"We romanticize swords so much. Imagine everyone swinging crowbars at each other."
- John Dolan
Anyone who tries to conceptualize the warfare of a thousand years ago or two will be greatly impressed by the influences that ourselves heavily influenced by science fiction writers like fantasy artist Frank Frazetta. It's hard not to imagine Viking berserkers slashing their way through surprised villagers, huge ranks of Chinese or Japanese fighting through forests of arrows, or Spartans slashing their way through any body. And all of this is done for optimal cinematic effect. People with a need for escapism will want to imagine themselves in this situation, usually on the winning side.
While it’s no surprise that real life is vastly different from the box-ticking recreations we’ve created, we often get the most basic things wrong. So let’s take a look at what combatants from the distant past were really expecting, and hopefully gain a better appreciation of how far removed we are from that reality. Not only was the past more terrifying than fiction would have us believe, it was also often (and surprisingly) far more mundane.
10. Barbarian mercenaries led to the decline of Rome
Unless a civilization reaches the level of influence at which it is called an "empire," it is invariably regarded as an unusually large mob of savages. How often have we seen Roman conquerors confronted by mud-spattered mobs under disorderly piles of furs, running toward the legions like children being let out on the last day of school? This is especially convenient when nationalists want to claim that the Roman military's active appeal to barbarian soldiers in the last few centuries was the impetus for their downfall.
A close look at the historical record refutes this. Myself Julius Caesar was very forthright in that the Gauls he had been dealing with for eight years had demonstrated considerable organization. Their weapons, clothing, and social systems showed a very well-organized infrastructure. Moreover, some of the greatest Roman victories, such as that under Strasbourg in 356 A.D. , were achieved overwhelmingly by specialized barbarian cavalry archers, with odds of almost three to one. Even Caesar relied heavily on mounted German mercenaries , to save his army at Alesia , a battle he won by the widest margin of his career. The evidence suggests that if barbarian mercenaries were the cause of Rome's fall, they were also key to its rise.
9. Ancient China was extremely militaristic
We assume that since ancient peoples often fought wars, the only societies that will survive will be those that revere the military. How were soldiers supposed to be motivated to risk their lives if there were no concepts like military honor to compel them, especially in times when material rewards were limited?
That's how it should be with Ancient China conquering such a vast and influential empire, right? This is especially common in the West, which primarily sees Ancient China through military histories such as " Mulan ", "Red Rock" John Woo or "Wall" .
Historians have collected some evidence indicating that antimilitarism was the dominant view in ancient China. Confucius , the most influential adviser China has ever produced, was known for his disdain for soldiers and argued that military conquests undermined a ruler's legitimacy. There is a saying from ancient China: " Good people don't become soldiers " Much harsher than the relatively recent American proverb, "Mothers, don't let your sons grow up to be cowboys." Much of the appeal "The Art of War" Sun Tzu was that it prevented the loss of valuable resources and infrastructure due to war by appealing to cunning rather than to noble warfare.
8. The Greeks considered archers cowardly.
In classical Greek "Iliad " Diomedes' character, struck by an arrow, calls archery only suitable for cowards. As stated Peter Gainsford , this fueled the misconception that this view was the prevailing belief among the Greeks, rather than the grumblings of a particular wounded character. This belief was further reinforced by the fact that the close-combat formation known as the phalanx became so revered for its supposed invincibility. So these days you see depictions of the Greeks, for example, in both the graphic novel and the film 300 , where the Spartan king Leonidas speaks directly about this.
In fact, even the Spartans, the supposed pinnacle of phalanx fighters, archers were used regularly as a means of suppression during maneuvers. To be fair, there is no surviving evidence of Spartan archers destroying enemies in the way that Welsh archers or Mongol horse archers did, but archaeologists have unearthed tributes to archers in ancient Sparta itself. Not that they needed to confirm this view, since Greek mythology and epics such as the Odyssey" Homer , full of tribute to the heroic archers.
7. Post-traumatic stress disorder was not yet recognized
History classes often promote the idea that PTSD wasn’t really understood or documented until the 20th century. Even early in the era, when World War I began, the prevailing view was that it was simply dismissed as “shell shock.” Since life off the battlefield was so much harsher than modern comforts, it’s assumed that people must have been accustomed to harsher things than they are capable of today. Even the ancient Romans sometimes gave barbarian soldiers credit for their toughness because they believed that civilization had softened their troops.
Ancient historians may not have used the term "post-traumatic stress disorder," but they did document the effects. Herodotus, famous for documenting the Greco-Persian Wars, called a spearman Episela a person suffering from psychological problems after the end of hostilities. Centuries earlier PBS reported that Assyrian tablets recorded the psychological harm inflicted on soldiers during their service. Although there is no known direct translation of the word in ancient China, in "The Canon of Medicine" Huangdi circa 200 BCE, there are strong references to veterans suffering from suspiciously similar psychological ailments. Evidence shows that less technology often does not necessarily produce supersoldiers.
6. Ancient ships rammed each other all the time
Ancient ships constantly ramming each other seems to make sense, as wooden ships naturally seem much more vulnerable to this than metal hulls. It is very difficult to sink an enemy ship with arrows or any of the heavy equipment that most ancient ships could use in combat. Even using fire can set the attacker's own ship on fire, an unusually literal example of backlash.
