Spears are the uncontested tried-and-true GOAT weapon preferred by literally every fighting man from ancient europe to...

nope
in order to properly engage the enemy in close combat the romans had to paralyze and dismay the enemy with their javellin/pillum first
>the roman did not just engage the enemy directly without handling the sheer formation of that macedonian phalanx especially during the wars with numerous greek empires equipped with those long ass pikes/sarissa

they did repell the huns who then migrated to the west

A spear is a great weapon when conservation of manpower is of importence to you.
A stabbing sword is great at disposing of enemies but means you have to get into proper close combat, and is thus more risk-reward focused.
As far as I'm aware this is one of the reasons why the late romans readopted the spear as the primary melee weapon.

Was the pillum enough to turn the tables? I heard that Macedonians were using pretty long spears by the time they faced romans because of infighting (which made them slow-moving), and the romans suffered heavy casualties anyways. Would an army of Alexander's day have fared better?

Lets say the greeks had a good general, would you rather be a soldier on macedonian side with shorter sarissa or the roman side with pillum and gladius?

I will never cease to be annoyed at how relentlessly Roman military history is misunderstood. They never stopped using spears. There was a period of about 200 years where they used spears a lot less than they usually did but by the early 3rd century they were right back at it.

>>the romans had no concept of "warriorness" like the samurai, the spartans and the medieval knights they always fought as a unit
This is totally wrong. One of the highest honors a Roman soldier could receive was being renowned as a "bellator", literally a "warrior", someone who preformed extraordinary feats of individual heroism. This honor was awarded for things like breaking away from formation to kill an enemy officer, issuing a challenge to the enemy ranks by yourself, reclaiming a standard, being the first man over the enemy walls, etc.. Whenever this honor is recorded, it's always listed above others on the tombstones of soldiers and so it seems to have been regarded as one of the highest honors one could receive. Constantine was one such man, who received it for leading a cavalry charge.

> I heard that Macedonians were using pretty long spears by the time they faced romans
The sarissas were about 4 metres long IIRC.

>because of infighting
The macedonians didn't suffer from infighting at the time. If you are refering to the wars between the diadochi then that conflict had resulted in the creation of formalised and legaly accepted successor states about a century earlier.

>Would an army of Alexander's day have fared better?
That's likely as the combined arms focus, which was the fundamental point of the Philiphinian and Alexandrian way of warfare, had severly degenerated by the time of the macedonian wars if I'm not mistaken. Alexander's army also had possibly the most competent leadership in the history of warfare. Pretty much every single top end officer were a great military leader in their own right.

>European early middle ages.

>Be China.
>Raise tens of thousands of professionals easy.

>Be medieval Europe.
>It literally takes a village to produce 1 knight.
K.

>The Romans decided to go back to spears when they were being BTFO by Cavalry.

I can’t think of any Yuro empires that can out chink the chink till mid renaissance.

>I can’t think of any Yuro empires
This is pretty much Medieval Europe.

A collection of feudalcucked States, a few city states, and a collection of aforementioned states masquerading as an Empire.

>>the romans had no concept of "warriorness
I sincerely suggest you read “Soldiers and Ghosts” by JE Lendon. You are absolutely retarded

its not just the damn gladius gauls had longer swords the spanish natives liked swords and in general romans fought many peoples with swords

Roman heavy infantry was successful because of them being very versatile and being armed and trained in a fashion where they could attack their enemy from a relative distance with their javelins at the same time ,and overwhelm their front ranks and cause some confusion and lose of morale among the survivors, and also being well-trained and equiped with a sword and large shield + armour that allowed them to have an edge in most close-quarters and confused melee fights. It also allowed them to engage with skirmishers if they had to, instead of relying on missile troops.

It's a myth that the Romans with the gladius gave them an advantage over heavy infantry armed with spears in a conventional head-on engagement. Caesar writes in his Gallic Wars that in an engagement with a German force that a normal spear phalanx / shield wall sustained a Roman legionary charge :

>Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above.

It's also a myth that the Roman heavy infantry fought in very close quarters more so than most of their counterparts, and that the Maniple and Legion infantrymen had to rely on being so close to each other when in a melee to be effective and to compensate for the lack of range with a gladius instead of a spear. It's actually somewhat opposite. The Romans stood relatively wide (3+ feet, which is more so than most non-missile heavy infantrymen) apart from each other in most circumstances (there's exceptions--particularly if they themselves were under missile fire, but a general charge against other infantry is presumed to be what I just described). Each legionary--after casting their javelins--actually engage with their enemy in a manner that was quite individualistic.

>1 knight
>and dozens of archers, men at arms, squires, etc

>
>Was the pillum enough to turn the tables?

Yes, in combination with the scutum, gladius, and heavy armor of the legionary. All these things came together and the sum is greater than its parts.

A century of legionaries could chuck ~60-80 of these these in close order or even on the charge, causing chaos in the enemy ranks. To help visualize, a century in battle order would take up about 30' frontage of a battlefield, facing off a group of enemies along the same. So 80 of these massive javelins are going into that target. A second volley could follow, or not, depending on the situation.

