[What are you listening to right now?]

Last Samurai - Trailer Music

[Carthage: Hamilcar's War Elephant]

Its an Indian elephant so that we could actually get a Carthaginian hero on a elephant, since the African Bush elephants that the Carths usually fielded were not large enough to carry a war tower and were ridden only by a mahoot. Our logic was that it would be plausible for the Carthaginians to get their hands on a couple of Indian elephants via Ptolemaic Egypt or Seleucid Syria.

[Warhammer: Mark of Chaos Trailer]

Indeed, the Dawn of War intro cinematic is another awesome one:

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/25703/...awn_of_War.html

[Other: An Introduction to Ancient Combat - Part II - Armor]

Its a fairly common piece among the early hoplites, but as the hoplon became a more common feature of combat and phalanx tactics truly took hold they pretty much disappeared.

Good picture of them here:

http://www.slitherine.com/Legion/Images/Etruscan2.jpg

[An Introduction to Ancient Combat - Part III - Weapons]

Thanks guys!

Regarding your points: Indeed the lizard killer, or sauroter, could easily be used to finish off downed opponents, but to not have to revserse the grip would mean use of the spear in an under-arm fashion. If used over arm it would simply be easier to point the actual spearhead down, instead of having to lower the spear (changing your grip in the process) and stabbing the wounded enemy. The Macedonians, using a sarissa would not have this problem. All that would be required was to raise the pike and stab downward, since they carried it under arm for obvious reasons.

Jason - indeed the framea is quite the interesting weapon, similar in many ways to the African assegai and the Zulu ilkwa. Strong construction for close combat, coupled with a design light enough to be thrown. The perfect weapon for a society whose general lack of iron made swords and axes unobtainable to the vast majority, fulfilling two niches at once.

As for encores, those are in the works, including battle tactics, siege warfare, and naval combat.

[Hillarious Cat Videos]

Truly, these are some of the best videos I have seen, and I have seen other versions just like them. The bear clip is one of my all time favorites. Some serious guts on the part of the cat and typical behaviour on the part of the bear, although once it realizes what exactly it is up against the tables will seriously alter themselves

[Warhammer: Mark of Chaos Trailer]

Another Warhammer game coming out, this time its an RTS, titled the Mark of Chaos. This trailer was released at E3 and I must say it is a doozy. Quite impressive CG and sound work, excellent tone and atmosphere. I enjoy it and here it is for your own viewing pleasure.

If you can, try and download the movie itself, the player on the site is far to small for the file itself, which can support much higher resolutions.

Here is a screencap to whet your appetites

[Favourite TV show thing ...]

BSG is the story of roughly 50,000 human survivors of a human civilization in space. The 12 homeworlds were destroyed by a race of mechanical beings known as the Cylons (uber cool looking) in a massive attack. As many of the human survivors as possible band together and head out on a journey to find the fabled lost colony of Earth. The titular ship is the Galactica of the Battlestar Class, a large combat space carrier. The whole show revolves around that machinantions of the fleet's operations and attacks by the Cylons, who are slowly growing into a highly complex people despite their artificial beginnings.

Great acting, great writing, amazing visuals and special effects. We're just finishing up Season 2 here in Canada and I am eagerly anticipating Season 3 Actually our good old leader Jason is a fan as well

[Favourite TV show thing ...]

Battlestar Galactica is my personal favorite at the moment, although I have not been watching much TV these days Too many good things to do on the computer these days, like work on 0 AD

[I found it!]

Hmmm....to add some more info to the discussion, the guy dressed like a Mongol in Moscau evidently died of AIDS in South Africa in 1993

LOL Tunak, Tunak is pretty funny in its own right On a channel I get, forget which one, the viewer is often treated to Punjabi music videos. Some are quite catchy and others are a truly acquired taste

[An Introduction to Ancient Combat - Part III - Weapons]

An Introduction to Ancient Combat

By

Paul Basar aka Paal_101

Offensive weaponry has always determined the way armies fight and how well they fight against certain enemies. Weapons are at the heart of an army's weaknesses and strengths. For instance, the Sarmatian cataphracts developed the kontos to be able to stab Scythian horse archers as they closed to within 10 feet for a shot, taking advantage of the inherent inaccuracy of the bow at range. Likewise the Spartans used incredibly short swords in combat against other hoplites in a seemingly illogical move. But by using such a short weapon in combat they were able to stab other hoplites when another longer sword would have been blocked or too unweildly to use in the crush of phalanx combat. Part III of the series takes a close look at the weapons used by the diverse cultures and peoples of the ancient world.

Part III - Weapons

“Look death in the face with joyful hope, and consider this a lasting truth: the righteous man has nothing to fear, neither in life, nor in death, and the gods will not forsake him.” - Socrates

Weapons

All non-firearm weapons are classified into two main categories: close quarter and ranged. Members of the first category include spears, swords, axes, daggers, and clubs, whilst the second tallies arrows, slings, and javelins among its ranks. The weapons issued to the troops defined their role and position within the army, as well as their deployment on the battlefield. Heavy infantry were armed differently from the light, just as the cavalry used different equipment from the infantry. As a general, although not rigid rule, heavy infantry and cavalry were equipped with close quarter weapons, while their light counterparts were armed with ranged.

Close Quarter Weapons

Spears were the cheapest of weapons to produce, hence their presence in every army on the planet throughout history. Consisting of a wooden shaft, with ash being the most popular material, and a stabbing head, these weapons were simple to make and use. While iron was the overriding material used for weapons from roughly 1000 BC onward, there were certain peoples who still used bronze (such as the Massagetae) or even stone and horn (Ethiopians) for points. Length varied from army to army, dependant upon culture and fighting style. The longest spears in the ancient world were the massive 19 to 21 foot sarissas used by the Macedonians and Hellenistic Kingdoms from the late 4th to early 1st centuries BC. By grouping large numbers of men together into a solid formation 16-deep, with the first five ranks holding their sarissa in front, these huge pikes provided a veritable thicket of spears for any enemy to break through. The Persians on the other hand preferred to fight with a 6-foot spear with a bronze counterweight, renowned for its shortness. Greek hoplites wielded 8 to 10-foot spears with a counterbalancing butt-spike nicknamed a “lizard-killer”. If a Greek lost the head of the spear he could reverse the shaft and fight with the butt.

In the western Mediterranean the spear was also extremely common. Twelve-foot hasta longa were used by the Roman triarri during the early days of the Roman Republic, a much shorter 8-foot weapon known as a lancea equipping the auxiliaries of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD and two centuries later the entire Roman army. Celts were famous for their use of the spear in combat, where most of their troops were armed with 8-foot shafts mounted with large iron spearheads of incredibly varied design. The most exotic were the wave-patterned heads that were supposedly capable of leaving a more devastating wound. Iberian warriors used a long, gracefully shaped spearhead reminiscent of their Celtic cousins. Mounted on a shorter 7-foot pole, it was used by cavalry and infantry alike to deadly effect. Carthaginians used the Macedonian sarissa in combat, although their cavalry would have been armed with the standard Hellenistic two-handed 9-foot cavalry lance. In a similar vein, the cataphracts of all nations, including the Sarmatians, Parthians, Sassanians, Goths, and Romans, used the 12-foot kontos, tipped with a deadly leaf-shaped spearhead.

Germanic tribesmen were equipped many different spears, a popular one being the extremely short framea, which could be used for stabbing or throwing but reaching only shoulder height. As a close-combat weapon it was quite dexterous and perfect for engaging enemy in forested terrain, while another type was 12-feet long and more suitable for open ground. The Germans were also unique in their use of wooden spears without metal heads. Their culture was famous for its lack of iron working and as a result its use was not nearly as widespread. Instead Germanic warriors would sometimes go into combat armed with a sharpened wooden pole that had been fire-hardened. First century Dacian warriors were also armed with spears, as were the Huns, Gepids, Franks, and other barbarians that battled the Romans in the 5th century AD.

After spears, axes were the cheapest weapons to procure but proved to be extremely dangerous. Accordingly, the Persians adopted a wide-bladed spiked battle-axe from the Scythians known as a sagaris. Mounted on a slender wooden haft, the iron head was quite capable in the hands of even the least trained soldier. The elite cavalry units of the Persian army were often equipped with the axe as a secondary weapon once they had discharged their javelins. The Scythians and Sarmatians also used the sagaris in combat, while the Massagetae were armed with bronze versions. During the Late Roman Empire axes became somewhat common secondary weapons for auxiliaries and legionaries alike, particularly among the allied Germanic troops known as federati. Among their barbarian opponents, the Germanic Franks derived their historical name from their use of a heavy throwing axe known as a francisca among the Romans.

