We'll Change Law On Killing Burglars

[EternalOptimist]

Only if you have big rooms though. A cricket bat seems a bit ineffective at close quarters.


Ob question: Who would win (combatants being equal) a knife wielder or cricket bat wielder? Which would you prefer?

Ahah. you have actually hit on a very important historical and philosophical point here.
The beauty of the six gun, it was remarked at the time of its invention, was that for the first time in history, all men were equal.
i.e. it wasnt down to mainly brute strength any more.


plus, if you imagine that a bat is only any use if you have room to swing it, you are mistaken.

combatants being equal, who would win ?? jeez, what a question. I guess you would have to go back to the Roman arena to answer that one. They did ocasionally match greek clubmen(hercules) against thracian knifemen. I dont recall how that turned out

[EternalOptimist]

The Romans used a short sword, little more than a big knife. They were fairly successful...

the gladius was a yard long. known as a short thrusting sword. 'three inches in the right place is worth six in the wrong' was how they taught the legionaries. The objective of the short sword was that it countered the long spear, i.e. is was a tactical development designed to counter the previous tactical development.
So the greek hoplite, or spearman, led to the macedonian phalangist, or long spearman, which led to the Roman short swordsman. etc etc etc. its an ongoing cycle.

The swordsmen had the advantage as soon as the terrain got slightly uneven, it was a lot easier for them to maintain their order. Over the decades, this advantage led to a morale ascendancy, which led to the demise of the spearmen. (untill the next time)

[TimberWolf]

Ahah. you have actually hit on a very important historical and philosophical point here.
The beauty of the six gun, it was remarked at the time of its invention, was that for the first time in history, all men were equal.
i.e. it wasnt down to mainly brute strength any more.


plus, if you imagine that a bat is only any use if you have room to swing it, you are mistaken.

combatants being equal, who would win ?? jeez, what a question. I guess you would have to go back to the Roman arena to answer that one. They did ocasionally match greek clubmen(hercules) against thracian knifemen. I dont recall how that turned out

A club is a different kettle of fish though, a greek clubman armed with a cricket bat isn't going to be a happy bunny.

[RichardCranium]

the gladius was a yard long.

Hmm.

During the period during which the Romans were active, fighting techniques did evolve. At one point the Romans completely rewrote their R&Rs (I forget who was responsible for that; it was somewhere between 100 BC and 100 AD).

Anyway, that "short sword" did vary in length and shape over time.

Those I have seen (perhaps from after the time of the Roman invasion of Britain) have been more like 2 feet long.

[EternalOptimist]

A club is a different kettle of fish though, a greek clubman armed with a cricket bat isn't going to be a happy bunny.

I dont know it for a fact, but I would imgaine the Romans tried all permutations.

just for laughs. they were good at that.

I wouldnt be suprised if they had a guy with a twig fighting a guy armed with a set of nasal hair scissors

[EternalOptimist]

Hmm.

During the period during which the Romans were active, fighting techniques did evolve. At one point the Romans completely rewrote their R&Rs (I forget who was responsible for that; it was somewhere between 100 BC and 100 AD).

Anyway, that "short sword" did vary in length and shape over time.

Those I have seen (perhaps from after the time of the Roman invasion of Britain) have been more like 2 feet long.

You are thinking of Marius.
He realised that the Romans were merely copies of the greek hoplites (spearmen)

so he sat down and invented the optimum way to beat a spearman. He came up with three ideas
shield wall
short thrusting sword
heavy throwing spear that could not be thrown back

his ideas stood for five hundred years

[EternalOptimist]

ah just checked. RC you are correct - gladius was 2 feet

muchos grovelling and embarrasment

[RichardCranium]

heavy throwing spear that could not be thrown back

And that was just genius. The pilum. A spear with a weak neck so it would bend once it hit its target (or the ground, if it missed the target).

How does one come up with such a brilliant, non-obvious, piece of creativity like that?

(It was useless after use so could not be thrown back; if it stuck in a shield or armour it was a bugger to get out; if it got stuck in flesh it was a bugger to pull out.)

A weak, bendy spear. Absolute genius.

[RichardCranium]

ah just checked. RC you are correct - gladius was 2 feet

No worries. I had to go and check - it did vary quite a lot across the empire, both in length and shape.

Thank you for reminding me about Gaius Marius. What kind of man must he have been to be able to implement such a massive change programme?

[EternalOptimist]

And that was just genius. The pilum. A spear with a weak neck so it would bend once it hit its target (or the ground, if it missed the target).

How does one come up with such a brilliant, non-obvious, piece of creativity like that?

(It was useless after use so could not be thrown back; if it stuck in a shield or armour it was a bugger to get out; if it got stuck in flesh it was a bugger to pull out.)

A weak, bendy spear. Absolute genius.

what was even better was the way they incorporated these ideas into their tactical system. As well as having a weapons system, they had a tactical system.
The barbarians would attack and it would be 'kill kill kill' The Romans would attack and say, 'ok, we are not going to try to kill you. the first volley of pila will be to weigh your shields down so you throw them away. Then our shield wall will break your attack, but we still dont kill you. Then the sheild wall will push you back. We still dont want to kill you. When you are all squashed up and cant defend yourselves, then, wake up, its time to die'
They realised that 80% of casualties occur after the battle, not during the fight.