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.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.
Last edited:
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.
I might have gone overboard on that, actually. The "ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THIS EVER, EVER HAPPENED" comment referred to the Trojan War as an event, which is generally thought to have not happened. The Iliad isn't really a historical source that stands up on it's own, but I think there was Mycenean era evidence that both supports the representation of warfare, but also in some cases goes against it. I found this article, which is pretty helpful
Which does seem to support what you're saying. The "good old days" comment is pretty apt.
And so this isn't totally tangental, it looks like the Ancienter Ancient Greeks didn't use shields either.
As far as I know, the Iliad does not depict one particular culture or period. It does depict, with great precision, items, practices or events that have later been confirmed to have existed in one form or another, but not necessarily in the same culture nor at the same time. The content of the song probably evolved over the years, with successive aedes adding details they knew about.
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.
What I meant was that the larger western horses don't seem to have played a bigger role as heavy cavalry in Tang military affairs.
Light cavalry was always the deciding factor in battles despite the influx of larger western horses.
Shields are the first choice of equipment for soldiers who have to supply their own kits, particularly when they can not afford effective armour. The 'shield wall' style tactics are used because it is a way to get the maximum effect from soldiers so equiped. It is worth noting that noble warriors often used two handed weapons even when many of their levies were fighting with shields (eg saxons at Hastings).
When formations become more professional or they are supplied with equipment by their commanders (as often happened in feudal Japan) then it makes sense to equip them with formation weapons such as pikes/yari. 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.
For a cavalryman a shield is very hard to use. You need a horse that is trained to behave and respond to things like knee pressure as you dont have a spare hand for holding the reins. In addition most cavalry tend to be drawn from the ranks of the wealthy and so tend to be able to afford the sort of armour that makes a shield less necessary.
When formations become more professional or they are supplied with equipment by their commanders (as often happened in feudal Japan) then it makes sense to equip them with formation weapons such as pikes/yari. 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.
For a cavalryman a shield is very hard to use. You need a horse that is trained to behave and respond to things like knee pressure as you dont have a spare hand for holding the reins. In addition most cavalry tend to be drawn from the ranks of the wealthy and so tend to be able to afford the sort of armour that makes a shield less necessary.
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.
I imagine other shields used in shield walls were formation weapons as well.
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.
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.
The shields also changed during the time, they were in use. At first the centre grip shield was mostly used. When the impact based warfare was introduced to the world. Centre grip shields were replaced with strapped shields.
So, here is a question to those who know bit more about japan then me. Was the impact warfare even a thing back in Japan?
The 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".
Didn't know the term kyuuba no michi until now, really do learn something everyday
While I was about to make a lengthy post about shields (in general but mostly in european setting), I think anyone who's interested in historical use of weapons, particularly european ones,
should check out the youtube channels of scholagladiatora, skallagrim, ThegnThrand and to lesser extend Demomanchaos, Protherium and Lindybeige. For asian Martial arts, Swordsage is a good place to start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYHONBYWck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUJpdDWCuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQGoiJKpGQI&list=UUt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8
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?
should check out the youtube channels of scholagladiatora, skallagrim, ThegnThrand and to lesser extend Demomanchaos, Protherium and Lindybeige. For asian Martial arts, Swordsage is a good place to start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYHONBYWck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUJpdDWCuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQGoiJKpGQI&list=UUt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8
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?
Last edited:
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.