Clubs were rarely issued weapons, although cheap to make and easy to use. In combat they often failed to deliver the killing or crippling blows required to stop an armored opponent. This was due the fact that most were made of wood sometimes backed up by metal spikes. The Assyrians recruited into the Persian army were armed with such weapons, along with the Ethiopians who included in their primitive arsenal wooden clubs. Germanic warriors were also users of simple wooden clubs cut from tree branches. Fighting with a simple wooden shield and this crude weapon they were able to defeat Roman legionaries at great cost. Greeks who were unable to afford the equipment of a simple peltast were forced to fight as light auxiliaries known as psiloi, armed with wooden clubs among other simple weapons.

Long held to be the archetype weapon of the pre-gunpowder age, the sword was more often a secondary weapon for many soldiers of the ancient world. Only the Iberians, Celts, and Romans were famous for their heavy use of the sword in combat, even then usually after discharging any javelins or spears they had been carrying. Swords were used in two ways: the first was as a stabbing weapon and the second for powerful slashes. Stabbing was by far the more deadly attack, punching through armor and flesh, rupturing organs and blood vessels in the process. Slashing weapons were not as immediately lethal but were still capable of severing limbs and decapitating opponents. While there were specialized weapons for both forms of combat, most swords could be used in either way.

Stabbing swords, as with many ancient weapons, had a strong tradition in the late Bronze Age where the Mycenaeans, Egyptians, Hittites, and Assyrians all used stabbing swords to great effect. As in the Bronze Age, Iron Age stabbing swords were one-handed weapons, commonly double-edged and could be used for slashing as well. Short stabbing weapons were widespread, the Spartans wielding extremely short iron swords to great effect in phalanx combat. Yet another weapon adopted from the Scythians, the Persian akinakes was a deadly close quarter weapon with a secondary ability to slash. In the Iberian Peninsula a lethal wide-bladed stabbing sword with a long tapered point was manufactured in large numbers. The espasa proved to be a deadly weapon, capable of stabbing through armor and removing limbs. Not only was it made of high-grade iron, naturally available in Iberia, it was a simple weapon to use with fairly basic training required of the soldier.

During the Punic Wars the Romans were pitted against Iberian warriors equipped with this formidable weapon. Its brutal performance against the heavily armored Romans convinced them to change side arms from the traditional Greek xiphos and various Italian swords to the espasa, which was dubbed the gladius hispaniensis, or Spanish sword. It was to be the weapon that would conquer the known world and become the most famous sword after the much later Japanese katana. Eventually it was developed into four distinct subtypes, all of them varying in blade shape and length. In all cases the weapon retained its stunning lethality and easy use. Having an overall length of roughly 27 inches, the gladius featured a bone grip that lowered the chance of loosing the sword incase the grip happened to be slippery with blood. The hilt and pommel were wooden, although in the 2nd century AD gladii were equipped with iron ring pommels instead of the wooden globe-type. It was the perfect weapon for the close quarter, formation-based fighting style that the Romans espoused, an efficient weapon that required less strength to use then many of their opponent’s longer slashing swords.

Another popular weapon was the Greek two-foot cut-and-thrust xiphos. Descended from the earlier Mycenaean Naue II type bronze sword that had itself spread across Europe, the double edged, leaf-bladed xiphos could be used for effective stabbing, although it was more commonly used to slash. Its effectiveness made it among the most popular swords ever used, being found as far away as modern day Afghanistan and Morocco. In addition to the Greeks and Macedonians, early Romans, Persians, Carthaginians, various Italian peoples, and Illyrians also used the xiphos. It was the ancient equivalent of the modern AK-47; cheap, effective, easy to use, and ubiquitous.

Claiming parentage from the ancient Egyptian khopesh, the Greek kopis was the premiere slashing sword of the ancient Mediterranean. Featuring a vicious triangular blade with a protective hand guard, the kopis, along with its cousin the machaira, was renowned for its sheer destructive power. Helmets proved to be no match for it, as well as documented events of them easily removing limbs. While its length could vary, the basic design was in use from Spain to Afghanistan. In fact the kopis is one of the few weapons to live on into the present day: Gurkha troops in the British Army are armed with the signature kukri knife, a direct descendant of the 2500 year old kopis.

A related sword was the fearsome Iberian falcata, essentially a copy of the kopis made with high quality iron that occurred naturally in Iberia. Unlike its Greek counterpart, the falcata was double-edged and could be used to stab opponents as well. Roman troops were forced to reinforce the bronze rims of their shields with iron examples to defend against the ferocious chops delivered by the falcata. It did not help that the Iberian warriors were such fine fencers that their fighting style has been described as “acrobatic”.

Long swords were used mostly as slashing weapon, using the added momentum from the length and weight to chop through armor. Premiere among these weapons were the Celtic spathas. Initially starting off at roughly two-feet in length, the spatha was quickly lengthened during the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, mainly to hack through heavy Roman armor. By the time of the Gallic Wars it was not uncommon to find spathas of up to 3 feet in length. Another change had been the rounding off of the blade’s point. This went hand in hand with the greater length, showing that the original cut-and-thrust purpose of the spatha had been supplanted by the need for devastating slashes. In combat the Celts were renowned for their ability to cut through shield and armor with the spatha, which they swung around their heads before striking. Generally the quality of these swords is impressive, made of high-grade iron. Two thousand-year old blades have been dredged from lakes and are still able to be flexed into a perfect curve before snapping back into their original shape.

While invented by the Celts, many other armies used the spatha. Its modern name is Roman, who adopted it for use as a cavalry weapon in the 1st century BC. Eventually their style of combat changed as did their side arm, the spatha coming to equip the entire Roman army by the 300s AD. In addition to the Romans, Germanic tribesmen also wielded the weapon, although these were quite rare in the ranks of these fierce warriors, roughly 1 in 10 actually possessing a sword during the 1st century AD. More common was a large, single-edged fighting knife known as a saex. Dacian troops also fielded the spatha, along with Celt-Iberian soldiers from northern Spain.

The Sarmatians manufactured the other major long sword of the ancient world on the steppes. When their cataphracts closed for hand-to-hand combat after the charge, they carried heavy, single-edged long swords, the scabbards strapped to the horseman’s belt or back. Either one or two-handed, the weapon was devastating, particularly when used from horseback, where the added height made blows more powerful. Roughly 3-feet long, the Sarmat sword had a wide blade with a small cross-guard and was balanced with a metal pommel, sometimes of the Roman ring-variety. As with the spatha, the broadsword was adopted by several armies. Chief were the Goths, who also adopted the Sarmatian way of fighting. Huns, Franks, and Romans also used this weapon, usually on horseback. A similar, although unrelated, weapon was found in ancient India, where troops marched into combat with a massive 44-inch one-an-a-half handed sword. The grip was long enough to allow for two hands on the weapon but was still deadly with one. Featuring a wide blade, the Indian broadsword, as it is anachronistically known, was a deadly chopping weapon with a rounded tip.

While a commonly associated weapon of the battlefields of Medieval Europe, the two-handed sword did make an appearance during the 3rd century BC to 2nd century AD, albeit in a significantly different form. The two chief examples were both found north of Greece in modern day Bulgaria and Romania. Thracian warriors from the time of the Macedonian Successors onward charged into battle armed with the fearsome scythe-like rhomphaia, a two-handed curved sword that measured roughly 3-feet in length. The iron blade was concavely curved, with the inner edge being used to strike the opponent. Roughly the same length as the blade, the grip allowed the weapon to be used one or two handed, although for maximum effect the weapon would have to be used with two. Perfect for the fast-moving battle tactics of the Thracians, the rhomphaia proved to be a menacing weapon with devastating killing power.

By the 1st century AD the Thracians had been incorporated into the Roman Empire while their cousins the Dacians remained stalwart opponents of the superpower. In combat the Dacians fielded a ferocious weapon of such brutality that the Romans were forced to issue extra armor to their troops to counter it. This was of course the legendary Dacian falx. Bearing an obvious resemblance to the earlier Thracian weapon, the falx was of similar construction: a two-handed sword with a down-sloping curved iron blade. Again, roughly 3-feet long, the falx featured a heavier blade than the rhomphaia, along with a sturdier haft. In combat the Dacians would swing the weapon with such power that it was able to cut through Roman shields and wound the man behind. Decapitations and amputations occurred with such astounding regularity that the Romans made subtle modifications to the standard legionnaire’s equipment. Helmets and shields were reinforced, while soldiers were issued greaves and manica to give them greater protection when facing the falxmen. Thanks in part to the devastating power of the falx the Roman Imperial Italic line of helmets came into production.