Either way the legionaries would immediately follow up with the charge, using scutum to rush in and be very aggressive on the attack with less fear of exposure to enemy. Once they were stuck in, the gladius caused terrible wounds that could incapacitate immediately (imagine being punched in the liver). Seeing your front rank in chaos, those guys being killed off really fast, and everything NOT going according to plan destroys morale fast.

not 30 meters but 30 feet. it's a tight target for a lot of pila to land in.

This is a good thread. Keep it up folks.

This user nailed it. The key to the whole gladius thing is simply that the Romans had effective means to close the distance and weren't constricted by extremely tight formations.

One thing I've been wondering is if the good training and discipline is what let them fight in such a manner in the first place. It's easier for relatively untrained people to form up tightly with long spears - your natural instinct in such situations is to huddle up together. Fighting cohesively with significant spacing is most likely harder but extremely effective if pulled off right.

guy looks like he just saw some shit

even good armor won't protect your psyche

They did see some shit user.

Their discipline was definitely a factor. You'll notice in many ancient cultures the swords went to the guys who had combat experience (proven, less likely to break at the terror of close combat) or were otherwise expected not to break (the lord who actually has an interest in winning, his retinue), while the spear is something any man at all should expect to take to battle.

People write about how the Romans were dead silent the entire time they were on the battlefield which made them unique compared to most armies which would scream and bash shields and try to be as loud as possible. Other armies peacock and try to act intimidating, Romans ooze intimidation based on how quiet and calm they are. They don’t need to rile themselves up or shout at the enemy: their cold, calculated discipline as they marched towards you, they’re not some militia or some citizen-levied spear wall, each and every man is a trained killer and is there to kill you. He doesn’t need to act tough or talk big, his sword is going to do the talking, and he’s not gonna just accept your surrender, he’s gonna hunt you down and slaughter you for daring to challenge Rome. No more words need to be said, chances are the Romans tried talking, justified it in their own way, and had nothing to say at that point. You challenged us, you made us deploy here, we’re not interested in some peace deal, we’re going to destroy your entire civilization and everyone will know what happens when you challenge us.
But none of it is spoken or shouted. They just stare you down on the battlefield in cold silence and you know it in your soul that these men are hardened, trained killers and they won’t show you mercy.

Based Getae

Like trump says WRONG, America was its own isolated way

He saw the Carthaginians.

The intitial approach was quiet, but they would begin chanting and hollering ghastly cries up close to give an otherworldly, ghastly impression.

Roman legionaries were also very much daring and rowdy, there are tales of soldiers on watch getting drunk and sneaking off to climb the walls alone in a siege, stab enemies in their sleep, and dance on the battlements. And Pullo and Vorenus being real men, too.

>The intitial approach was quiet, but they would begin chanting and hollering ghastly cries up close to give an otherworldly, ghastly impression.

what kind of ghastly cries, is there a description?

This I remember reading about, and the importance of psyche in these battles is pretty big. Once your people develop a reputation for defeating astounding numbers of enemies and toppling major powers, there's a confidence instilled in your side. But there's also intimidating the enemy, which comes into play with the silent treatment. The barbarians were absolutely alien to the legionaries, but it went the other way around too. The swarming ants clad in metal to a man (which itself must have been intimidating to a barbarian commander if not his men as well), arriving in huge numbers and ready to fight, and they don't even act right. Why aren't they pumping themselves up to fight? Are they not afraid? Do they even feel fear? Are they even men?

I don't remember this, but units across the empire were diverse and I wouldn't doubt local warrior traditions carrying over into legion service. There was an elite unit called the Cornuti, who were known for the barritus, a sort of haka and war cry ritual probably from native Gallic traditions.

Except that's bullshit. Most of the time, Romans were yelling and chanting just like everybody else.

Your fanfiction is cringe

Shouting and screams were always part of the fighting, and the Romans did great war cries before throwing their pila and charging. But order and general silence was maintained before the advance by armies in a good middle span of the roman era. Obviously not all armies as things change in a 700 year span - the Romans are noted as beating their shields with their pila and swords in earlier eras. But if this shit never happened it probably wouldn't have survived all these years in text.

the barritus like mentioned, it -may- have had an origin in Celtic warfare but Roman culture had a lot of parallels, and Romans were far more fearful of spirits and the tormented undead.

you can see a pretty good depiction in this movie
youtube.com/watch?v=hMI-Vvse2vM

This thread is too good. I won’t let it die

Press f

bump

Just start dumping legionaries senpai. This is now a legion thread.

...

...

...

...

This is apparently a low res image thread as well.

If you took a soldier from each era of Roman history and put them together for a party, how would everyone get along?

sounded similar to this:
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GERMANS GET OUT

>Germans amirite

Valentinian, is that you?

Everyone would make fun of the Late Roman's helmet

bump again

stop bumping without dumping.

last warning.

One heavy cavalryman would probably mow down 20 chinese footsoldiers

Id say Napoleonic France had the best leadership of any nation inhistory

One viking could take on at least three Roman heavy cavalrymen.

I was referring to an user talking about medieval knights (I assume middle to late medieval period)
Also if we include Byzantines their Kataphraktoi would absolutely destroy infantry