well, as they were supplied by those allied tribes for specialist purposes.

[Nukelavee]

You know what the real advantage the Mongols and Normans had? Fucking HORSES.

Good point - once a man's clan sees him doing that...........he's not holding back for anything.

Seeintee - no, actually. I see it isn't clear to you. The Mongols had planning, logistics, gear, and fucking numbers. They could have rode sheep, for christ's sake, and had damn near teh same effect.

It wasn't that they had HORSES, because their opponents had HORSES, and HORSES on both sides cancels out the advantage of HORSES unless you have more than just HORSES to bring to the table.

Because, HORSES don't win seiges, don't take cities, or do anything in a battle except add some speed and weight to an attack.

Tactics, strategy, and a better use of what they had then others with them.

Or, had you forgotten, Mongols also fought other horse tribes, with very similar capabilities.

I mean, teh frigging Byzantines had effective heavy cavalry, too. so did the Persians, so did the Turks.

[Kozma]

Arrian described the Roman cavalry as using axes in battle against the Alans. There are also depictions of an axe used by a horseman on the Gamzigrad tombstone. They also had a tool that was described in certain accounts as being used as a weapon of last resort, known as a dolabara. Essentially it had a pick on one end, and a regular axehead on the other.

Hmmmm. I always thought that the sword was a weapon of choice for Romans. And axes are more specialized weapon.

I still think that GRRM is using axes in the battle scenes way too much.

However he also overused great-swords. The weapon of such size and weight is definitely a ceremonial accessory. By Martin's description knights in Westeros carried it across their back. Was it the actual way to carry great-swords? Or he emulates Hollywood for better picture?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

By Martin's description knights in Westeros carried it across their back. Was it the actual way to carry great-swords? Or he emulates Hollywood for better picture?

That's pure Hollywood. It is impossible to draw a blade of more than two foot from a sheath on your back. Great-swords were carried in hand or in the baggage.

[Ser Lepus]

Did they use axes? ..... Why? Meanwhile axes were part of the fasces? Well, fasces were not functionnal

The romans used the dolabra, which is mix of axe and pickaxe against the aedui, a celtic tribe that had managed to develope a functional full plate for their infantry, the crupellari. Pilums, spears and gladius didn´t make a dent on their armor, so the legionaries dropped their shields and spears, sheathed their swords and grabbed their dolabras with both hands, using the pickaxes to pierce the crupellari armors.

Basically:

'Horses. Horses. And... they were good at horses.'

Thanks, I had thought it wasn't clear.

The mongols soundly defeated many people who were as good riders as themselves; the persian elite cavalry comes to mind, for example. They weren´t just good riders, they developed very complex and cunning strategies, using false retreats, curtains of smoke, complex envelopment manoeuvers...etc. They also adopted every weapon from their enemies that seemed useful, like gunpowder bombs, catapults, battering rams, siege towers, smoke bombs...etc.

[Pallantides]

That's pure Hollywood. It is impossible to draw a blade of more than two foot from a sheath on your back. Great-swords were carried in hand or in the baggage.

It's not impossible, the sheath has to be set up in a way though, that you can easily do it. A half length sheath, with a ring at the top by the cross guard would allow you to draw it easily, as once the blade is free from the half-sheath, you can angle it out and pull it back over your shoulder.

Of course there is no evidence of such a thing being used historically, but I have seen it work with modern creations.

[Kozma]

Of course there is no evidence of such a thing being used historically, but I have seen it work with modern creations.

How widespread were greatswords in Europe? I just went trough my copy of "Armory Chamber of the Russian Tzars" and there is no greatswords on display. Tzars may had few ones but certainly not ones to be proud of. In Westeros looks like bunch of Valyrian greatswords of great value are around.

[Pallantides]

How widespread were greatswords in Europe? I just went trough my copy of "Armory Chamber of the Russian Tzars" and there is no greatswords on display. Tzars may had few ones but certainly not ones to be proud of. In Westeros looks like bunch of Valyrian greatswords of great value are around.

Greatswords in Europe are somewhat widespread in terms of examples found (Oakeshott type XIIIa), especially when compared to the parent type XIII. There have been more Type XIIIa's found than Type XIII's. They are also depicted fairly frequently in German, Spanish, and English art. But the word itself is a very generic term used to refer to a large number of many different swords, including the longsword, the zweihander, the claymore (both the two handed, and basket hilt version), and even some examples of the schiavona.

[Kozma]

Interesting. Thanks a lot. Zweihander is most definitely not a knightly weapon. It looks spectacular, but suits someone more like Ser Ilyn. Longswords are for foot fighters only, aren't they? Why then GRRM never mentioned a flamberg. Would be fun... :cool4:

[Bright Blue Eyes]

It's not impossible, the sheath has to be set up in a way though, that you can easily do it. A half length sheath, with a ring at the top by the cross guard would allow you to draw it easily, as once the blade is free from the half-sheath, you can angle it out and pull it back over your shoulder.

Of course there is no evidence of such a thing being used historically, but I have seen it work with modern creations.

That is no sheath but a joke. The reason something like this was never used historically is that it can't do the two jobs of a sheath properly - protection.is not possible and transport got problems.

[mormont]

That is no sheath but a joke. The reason something like this was never used historically is that it can't do the two jobs of a sheath properly - protection.is not possible and transport got problems.

It's also a really bad idea in combat: you're basically presenting your opponent with a free shot at your armpit (a very vulnerable and hard to armour target) while you draw the sword.

But when we discuss combat in ASOIAF, basically there are three categories of things that go on: accurate things: things that are inaccurate but GRRM doesn't know: and things that are inaccurate but GRRM doesn't care. The over-the-shoulder draw, I suspect, falls into the latter category.

[Pallantides]

That is no sheath but a joke. The reason something like this was never used historically is that it can't do the two jobs of a sheath properly - protection.is not possible and transport got problems.

Wouldn't call it a joke. Just a fantasy method of carrying a sword on your back.

It's also a really bad idea in combat: you're basically presenting your opponent with a free shot at your armpit (a very vulnerable and hard to armour target) while you draw the sword.

I would think that if anyone had a large sword like that, it would be their main weapon, and in their hands before even getting into combat.