Daggers were common secondary weapons used to kill injured opponents, rather then in hand-to-hand combat, or more commonly perform menial day-to-day tasks. Among the most prolific was the Roman pugio, a short, wide-bladed iron dagger carried by legionnaires from the 2nd century BC onward. It was adopted, like the gladius, from the Iberians, who equipped most of their troops with this sturdy weapon. Persian troops used a large 13-inch dagger as their most common sidearm, while Celts used narrow-bladed stabbing knives. Sarmatians often carried an iron dagger on their right hip, while Greeks were sometimes armed with 15-inch daggers known as parazonium.

Ranged Weapons

Bows were the premiere ranged weapons of the ancient world for obvious reasons. Coming in a huge variety of types and appearing in armies across the Mediterranean, Europe, Africa, and Central Asia, the bow had two distinct qualities: extreme lethality and relatively simple manufacture. While some considerable practice was required to make one a competent bowman, the use of a bow was easy to teach to large numbers of men at one time. Projectiles varied in weight and heads, some featuring bronze arrowheads in place of the more common iron. Range depended on the weight of the arrow and the power of the bow itself. The use of the bow was heavily rooted in the Bronze Age where it had been the primary weapon of the chariot-mounted nobility. By the Iron Age it continued to be used quite extensively in the Middle East.

The Persians were the greatest users of the bow during the 6th and 5th centuries BC, fielding massed formations of thousands of archers. The infantry carried a large, four-foot re-curved bow in a leather bow case and quiver on their left hip. It was also a popular method among the cavalry, keeping it out of the way and but still within easy grasp. Another way of carrying the bow and quiver was in a back-mounted harness, more traditionally associated with the West. It was a particularly useful arrangement for the elite Persian Immortals, who closed for hand-to-hand combat after firing their arrows. In either case, Persian archers were renowned for their storm of arrows they could unleash on opposing forces. Against lightly armored enemies it was murderous, with thousands of shafts falling every minute. They featured an unusual, light, three-flanged arrowhead made of bronze mounted on a light cane shaft. While the bow proved to be quite powerful, the projectile itself was less then satisfactory against heavily armored opponents like the Greeks. In some cases it was unable to puncture the heavy bronze cuirasses the Hellenes were famous for. Regardless, the Persian bow made a huge impression upon the Greeks, who had to suffer under their attacks at Thermopylae and Plataea.

But without doubt the greatest weapon of the ancient world was the compound recurved bow used by the Steppe peoples of Central Asia. It is highly possible that more people died from this weapon in the hands of peoples like the Scythians, Huns, and later the Mongols than any other before the introduction of firearms. They were constructed from wood layered with sinew on the outer edge, or back, and horn on the concave surface known as the belly. When unstrung the bow was the exact opposite curve of when in use, with the arms pointing towards the target if held as in combat. By bending the arms back the bow curved back on itself, hence the term recurved. Already under considerable tension, when drawn the sinew on the back of the bow built up energy trying to pull the arms back to its natural shape. Simultaneously the horn on the belly was compressed, causing it to exert pressure in order to push the bow to its un-drawn state. Consequently when the arrow was released it was given an impressive launch from the violent snap of the bow back to its resting configuration. Size varied from the smaller 4-foot Scythian types to the 5-foot Hunnic types. The Hunnic weapon was unique in that it was asymmetrical, one arm being longer than the other. Draw weights were roughly around the 50-pound mark, allowing for quick, easy shooting on horseback.

Range was impressive; in extreme cases with a skilled archer on horseback the recurved composite bow was able to launch arrows over 200 yards. However at this range accuracy was non-existent, even against large numbers of massed infantry. More than likely the most common range in combat was as little as 10 feet to maximize accuracy and the penetrating power of the arrow itself. At this range the high speed tactics and light equipment of the steppe horse archers becomes quite practical. As archers they were unable to engage hand to hand against heavily armed opponents, forcing them to push their mounts to the breaking point in order to stay ahead of quick moving light infantry or enemy cavalry. To compensate for their lack of armor they were quick shots, added by the layout of their tack and method of shooting.

The quiver was hung either from the rider’s belt or the horse’s saddle, almost exclusively on the left side, allowing them to draw the replacement arrow with their right hand while holding the bow with the left. Before a charge, the archer would draw several arrows from the quiver, holding them in the bow hand, which they would during the attack. By using the right hand to pick a replacement shaft from the left hand, reload times were greatly reduced. The arrow was knocked from the right side, meaning that the arrow was rested against the bow rather than the archer’s hand as with most European bows. Another major difference between steppe archery and its western counterparts was the use of a thumbring to draw the bowstring. It was a small metal ring worn on the shooter’s right thumb with a small needle made of metal or bone, which was used to grab the bowstring. The very fact of wearing a thumbring was seen as a sign of manhood within steppe cultures. When compared to the three-finger draws practiced by the Mediterranean civilizations the thumbring was far faster, allowing for more arrows to be launched in a shorter time. In addition horse archers had a massive 270-degree radius of fire available to them while mounted, allowing for such maneuvers as firing directly behind them over the horse’s rump while running away from an enemy. This tactic was practiced by all steppe peoples but was known as the Parthian Shot, no doubt coined after continued bloody encounters with these renowned archers by the Hellenistic Successors and the Romans.

The Scythians, Parthians, Sarmatians, and Huns were all users of the recurved composite bow. Some such as the Scythians and Huns had large armies comprised of almost entirely horse archers, while the Parthians fielded large numbers of archers with supporting cataphracts. The Sarmatians were unique among steppe people in that the bow was not their primary weapon, preferring to come to grips with the enemy as cataphracts. Yet despite this many Sarmatian heavy horsemen carried bows in case the situation was not favorable to hand-to-hand combat and were backed up by light cavalry just like those of the other steppe nations. Common to all was the powerful respect granted to the weapon and an acknowledgement of its deadliness. Enemy armies were constantly bested when the steppe horsemen were allowed to fight a battle on their terms. The list of battles won by steppe warriors equipped with this weapon is a testament to its killing power. Battles such as Carrhae, the Persian invasion of Scythia, and Chalons were all bloody affairs thanks to the recurved bow.

Other bows were far simpler than those of the steppe warriors. The Indians were renowned for the massive 6-foot bamboo longbows they carried. These were simple weapons made from a single branch of bamboo bound with a bowstring. While light, it was still capable of launching 3-foot arrows. The Indian bow was used by infantry and warriors mounted on the backs of war elephants. As the Macedonians found out at Hydaspes, the storms of arrows released by the Indian infantry were not to be discounted, particularly when most of the army was armed with these seemingly crude weapons.

The Greeks were quite leery of archery, although they did deploy bowmen in support of the phalanx. Two types of bows were used: the Scythian and Cretan types. The Scythian recurved example was used on foot by either Scythian mercenaries or Greeks themselves. More common was the Cretan bow. This too was a composite bow, constructed in a similar manner to the steppe types, with horn, wood, and sinew as materials. The Cretan weapon was not recurved, rather featuring sharply curving tips to the arms, appearing almost U-shaped. In addition to the standard socketed-type arrowhead, the Greeks also used massive tanged arrowheads made out of bronze and iron. The Cretans were considered the greatest archers in the Hellenistic world and were used extensively, particularly later by the Macedonians and the Romans. The Romans, like the Greeks, initially feigned from using archers, often obtaining them through allies and vassal states. Eventually auxiliary units were created, using mostly Cretan archers and Syrians armed with the Eastern-style recurved bow.

A logical development of the spear, the javelin differed in being shorter, with an average length of roughly 4 feet, and a smaller shaft diameter. Heads were almost universally iron, often finer and smaller than spearheads. The variety of javelins was quite impressive. Ash was the most popular wood used to manufacture polearm shafts but cornel was a common alternative used extensively by the Greeks and Persians. For added range and accuracy leather straps were wrapped around javelin shafts, the user inserting the fore and middle fingers into the strap. The strap, known as a throwing thong, augmented the spin of the weapon during throwing and as a result lowered in-flight wobbling. They were used by most armies of the ancient world including the Romans, who referred to the thongs on pila and veruta as amentum. Greek and Thracian peltasts referred to them as agkulh and Persian cavalry had the same technology on their javelins. As a whole, javelins provided killing power in a relatively simple package that required minimal training, yet in the hands of a skilled soldier could extol untold carnage. Light infantry armed with javelins had the added advantage of being able to close with the enemy for hand-to-hand combat, unlike archers and slingers.

While the Greeks, Thracians, Illyrians, and Eastern peoples such as the Phyrgians, Paphlagonians, and Persians all used javelins in large numbers, particularly as cavalry and to varying degrees as infantry, these weapons were simple. Generally they consisted of a wooden shaft ranging between 3 and 5 feet in length with an iron head and a throwing thong. In the western Mediterranean javelins we heavily developed into a mind-numbing variety of types. Heavy users of these specialized weapons included the Romans, Iberians, Celts, and to a lesser extent the Germans.

