Huh. I knew that the typical nomad horse was a steppe pony, but I'd always assumed they'd use something more like Persian horses for the heavy cavalry.
Huh. I knew that the typical nomad horse was a steppe pony, but I'd always assumed they'd use something more like Persian horses for the heavy cavalry.
Most historians who study Ancient Greece preface the Iliad with "ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THIS EVER, EVER HAPPENED". More importantly, the Iliad is an idealisation of combat by authors who had never actually seen it, rather than a legitimate source of what combat is actually like.
Oh, hold on there. They do say that it did happen. And that it probably is quite an accurate description of combat in Dark Ages Greece - mega-fighting nobles chasing other nobles around the field on chariots, and the hoi polloi just running around scatteredly like a mob in their wake. Not too different from many Medieval encounters. That kind of combat is what makes an aristocracy an aristocracy. You actually depend on the big nobles to win your battles for you.
But that kind of fighting was phased out. It stopped being the case in the 7th/6th C. BCE. Hoplites definitely did not do single combat. Couldn't even if they wanted to. Shield has big, heavy and clumsy like hell. On the rare occasion they fought individually, they would have to drop it.
Homeric epics were nostalgic fantasies of nobles, of the "good old days", when their kind of people actually were special and meant something. And it flattered them. It definitely was not a description of a battle a contemporary would recognize.
The battles tend to be close-range affairs; bow and arrows were known and undoubtedly used, but they are not shown in action. Instead, battles seem more akin to wrestling matches, with men grabbing hold of long thrusting spears and trying to kill their enemies with short swords. The short swords themselves are interesting: early in the Mycenaean period, these tend to be long and rather fragile things. But as time went on, they got shorter and sturdier; the perfect weapon for close-range combat. By contrast, the dominant sword of the Early Iron Age – the Naue II-type sword – introduced probably a little before the fall of the Mycenaean palaces, was a relatively long, cut-and-thrust weapon, ideally suited to reach over and behind shields, for example.
Shields are not attested at all for the thirteenth century BC, except as decorative elements, such as the small, gold figure-of-eight shields used for necklaces and unearthed in a house in Mycenae. Earlier, we have depictions on, for example, the Mycenaean hunt dagger, which shows men with Minoan-inspired tower shields and figure-of-eight shields hunting lion. But for the heyday of the Mycenaean palace civilization, we have no evidence for the use of shields at all. Strangely enough, shields do reappear on pottery of the mid-twelfth century, including shields obviously adopted from the Hittites.
During the Tang Dynasty China did have some larger horses due to western imports, but from what I've read it doesn't seem this affected their cavalry at all. Most of the depictions of horses show them as objects of aesthetic value rather than tools of war.
View attachment 114737
The chinese were absolutely dependant on steppe-horses for their cavalry. (either by importing them or by simply paying nomads to fight for them)
Hence why the chinese spent so much time and effort trying to control Ferghana: Good horse-country.
Not all shields are suited for single combat. Hoplons were very useful shield in formation but impractical for one-on-one combat. You couldn't run with it as well: hence the saying 'return with your shield or on top of it', as fleeing soldiers threw away their shield.A shield makes sense as an individual dueling thing but you want your infantry to be equipped with formation fighting weapons as this means they HAVE to hold formation or die. A shield gives lots more options for breaking formation, either to chase or to run.
Hoplons are a very unusual. Of all the many types and shapes of shields I have played with the hoplon is unique in being almost impossible to use well in a one-on-one situation. They appear designed explicitly to force their wielders to stay in formation. Whilst various shields do work more or less well in formation (as a general rule larger is better in formations but worse in one-on-one) they are all better for individual combat that two handed weapons.
The longer a two handed weapon is the better it works in formation and the worse it works individually (as a general rule). It is worth noting that Ashigaru carried yari, which could exceed 6 metres in length as their main melee weapon. Samurai, who by contrast were expected to be able to fight as an individual generally carried a fairly short sword (the katana) and a bow or longer melee weapon (naganata, yari, lance or nodachi). The long weapon was fighting in formation and the short was effectively a side arm - for use as a back-up and in 'civilian' contexts. This matches very well with the equipment of a 14th century European knight, who generally carried a lance as his war weapon and a long sword (sometimes called a bastard or hand and a half sword) as is sidearm. Shields largely dissapeared from European battelfields with the introduction of plate armour which was capable of protecting the user against the lance.
Didn't know the term kyuuba no michi until now, really do learn something everydayThe shoulder part of Japanese armor was considered as alternative shield. Japanese samurai used commonly a bow, so they couldn't have a schield. They called the martial art "the way of archery and horse riding".
I think shields just weren't relevant in their style of warfare. In early Japanese warfare, you had the bushi who didn't want shields because they were armored horse archers, and you had the ashigaru who didn't want shields because they relied on mobility and reach (either with the naginata, spear or bow). Sengoku armies shifted straight from these tactics to effectively pike-and-shot warfare so there was never really a place for what we would consider heavy infantry.In my personal opinion small, sturdy shields where not needed in japan due to lack of use of the lance.
Also it seems to me the japanese preferred two-handed anything over one-handed + shield in all areas. Maybe it has something to do with their lack of quality steel, which would have made lighter blades possible?