Perhaps the most famous of all javelins, the Roman pilum was renowned for its ability to punch through a shield and continue on to kill the man behind. Believed to originally be of Etruscan design, early pilums were of socketed type, differing from other types only in that it had an elongated iron shank with a leaf-shaped head. By the 4th century BC the pilum had developed into another variant which consisted of a tanged iron head held in place by a large box-like join between the head and the shaft. At this time both forms of the pilum picked up the characteristic triangular barbed head, making extraction from a wound extremely difficult. By the time of the Punic Wars the pilum was on average 7 feet tall. Typically the socketed pilum was referred to as “light” while the tanged types were “heavy”. In combat a legionnaire would carry one of each, throwing the light first at roughly 40 yards and the heavy at 20. From the 3rd century BC onward the heavy pilum was shortened and the light lengthened, until the 1st century AD when a version of the heavy type with a standard length of roughly 6 feet was in universal deployment within the Roman army. One further development was a lead weight placed just under the joining block to increase penetrating power. While dropped as the main Roman polearm some time in the 3rd century AD the pilum continued to be used until the fall of the Roman Empire. It also spawned several knock-off types among many nations.

The most prominent of these weapons are found among Rome’s enemies. The first is the Celtic gaesum, a heavy javelin with a massive barbed head. It too featured the shanked head of the pilum and was probably developed after meeting the pilum in combat. Gaesums continued to be used in Roman service as Celts joined the auxiliaries, bringing with them this impressive weapon. The second was the Frankish angon, which featured a heavier shank due to its use not only as a javelin but a hand-to-hand weapon as well. It prevented the head from being cut off by opponents while providing the same armor piercing capability as its progenitor.

The pilum was hardly the only javelin used by the Romans. The verutum was a short, 4-foot javelin that resembled a miniature light pilum, complete with iron shank. During the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC Roman light infantry known as velites would carry seven veruta into combat, proving to be quite effective weapons, even against war elephants. In the late 2nd century BC the verutum was taken out of service along with the velite but the javelin was taken back into the legionary arsenal during the Late Empire. The spiculum was another pilum-inspired weapon with a long iron shank attached to the head. Its exact design is not completely known, but it appears to have been a replacement for the pilum as a heavy, armor-piercing javelin with the characteristic shanked head. On a completely different size level was the plumbata. These were small, 2-foot throwing darts weighted with lead and fletched like arrows. Late Roman soldiers carried five of these weapons in a frame on the inside of their shields. Typically these were thrown over arm for close range and under arm for long range, where they would fall on the enemy from directly above, increasing the chance for lethal injury.

The Iberians were heavy users of javelins, fielding the socketed light pilum as well as a unique weapon of their own design. It was a thin, 5-foot javelin made completely of iron, which they called the saunion. The Romans referred to it as the soliferrum, but regardless of name it was an incredibly deadly weapon, capable of punching through shields and armor thanks to its added weight. Germanics used javelins quite heavily, many early tribesmen using simple wooden sticks with fire-hardened heads. Later Germanics were armed with regular javelins that were just as deadly as those of their southern opponents, perfectly suited for their fast moving style of combat.

Slings were the third major form of ranged weapon. Consisting of a simple leather thong with a pouch for a projectile, this deceptively simple weapon was quite capable of sending its bullets through armor and splitting skulls. Ammunition consisted of rocks or specially manufactured lead bullets depending on the wealth of the slinger. A common weapon in the Bronze Age, as shown by the Biblical account of David and Goliath, the sling remained in constant use throughout the Iron Age. The Greeks fielded fairly large numbers of slingers, the Rhodians in particular known as masters of the weapon. Due to their wealth they were equipped with the lethal lead shot. Balearic Islands off Spain’s Mediterranean coast produced slingers of awesome skill, who were coveted by both the Carthaginians and Romans as auxiliary troops. Numidian infantry also used the sling, while the Celts stockpiled slingshot at defensive locations within their hill forts. Considering their disdain for ranged weapons, it is a testament to the power of the sling that a people so enamored with hand-to-hand combat would have no qualms about using one.

[What are you listening to right now?]

Nigel Glocker - Schwarm

[I found it!]

Man, that Moskau video is at once incredibly funny and embarassing. The depths to which people will sink for money. May I be yet another to add my voice to the resounding chorus of past ages that "Disco is dead and we like it that way!"

[Google Trends]

Evidently Leeroy Jenkins is his real name Got himself in a question on Jeopardy for that stunt.

[Google Trends]

Hehe, my roommate Matt knows the real Leeroy Jenkins. Guy lives in Fort St. John, near me. Evidently he is a complete and utter WoW nerd, lives on the comp for that game.

[Other: An Introduction to Ancient Combat - Part II - Armor]

An Introduction to Ancient Combat

By

Paul Basar aka Paal_101

Part II takes a close look at the defensive equipment used by ancient armies. Body armor was constantly catching up with advances in weaponry, much as it does today. For example, as the Romans encountered Celtic tribesmen and their spatha, the Roman's strengthened the metal rim of their shields. In response the Gauls lengthened their spatha to impart greater force when slashing in an attempt to cut through those rims. This cycle has been in perpetual motion throughout history, forcing a huge variety in armor, helmets, and shields among the various peoples, dictated by their culture, the opponents they faced, and the materials they had available.

Part II - Armor

“Courage leads to heaven; fear to death.” - Seneca

Armor

Defensive body armor was found among almost all cultures in the ancient world, with three main types serving all manner of troops. These were chain mail, scale, and plate, combinations and variations ranging from the crude to the advanced. Materials used were also diverse: cloth, leather, horn, bronze, iron, rawhide, and even wood were all used as body armor. A common theme throughout history was the confinement of armor to the very rich. Poorer soldiers often fought with as much armor as they could afford, if any at all. A good example of this were the Celts, the vast majority of whom were unable to procure the massively expensive chain mail hauberks worn by the nobility. This fact may have contributed to the “macho” philosophy of associating armor with weakness and cowardice that was extremely prevalent among that people.

Body Armor

Perhaps the oldest form of armor is scale, which can be traced back into the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was used in one form or another by all the major peoples of the ancient world except the Celts. The widespread adoption of scale is due in part to its simple construction, in which oval pieces of material are sewn onto leather backing. In most cases the scales were made of bronze, the Persians in particular arming their troops with hauberks and chaps of bronze scales in the Eastern style. As bronze waned as a defensive material, iron came into vogue for scale and was common among the Romans and Parthians. Horn and leather were heavily used for scale among the steppe peoples, particularly the Sarmatians whose elaborate scale panoplies gave excellent protection when charging on horseback. Besides its easy manufacture, the main draw of scale was the range of motion and flexibility it provided to the wearer, coupled with good protection.

A sub-type of scale armor is lamellar, which is similar except that instead of being oval or triangular the scales are rectangular. Laid side-by-side they are laced to each other rather then a fabric backing. Typically larger scales were used and as a result it was not as heavy and less vulnerable to underarm stabs. Apparently designed by the Assyrians, lamellar developed a large following among the Macedonians, who layered linothorax cuirasses with it, and the Romans, although to what degree is not known. As with scale, lamellar was also used by the Scythians and Sarmatians, in addition to the Parthians and Sassanians.

Chain mail was developed by the Celts and the Romans quickly adopted it in the 4th century BC. Made of tiny interlocking iron rings, each one individually forged, full-size chain mail hauberks were expensive to produce and procure yet the defensive qualities were among the best in the ancient world. Combining flexibility with excellent protection against stabs and slashes, chain mail was adopted as the major form of armor in the last two centuries of the 1st millennium BC. Besides the Celts and Romans, the Carthaginians and Iberians both adopted chain mail, as did the Hellenistic nations of the eastern Mediterranean. Germanic chieftains were equipped with chain mail, as were Sarmatian cataphracts and the Dacians. Later opponents, such as the German invaders of the 5th century AD were well protected by mail, along with elite Sassanian Persians and Hunnic warriors. So successful was chain mail it was used by the Romans continuously from the 4th century BC to the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD and beyond by the nations that came after, eventually being discarded in the 16th century AD.

Coming in many different styles, plate is an extremely broad category that includes bell and muscled cuirasses, as well as pectorals and the famous lorica segmentata. In Greece plate armor development was carried on from the elaborate and, for their time, extremely advanced bronze cuirasses of the Mycenaeans. The descendants of these pieces were sturdy two-piece bronze breastplates known as bell cuirasses, held together by pins at the shoulders and sides. They were the heaviest form of armor available from the 8th to the early 5th centuries BC, equipping the earliest hoplites. This piece was effective yet somewhat cumbersome and crude and by the 5th century BC its replacement had arrived. It was known as the muscled cuirass, made famous by its use in Hollywood movies such as Ben Hur and Spartacus. Cast to resembled a male torso the muscled cuirass was built in two pieces. Hinges at the shoulders were supplemented by clasps at the sides, making it comfortable and far stronger then its predecessor. Early examples were cast from bronze and later in the Macedonian era it could be tinned or silvered, while the Romans possibly used iron examples in addition to bronze. It was a popular form of armor, particularly with the aristocracy and rich soldiers of the Greek city-states. Front rankers in the Macedonian phalanx were equipped with muscled cuirasses by the crown, while it became the signature armor of Roman emperors, generals, and to some degree centurions.

Pectorals along with scale armor, is an extremely ancient form of defense, consisting of a chest plate worn over the solar plexus. In some cases a corresponding back-plate was also worn, as in the case of the Roman pectorale-style armor of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. Constructed with two eight-by-eight inch bronze plates mounted on a four-strap harness, with one worn each on the chest and back, it proved to be a popular and cheap form of armor for the citizen soldiers of the fledgling superpower. It was the low cost of pectorals that made them a common sight in armies around the ancient world. The Iberians were major users of pectorals, coming mainly in round versions along with square examples. Italy proved to be a hotbed of pectoral use, the Etruscans, Samnites, and mountain tribes such as the Hernici all deployed with pectorals of large varieties. In addition the ferocious Illyrian tribes of modern day Albania, Bosnia, and Croatia used bronze pectorals, perfectly suited for their fast moving style of combat.

Perhaps the most famous piece of armor from the ancient world is the famed Roman segmented cuirass. It is unknown what the Romans called the most advanced piece of armor seen until the 13th century AD, but it is known by its modern title: lorica segmentata. It was constructed of iron strips and plates held together with a combination of leather straps, bronze buckles, or hooks depending on the type. It first appeared in the 1st century AD and was continually used until the early 4th. The unparalleled mobility of the segmentata allowed for quick movement, while the iron plates kept the wearer protected from all manner of blows. It was so effective that during times of civil war Roman soldiers were ordered to stab for the face of opposing troops rather then try to punch through the durable iron plates. Armed with this impressive piece of military equipment and their extensive training, Roman soldiers were capable of taking on any opponent with good odds of survival.

Fabric was a common form of cheap armor in the ancient world, particularly linen. Two types of armor were made from linen, both used by the Greeks. The first was the linothorax, which consisted of glued layers of linen, which hardened into a tough and resilient material that was cut into a cuirass. While flexible, light, and cheap the linothorax was still not as strong as bronze or iron. As a result the linothorax was often reinforced with scale or lamellar around the abdomen. It was an extremely popular form of armor, used not only by the Greeks and Macedonians, but the Persians, early Romans, and Carthaginians as well. The other form of linen armor was the quilted cuirass, providing a particular advantage against arrows, which would wrap their heads up in the fabric as it passed through, reducing the injury suffered by the wearer. Like the linothorax it was still soft compared to its metallic counterparts and was often employed by archers, pikemen, and cavalry, all of who were able to rely on range or speed to avoid close combat. The Greeks, Macedonians, and Persians used quilted linen cuirasses in relatively large numbers, but nowhere in the order of more traditional forms of armor.

Helmets

Every ancient army we know of used helmets, a form of protection far cheaper then body armor and as a result were common among even the poorest soldiers. Bronze was the most popular material from the 8th to late 1st centuries BC. With this material the Greeks are recognized as having produced arguably the most elegant of ancient helmets, the Corinthian. As with all Greek helmets, it was hammered into shape using a single piece of cast bronze. The Celts, although masters of iron forging, manufactured elaborate helmets out of bronze, often times mounting them with large crest holders. Persians armed themselves with conical helmets very similar to those that had been used throughout the Near East for the past 500 years by the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Babylonians. Borrowing from the Greeks, the Macedonians and Carthaginians equipped their heavy infantry and cavalry with strong helmets that were capable of absorbing the blows from Celtic long swords. And among the Romans bronze helmets had a massive following, a wide variety equipping their entire army during such great conflicts as the Pyrrhic, Punic, and Macedonian Wars.

Among the Romans brass became a popular material for helmets during the 1st century BC and was used for roughly 100 years. The main helmet made from brass was the Coolus type, a highly modified version of a Celtic helmet with improved features such as larger neck and brow guards. During the great civil wars of the late 1st century BC the legionnaires on both sides were equipped with such helmets but with the introduction of iron helmets the brass types were slowly discarded.

Among all types of armor bronze was slowly replaced by iron beginning in the 3rd century BC. This meant that the lighter bronze helmets were traded in for sturdier and cheaper iron examples. The mainland Celts developed iron helmets in the 1st century BC, quickly being picked up by the Romans. Borrowing heavily from the elegant Celtic Port-style helmet, the Roman Imperial Gallic type was the premiere helmet of the ancient world, combining aesthetics with defensive capabilities. When worn in combination with the lorica segmentata, Gallic types were able to deflect sword blows off the crown, over the ear guards, onto the cuirass’ pauldron and then off the arm.

Later Roman iron helmet development was heavily influenced by the innovations of the Sarmatians and Sassanians, who used multiple pieces riveted together to create cheap and effective helmets. The Sarmatian practice of riveting crown segments together to produce a cone-shaped helmet was adopted through Rome by many cultures, and after the fall of the Empire the spangenhelm, as is was later to be known, was the basic helmet of Dark Age warriors into the early middle ages. Before their conquest by Rome, Iberian troops were equipped with iron helmets heavily influenced by the hybrid merging of Celtic and Spanish culture in the north of the Iberian peninsula. Based particularly on the Montefortino type, upper echelon Iberian warriors wore helmets that could be fitted with plumes and crests in the grand Celtic style.

Although rare, wood was also used as a material for making helmets. The troops of 5th century BC Phyrgia and Paphlagonia in Asia Minor wore wicker helmets reinforced with bronze disks. As they were mostly used as light infantry this helmet provided adequate protection while not slowing them down. According to Herodotus the Colchians and Armenians were also equipped with wooden helmets.

Limb Guards

Although frequently depicted in Hollywood movies, wrist and forearm guards known as vambraces were very rare in the ancient world, and in almost all cases pieces of personal preference. The Greeks used bronze examples in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, but their use petered out, although vambraces were common among the Etruscans until their defeat by the Gauls in the 4th century BC. There is evidence that leather vambraces were worn by some Roman legionnaires but they were far from standard-issue equipment. Another limb guard of note was the Roman manica, a segmented arm guard. During the Dacian Wars of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD manica were issued to the troops in order to counter the brutal Dacian falx, the limb-severing capabilities of which the Romans were painfully aware.

An extremely ancient form of armor was greaves, which were worn on the shins, often made of bronze and later iron. They were worn by soldiers from a huge variety of cultures ranging from Persia to Spain. The first method of wearing greaves was popular among the Hellenistic peoples, in which the bronze greave was slipped onto the leg and held in place by the squeezing of the armor itself. A second technique was particularly popular with the Romans, who used straps to hold their greaves in place. A far more unusual piece were the bronze thigh guards worn by early Greek hoplites and later Italian soldiers. Held in place like the Greek style greave, the thigh guard covered the area roughly from the knee to the hip, providing limited protection and potentially limiting mobility, resulting in their scarcity beyond the 7th and 6th centuries BC.

Shields

Shields were without doubt the most common and important form of protection available in the ancient world. Cheap to manufacture and providing an incredible increase in protection for unarmored men, shields were found in every army. Intrinsically the pairing of shield and weapon determined the fighting tactics and formations an army developed. Universally the material used for manufacture was wood, with metal or fabric reinforcing depending on the culture. Painted designs were extremely common, with the Greeks and Celts providing the most elaborate blazons to be seen until the Medieval. These were used to identify city, unit, clan, or even individuals on the battlefield. Over time the blazons became standardized at the very least with common iconography, such as the Spartan Lambda (inverted V) for Lacedaemonia and the Roman winged lightening to symbolize their patron god Jupiter.

The most famous shield of the ancient world was the Greek hoplon, although this term is not entirely proper. The true Greek term for shield was aspis, but today the large round shields are commonly referred to as hoplons, or more correctly Argive shields. It was together with the scutum the most common shield in the Mediterranean. Typically they were 3-feet across, made of oak hollowed out into a shallow bowl then layered with bronze for added protection. With fittings and grips the entire shield weighed roughly 20 pounds but was fully capable of resisting blows from any hand-held weapon or projectile. In combat hoplites would cover the man to their left with half of their shield, possible due to the central arm brace and handgrip at the edge. This made it a poor one-on-one shield but allowed for the massed phalanx tactics with which the Greeks dominated 5th century battlefields. Additionally the hoplon was sometimes fitted with a cloth curtain that hung down over the soldier’s legs to provide additional defense against arrows. As with hoplite warfare, the hoplon was widespread across the Mediterranean, used by such cultures as the Illyrians, Carthaginians, Romans, Etruscans, Samnites, and even the Greeks’ perennial enemies, the Persians.

The second great shield of the ancient world was the scutum, the oblong oval or rectangular body shield of the western Mediterranean. It found a massive following among the Romans, Samnites, Celts, Germanics, Iberians, Carthaginian light infantry, and even the Hellenes as the thureos. Believed to have originated in Italy, the scutum was traditionally made of layers of wood glued together to form a type of early plywood. This gave it considerable strength and when covered with leather, rawhide, or felt it became even stronger. Early scuta were massive at four and a half-feet tall and two feet wide, oval shaped with a horizontal grip protected by a wooden or iron boss. Roman and Italian scuta differed from those of the other users in that they were curved, making them perfect for formation fighting, commonly reinforced with iron or bronze rims to withstand blows. The Celtic and Iberian scutum was flat and lacked the iron rim, making them light and allowing for more open styles of combat.

But without doubt it was the Romans who immortalized the scutum as powerful tool on the battlefield. It was continually used within the legions for 500 years until it was replaced in the early 3rd century AD. Weight was always a problem, since a full-sized Roman oval scutum weighed roughly 20 pounds and as a result modifications were made accordingly. The tops and bottoms of oval scuta were cut off to form the rectangular type made famous by the legionnaires of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. It was 5 pounds lighter and allowed for better vision in combat. It was capable of stopping almost all weapons but the deadly chopping power of the Dacian falx. Even then reinforced scuta were deployed in special units within the legion to defeat men armed with the war scythe. Mention must be made of a the large round shields used by the late Roman army in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. These too were known as scutum but share no direct link with the characteristic curved shield of early centuries, although it was based off of a flat scutum-like design.

The early Romans of the Republic also used two forms of round shields. Both were roughly 2 to 3 feet in diameter, carried by Republican light infantry and cavalry. One was a spined wooden shield with a central boss, considered the sturdier of the two designs and was often referred to as a parma. The other was made of lighter ox-hide and referred to as a popanum type, the round shape and large leather boss resembling a type of ritual bread used in Roman religious observances. The parma eventually lost its spine and continued to be used by signifiers and aquilifers into the Empire. Another form of shield that the Romans adopted was a lighter and smaller form of oval shield, somewhat similar to the Celtic scutum. It was known as the clipeus, commonly used among the Roman auxiliary troops, including cavalry and infantry, during the Empire. This shield was eventually provided to legionnaires as standard equipment during the drastic retooling taken on by the Roman army during the 3rd century AD. It was the more direct ancestor of the late Roman round scutum.

The Persians brought two main types of shields to the battlefield, both constructed of wicker covered with leather, painted with bright geometric designs. The first was a roughly 3-foot figure-8 shield known as a gerron, commonly used as a light infantry shield and by heavy infantry where mobility was an asset. The grip could be either horizontal or vertical with a flat, bronze boss on some examples. A larger shield known as a spara was also used. It was roughly 4 to 5-feet in height and rectangular in shape. It was used as frontline combat shield by infantry and by archers as a pavise for shooting arrows from behind. This granted relative safety in combat for archers via a small wooden prop used to stand it upright. They were carried into combat most often by troops known specifically as sparabara, armed with spears, forming large barriers of shields the enemy would have to batter their way through. While light and easy to wield, both the gerron and the spara were notoriously vulnerable for weapons, particularly spears, punching straight through, thanks to their light construction. Increasingly after the Persian Wars there was a tendency among the Persian ranks to adopt Hellenistic shields such as the hoplon and pelta. By the time of Alexander the Great’s invasion of the Persian Empire in the 4th century BC, the spara had been withdrawn from service altogether.

The Iberians were master swordsman, using a fast-moving style that required light equipment and quick handling weapons. Their chief shield for light combat was a round buckler known as a caetra. Size of these pieces could vary from two feet across to perhaps a foot in diameter. All examples had an iron boss which made deflection of blows that much easier. In combat the shield was not only effective at blocking, but an extremely proficient secondary weapon, Iberian troops using the boss to punch opponents. Another people who fought for Carthage were the Numidians, whose highly capable cavalry fought with leather shields on a wooden frame. Lightweight so as to not over-encumber their mounts, the shield proved useful in fast-moving cavalry combat. Steppe peoples such as the Scythians used medium size rectangular shields made wicker when they close for close quarter combat, while Indian troops encountered by Alexander the great fielded large leather shields not that much different from the tower types used by the earlier Egyptians. Indian cavalry and elephant warriors were more commonly equipped with a round shield, often painted with impressive geometric designs.

Germanic troops in the early centuries of the 1st millennium AD were equipped with an impressive array of simple but effective shields. The main type was the flat, Celtic-style scutum, either the full oval types or a shorter version with the top and bottom cut off, similar to the Roman Augustan-style scutum. Another version of the scutum used by the Germanics was a scutum with six straight sides. It was used in limited numbers by the Gauls but was more famously used by several Roman auxiliary cavalry units of Germanic heritage. Another shield was a small, almost square, version of the scutum unique to the Germanics and perhaps the most unique of the many shields they used. Later, as the German tribes began to invade the Roman Empire, a round, dished shield was the most common type. Featuring a doomed, wooden construction and a rawhide edging, the shield was most often covered with leather and fitted with characteristically sharp bosses. The Franks, Goths, and Saxons carried these shields into combat while the Romans eventually began to use the shield as the numbers of German troops in the army increased.

[Google Trends]

Hehe that's cool:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=gladius&cta...ate=all&geo=all

Canada leads on gladius

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Roman+Empir...ate=all&geo=all

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Thermopylae...ate=all&geo=all

http://www.google.com/trends?q=combat&ctab...ate=all&geo=all

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Huns&ctab=1&date=all&geo=all

[Additional Civs you'd like to see?]

However if we were to do a highly unlikely Dark Age addon, Islamic Arabs and Turks would be major opponents of Rome's protege, the Byzantine Empire. Although frankly after Part II we will all be looking for something new to do

[What are you listening to right now?]

Halo 3 Trailer

[Persian Amrtaka]

LOL Time for a redo All kidding aside, I agree with Bobby, fabric looks great.

[New Artwork and More!]

Brendan has just released the concept art for two new soldiers, both of them super units. The first is the Persian Immortal, famous for their actions during the Greco-Persian Wars and the battles against Alexander the Great. Second is the rugged and unwavering elite professional soldiers of the Iberian tribes, the Devotio. Brendan has truly turned out some magnificent work in these two fine pieces.

Activity in the forums has been quite quick as of late, with topics covering many different aspects of the game popping up. In particular the following have been drawing a fair bit of attention:

Screenshots We'd Like to See

How will the civs play?

Additional Civs you'd like to see?

Don't be a stranger! Post your opinions and ask questions! We are always happy for lively discussions and keep an open ear for suggestions.

Lastly, a new history article, written by yours truly, entitled An Introduction to Ancient Combat has been posted in the history section. It is the first of a series of articles detailing the basics of ancient combat, dealing with fact and history while dispelling some commonly held misconceptions and Hollywood myths.

A busy couple of days to say the least, with something new coming to light everyday!

[How'd You Find Wfg?]

Aww that's so cute Jason :P LOL

@Rober and Esteban - Nice to see you guys again! Been a while.

[Persian Amrtaka]

Again Brendan, fabulous work This is by far my favorite concept up to this point.

[historical accuracy on O A.D]

Indeed, if we were going to do the Macedonians as their own civ we would make sure to include the sarissophoroi, but unfortunately we were only able to choose 2 super units (Foot Companions and Companion Cavalry) and three heroes (Philip, Alexander, and Demetrios). We went for the most famous Macedonian units, although in an expansion pack the sarissaphoroi and hypapsists would be in

[An Introduction to Ancient Combat - Part I - Soldiers]

An Introduction to Ancient Combat

By

Paul Basar aka Paal_101

Ancient combat is a topic of many stereotypes and misconceptions while also being extremely complex and diverse. The differences between nations and even within a single army are many yet all reside on the basic principles of troop types, training, coordination, and equipment. This series aims to present some the basics on the subject for the casual reader and serious history buff just getting into the amazing study of ancient warfare. It gives insight into the varied and many ways that the civilizations presented in 0 AD prepared, waged, and adapted to warfare. Part I deals with the basic units of the armies of old, particulary the men in the army, their relationship to it, and the combat roles they performed.

Part I - Soldiers

“Only the dead have seen an end to war.” - Plato

The Men

As with any organization, ancient armies were composed of people from many backgrounds and occupations. All occupations, classes, and religions were drawn into the army when needed. Over all these men were quite young, often in their late teens and early twenties. In some cases there were older soldiers, such as Spartan veterans kept on semi-active service into their 60s or Roman legionnaires and auxiliaries buried at ages in the 40-year range due to wounds received in combat. Incidentally, contrary to Hollywood and modern entertainment they were universally men. Although there is significant evidence to suggest that ancient Scythian and Sarmatian women were trained in archery there is no evidence for Celtic amazons or Persian female assassins.

How these men came to be in the army varied wildly. Some were professionals, being either volunteer members of a standing army or mercenaries. The Roman legions were the prime example of the former, men swearing an oath of service for 20 years. Others included the elite Sacred Band of Carthage, a cavalry unit in which rich Punic citizens were trained as officers to possibly command that nation’s large armies of mercenaries. The Macedonian army established by Philip II in the 4th century BC can be considered the first army of this type and their massive string of victories is evidence to their professionalism. Soldiers of fortune in the ancient world fought for money, their wages often paid from the spoils of a successful campaign. In many cases mercenaries were unreliable and uncontrollable, disobeying orders or refusing to fight altogether. In some cases they provoked wars, such as the Mamertines did during the Pyrrhic War in the 3rd century BC. Greece produced a glut of mercenaries as war-hardened hoplites searched for employment abroad after the Peloponnesian War.

Others troops were conscripts, drafted into the army of a powerful overlord. In the case of the Spartans this was by the order of their culture, which resulted in a completely martial society in which every male was a warrior from his teens to his later years. Compared to the highly trained Spartans, Persian levies were in a far worse state. Often farmers and craftsmen from the far flung corners of the Achaemenid Empire they were called up to provide overwhelming numbers to the Shah-an-Shah’s army. Poorly equipped and badly trained these armies proved to be numerically impressive but amazingly fragile, a mixture of highly trained professional tribal warriors and unwilling call-ups.

A third category was the willing volunteers who fought when needed, including the fearsome Celtic warriors of Central and Western Europe. Living in a highly ordered society of lords and chieftains, the Celts were called up willingly to serve under their hero-like leaders. In this specific case the warriors came from the middle and upper class, the bare fact of being allowed to fight a signature of social standing. Celts fought partially out of necessity and a cultural fascination with war and honor while the Greeks fought out of duty. The middle class formed the corps of the Greek military system by serving as citizen hoplites, compelled by loyalty to their city and everything it stood for.

Soldiers came from every level of society, in some cases their wealth and social status determining their lot in the army. Rich soldiers were often the best-equipped and served in elite positions, such as consuls, legates, and tribunes in the Roman army or as the Companion Cavalry in the Macedonian military. Command positions were often secured through political or financial means. Persian commanders were often governors known as satraps with vast wealth and political clout. Poor soldiers made up the lesser ranks, often times being forced to supply their own equipment. As a result many Celtic warriors lacked expensive chain mail and metal helmets. Some armies promoted the recruitment of poorer classes, especially the Romans who made a point of hiring young farmers and tradesmen with an eye to a better future.

Others were meritocracies, such as the Roman military in which, early on, centurions and optios were chosen by the very men they would lead. Later meritorious service in the legions guaranteed promotion. The Lusitani Iberians raised a lowly shepherd to chief of their tribe for his bravery in helping his people escape a massacre. Viriato went on to lead seven successful campaigns against the Romans. A display of great skill, courage, intelligence, or tactics was a sure ticket to promotion in most armies although in many cases artificial barriers prevented adoption into the higher ranks. In all cases skills from civilian life were often used in the army; doctors, carpenters, engineers, and blacksmiths being highly prized. These men could find themselves carrying out specialized duties officially or unofficially to the benefit of a few men or the entire army.

Training

Training varied from culture to culture and between nations but was of vital importance. The Romans and Spartans trained continuously under the tutelage of experienced veterans. Being professional soldiers they had the time and resources to do so. On the flip side many conscripted Persian soldiers had little or no training and were often pitted against far more experienced armies. Celts and Iberians trained haphazardly, often from childhood, those who paid attention during boyhood fights survived battles as adults. Most Greeks trained during defined periods of deployment to active service, which could range from a couple of weeks to several months.

Mercenaries were often trained in their own homeland, either by locals or professionally. Thracians brought a unique system of ranged warfare to Greece, perfected in their forested and mountainous territory. The glut of already trained and battle seasoned hoplites in the late 5th and early 4th centuries BC made Greek mercenaries extremely formidable. Early Celtic and Germanic auxiliaries serving in the Roman army were allowed to fight with their national weapons and were obviously initially trained by their fathers or tribal leaders. In all cases training proved to be a necessity if any army, professional, volunteer, or conscript, expected to succeed in combat.

Troop Types

In modern times soldiers are categorized according to their roles, equipment, and tactics just as they were in the ancient world. The two main groups were obviously infantry, who fought on foot, and cavalry, who fought mounted. Throughout history infantry proved to be more numerous although in some cases, considered inferior to cavalry. Poorer men often made up the infantry, while rich members of society owned horses and filled the obvious gap in cavalry. In the late Bronze and early Iron Age, cavalry in the form of charioteers were the dominant force on the battlefield, but by the 6th century BC infantry had come back into vogue as the main combat type, remaining so until the 4th century AD.

Infantry

Infantry came in two types: light and heavy. Light infantry were fast moving troops that generally never came into close combat with opposing infantry, preferring to rely on ranged weapons but being able to fight hand-to-hand in a limited fashion. Perhaps the most famous and characteristic light infantry type was produced by the Thracians; javelin-throwers known as peltasts. Relying only on a small crescent or oval shield for protection, these men would run towards opposing forces while throwing light javelins. Before the enemy could come to grips with them peltasts would turn and run for safety. Against heavy Greek hoplites peltasts proved to be extremely effective, never closing for hand-to-hand combat where they were easy prey.

This style of fighting is characteristic of all light infantry, who would ideally stay at long range for most of the battle using javelins, bows, or slings as their main weapons. Only against opposing light infantry would they engage for close combat, and even then only if necessary. Generally light infantry wore little armor, if any, which put them at a distinct disadvantage against heavily armored opponents. For instance at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC Persian archers were charged by Spartan hoplites who cut them down with little resistance. But when light infantry were used as they were intended to be they proved to be extremely deadly. Other examples of light infantry were Roman velites, Balearic slingers, the Samnites of southern Italy, and Phyrgian javelin throwers. Perhaps the greatest users of light infantry were the Persians, whose massive armies relied on arming the infantry levies with cheap yet effective weaponry. In many cases these proved to be bows and javelins, weapons that, with a little practice, could provide devastating firepower when used en masse.

On the flip side there were the heavy infantry, soldiers who closed for close quarter combat, often times wearing heavy armor and engaging their opponents with weapons that ranged from spears to swords to axes to clubs. Generally they fought in a formation under the command of an officer, relying on communication via banners and horns to coordinate their attacks. They moved slowly and once they came to grips with the enemy the conflict would resemble a giant shoving match with each side trying to break through the opposing formation. Heavy infantry formed the bulwark for the entire army, a solid, unmoving, and powerful formation that the light infantry and cavalry supported and fought around.

Heavy infantry were used by all the major civilizations of the ancient world. The famous Greek hoplites were the first major type of heavy infantry to dominate the battlefield, fighting in a strong phalanx with spears as their primary weapon. It was such a successful troop type that the hoplite spread across the Mediterranean in all directions. The Macedonians evolved the hoplite into a pikeman with a 15-foot spear, while the Romans drastically warped theirs into the formidable legionnaire. Even the light infantry horde armies of the Persians fielded heavy infantry based on the hoplite known as kardakes in the 4th century BC. Carthaginians became followers of the Macedonian phalangite concept, while the Iberians developed the lightly armored scutarii to be at home in formation on the battlefield or as a fast moving guerilla fighter. Armed with their long swords the Celts proved to be among the most unconventional heavy infantry, often times fighting completely naked and winning against heavily armored opponents in dense formations, such as the Greeks in the Third Battle of Thermopylae in 279 BC.

The Romans produced the most successful heavy infantry in the ancient world with the legionnaire, trained to fight as a member of a team. With their ability to assume multiple formations at will while attacking and defending as one unit they proved to be extremely effective. In combat they would often times secure a semi-defensive position on the battlefield then hold their place or advance slowly towards the opposing line. Once the enemy was in range they would hurl two coordinated volleys of heavy javelins known as pila into the oncoming enemy to thin and disrupt their lines. Then they would close in rigid formation for close combat with swords. Under the command of officers their high level of training made them extremely formidable, especially as their equipment was constantly refined to keep them up-to-date with current enemies and technological trends.

Heavy infantry did not have to be armored or slow, such as the Romans and Greeks were, heavy only refers to the fact that the men fought hand-to-hand. Examples of this include the Iberian scutarii and Celtic tribesmen, both of whom often went into battle with little or no armor. Although the Iberians used a similar tactic to the Romans, in which they threw javelins at the opposing side then engaged with sword and spear in tight formation, they did not wear much armor. Traditionally they wore a light sinew cap or bronze helmet, some wearing small circular bronze plates known as pectorals over their sternums. Despite this their formations of determined spearmen were able to go toe-to-toe with heavy Carthaginian and Roman infantry. Celts preferred to use a more open style then the Greeks, Romans, or Carthaginians, charging in a close mass of warriors. Their speed was aided by the fact that most fought shirtless, relying on a large oval shield for protection. Most were armed with an 8-foot spear, but those who could afford them fought with long swords know as spatha, renowned for their destructive power and strength.

Cavalry

As with the infantry, cavalry is divided into light and heavy, but includes two other unique types: extra heavy and chariots. A common trait of all ancient cavalry was the lack of stirrups, which did not appear in Europe until the 6th century AD with the arrival from the east of the Avars. In the late Bronze Age the cavalryman, in the form of a chariot-mounted warrior, had been the dominant troop type in ancient armies. Thanks to the Assyrians the horse archer came into vogue, forming the basis for the light cavalryman.

Light cavalry, like their infantry counterparts, rarely came into contact with their opponents, using javelins and arrows as their weapons of choice. Mounted on horseback light cavalry would ride forward towards the enemy lines, loosing off missiles typically at ranges from 10 to 300 feet depending on the weapon. The steppe horse archers were prime examples of this style of combat. Charging forward they would shower the enemy with arrows then turn around and shoot backwards over the horses’ tails at the enemy in a technique known as the “Parthian shot”. Armed with an axe for hand-to-hand fighting they desperately avoided contact, preferring to use the speed of their horses to evade, feint, and maneuver out of harm’s way. While they sometimes wore armor it was only in case they came into close combat with opposing forces through error or ambush.

Previously mentioned, chief among the light cavalry were the steppe nomads, people such as the Scythians, Parthians, Huns, and to a lesser extent the Sarmatians. Using their lightning fast horses for quick strikes, these warrior peoples proved to be formidable opponents for the more traditional “civilized” infantry-based armies they faced. Thanks to their horses they were able to avoid conflicts in some cases, as shown by the Scythian’s cat and mouse game with the Persian invasion of their homeland in 513 BC, but were capable of inflicting crushing defeats, such as the Parthians achieved over the Romans at Carrhae in 53 BC. While the use of mobility, the lack of hand-to-hand combat, and ranged weapons were characteristic of most light cavalry, the most direct technical definition of light cavalry simply states that they did not physically crash into their opponents ala Medieval knights.

Light cavalry were used by all major civilizations in the ancient world. Besides the horse archers of the steppe peoples, the Persians fielded formidable javelin armed cavalry with a secondary sword or axe. They were also unique in that they wore considerable armor for light cavalry, most of whom were unarmored like early Greek horsemen. In addition the Macedonian’s use of prodromoi scout cavalry was unusual since they were armed with lances in combat yet wore little armor and stayed at a distance. But without doubt the greatest light cavalry of the ancient world were the famous Numidians of North Africa. Recruited first into the Carthaginian army and later the Roman auxiliary, these men rode bareback and without any reins, relying on a rope around their horses’ necks to stay mounted. Controlling the horse through the use of a riding stick and voice commands, the Numidians used large javelins and round hide shields in combat. They were most lethal when used to chase defeated opponents after their formation had been broken. They were perhaps the most skilled horsemen of all time and their defection to the Romans in the Second Punic War helped seal the fate of Carthage.

The heavy cavalry concept was first developed in the east but the concept was successful first put into use by the Macedonians. The term refers to the action of a formation of heavily armored men on horseback charging toward the enemy line where they close for hand-to-hand combat with the opposing force. Typically the main armament of heavy cavalry was the spear, which was used in the initial charge and as a stand off weapon. The sword was the secondary weapon, in the ancient world categorically a slashing weapon for cavalry. Close-combat weapons were the hallmark of heavy cavalry and differentiated them from light cavalry.

While the concept of heavy cavalry was originally developed on the steppe, the Persians combined the idea of extra heavy horsemen with their light cavalry. These bronze-armored, javelin armed horsemen were soon noticed by the Macedonians who developed the typical heavy cavalryman, soon copied by the Romans and Carthaginians. Indeed, the most famous heavy cavalry of the ancient world proved to be the Macedonian Companion Cavalry, noblemen armed with 9-foot spears and iron swords, wearing bronze or linen armor. In combat they would charge towards the enemy in formations of several hundred men, stabbing men with their spears before attacking with their swords at close range. The power of this tactic was demonstrated during the campaigns of Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BC, where the heavy Macedonian horsemen crushed massed formations of opposing infantry.

The Romans modeled their early cavalrymen on the Macedonian pattern, which did not change much despite the introduction of the shield to the cavalry in the early 3rd century BC. While the spear became shorter the concept remained the same: the horsemen would come right into the face of their opponents, using their massed bulk to defeat enemy horsemen and height advantage to cut down opposing infantry. The Carthaginians did likewise, forming the prestigious Sacred Band of roughly 2500 men as heavy cavalry. In addition the Celts broke the mould, their heavy cavalry fighting with their fearsome long swords and large shields but with relatively little armor compared to their southern European counterparts. The Spaniards were similar, wearing little armor but producing a horsemen of such high caliber that they were able to charge head to head with more heavily armored cavalry and win in an all out battle, such as at Cannae in 216 BC.

While not the archetype heavy cavalry, the extra heavy horsemen of the ancient world were ironically the prototype for the more famous cavalry of the Romans and Macedonians. It was the Sarmatians from modern day Ukraine who first developed the extra heavy cavalryman who wore a heavy suit of head-to-toe armor while riding on an equally armored horse, armed with a 12-foot lance known as a kontos. Charging at a full gallop with his lance couched, the Sarmatian warrior would crash headlong into the enemy line, in some cases spitting two men on his spear in one pass. The object was to break through to the other side of the enemy formation then turn around and do it again. A formation of cataphracts, as these troops were to become known, charging en masse with hundreds if not thousands of horses was an awe inspiring sight and terrifying for inexperienced troops. Once they had lost or broken their lance cataphracts would draw a sword or axe for close combat or pull back and fight with the horse archers. This was similar to the standard heavy cavalry but was far more dependent on momentum for killing power and heavy armor for protection rather then speed. Coupled with the fact that extra heavy cavalry would physically slam into the enemy, these reasons are enough to classify the cataphract as a separate form of horseman.

The Massagetae copied this unique style of combat from the Sarmatians then passed it onto the Persians. The use of extra heavy cavalry fell out of favor in the 2nd century BC while its cousin the heavy cavalryman remained. But the Sarmatians remained on the steppes and eventually they came into contact with the mighty Roman Empire. After facing the power of the Sarmatian cataphract, the Romans incorporated the type into their army in the late 2nd century AD. Being the connoisseurs of military tactics and technology that they were, the Romans took the concept one step farther and created an even more heavily armored version known as the clibinarii. In the 4th and 5th centuries AD the Sarmatians had broken up and joined with other tribes that were on the move at that time, spreading the concept of the cataphract. In addition Germanic soldiers fighting with the Romans were exposed to their cataphracts and clibinarii. As a result the extra heavy cavalry concept was absorbed across Europe, particularly in the west. While they typically wore less armor at this time the extra heavy cavalryman slowly morphed into the knight of the Middle Ages, who fought in exactly the same manner.

Chariots are the stereotypical mode of ancient transportation and are often seen today as a premiere weapon of war. While this was true in the Bronze Age, by the 7th century AD chariots had been largely relegated to the sidelines as a vehicle of prestige rather then combat. Despite this the Persians still maintained large units of charioteers, often made up of prestigious nobles armed with bows and arrows. The main difference between these chariots and those of the late Bronze Age was the Persian’s use of scythes on the axles and underneath the car. While heavy, slow, and hard to maneuver when one of these machines managed to build up enough momentum nothing could stand in its way. Sadly this was extremely difficult to pull off since they required flat, smooth ground to operate and in many cases opposing infantry were able to completely sidestep the hurtling chariots. The horses pulling the chariot were easy targets and once a chariot had passed by, infantry would climb aboard to kill the crew.

Other users of the chariot included the small Black Sea nation of Pontus in northern Asia Minor, whose scythed chariots were woefully obsolete when their king, Mithridates, came into continued conflict with Rome during the 1st century BC. The Celts were famous for their use of light chariots that they used as mobile javelin platforms and as a quick strike weapon. Chieftains and rich warriors would be driven into battle, dismount and engage the enemy with their swords. If the soldier needed to leave the area or move to another part of the battlefield, he would signal his driver, who would then pick up the warrior and take him where needed. British Celts were the last known users of the chariot in ancient Europe.