But, as has been reported many times, for example in Rafael D'Amato's book, Imperial Roman Ships" 2017 , no captain would do this if he could avoid it. A successful ramming could still destroy the structural integrity of everything from the hull to the mast of the attacker. Also, even if a ship killed its opponent with one hit, there was a danger that the ram would be caught and the rammer would go down with the sinking ship. This is why even much more rickety ships were often more successful due to their increased speed and maneuverability, such as fleet Constantine in the 4th century AD.
This was also the case in ancient Asian naval combat. Even when the Korean navy began to produce the first armored ships , famed for their unsinkability, they were reluctant to ram other ships with them because it was too risky. In any case, ramming ships is more common in modern navies, where ships have mass-produced, interchangeable components, and the ability to sink ships makes boarding a vessel to seize it far more risky than it once was.
5. The Roman uniform that was… a uniform
You know what an imperial Roman soldier looked like. A red tunic, leather armour ending in a sort of skirt. It makes sense that the empire would want a standardised piece of clothing to help build a sense of cohesion with its legion. Except for surviving documents, the Roman empire very often didn’t bother to make the effort. In fact, payrolls show that they actually cut soldiers’ pay for their uniforms, so poorer soldiers weren’t going to do it. There are a number of letters from the period where soldiers asked their homes to send them clothes, including a particularly famous one in which one poor soldier stationed in Britain wrote home asking for woollen socks .
The idea that every Roman dressed the same was Hollywood delusion . Those bright red uniforms looked really nice in Technicolor. In retrospect, that's a pretty silly notion: red was a very expensive dye at the time, reserved for the nobility. To think that every private dressed like that would be like modern soldiers being depicted going into battle in Louis Vuitton or Gucci uniforms.
4. Wars were won on the basis of single battles
One of the long-held beliefs about the American Revolution was that the Americans won their independence because, although they could not defeat His Majesty's armies in conventional battles, they could resort to guerrilla tactics to win. Although we have already discussed how how true is this , history classes often treat the idea that American insurgents favored guerrilla tactics as something of an innovation. There are practical reasons to think so: less advanced agricultural technology would have meant that deploying an army would have been implausible, since either side would have needed to send troops back for crops or face devastation at home.
However, even in ancient times, the concepts of war and attrition were well understood. The emperor Fabius was particularly renowned for his skill in using them, and so the slang term for a tactical offensive aimed at wearing down an enemy, even if he would normally be invincible in a pitched battle, was nicknamed "Fabian tactics." This would allow Rome to win Hannibal , even when he destroyed their armies four times on the Italian peninsula during the Second Punic War. They almost stopped Julius Caesar during the Gallic Wars, and Caesar gave due Vercingetorix for his skill in using them. According to "New Perspectives on Ancient War" Garrett Fagan and Matthew Trundle, even Sparta itself failed in a war of attrition, in no small part because its extreme dependence on slave labour made its position weaker if troops had to be mustered over a long period. No amount of fortitude will help troops that cannot be supplied or that seem unable to move forward.
3. Very heavy swords were common
It makes sense that if the sword is expected to cut down people in armor and with shields, you'd want something as heavy as a sledgehammer. Not without reason war hammers became a popular weapon by the time the medieval era arrived and soldiers needed to take out those wearing the best available deflections.
Well, to be fair, swords have historically been quite light. As noted by magazine Escapist , heavier broadswords will probably only weigh around four and a half pounds, meaning that if someone can wield the average laptop without much trouble, they are well on their way to being in shape enough to wield a sword. Even the heaviest (or at least the heaviest known sword used in actual combat), the Central European zweihander, weighed in at 8.8 pounds. Given that musket American Civil War weighed about 9.75 pounds, meaning that soldiers attempting to stab their enemies with bayonets or clubs were performing a more labor-intensive task than even the strongest ancient swordsmen.
2. All the soldiers were men.
Every time a historical drama comes along in which a woman wields a sword in combat, internet commentators will come out of their shells to decry it as unrealistic. The assumption is that women and men simply operate on such different levels of power. Even fantasy shows like "The Witcher" were harshly criticized for these creative decisions.
The usual response is to point to specific female fighters from ancient times, such as Queen Boudica or Queen Tomyris. But this is fundamentally flawed, since it implies that such soldiers were the exception that proved the rule. Instead, let us consider armies in which female combatants were a practice that hardly merits comment: there were Trung Trac and Trung Nhi from Vietnam, who not only led the defense of Vietnam that drove out the Chinese in 40 A.D., but also trained a general staff of 36 other women. Or there were the numerous Iron Age Celtic burials that included chariots and female skeletons buried with them. Still not enough armies where this was a regularly accepted practice? Let's hope there are stories about East Africa, where shelves female archers from Western Sudan or similar large contingents of female warriors from Ghana who were still fighting European armies in the Middle Ages will be enough to prove it. No one at TopTenz can decide for you. We are not your mother.
1. Long swords are ideal
As the opening quote and our third entry suggest, in all ages no hand has been so revered as the sword. The most famous blade of kings, perhaps only the club is more versatile. We are certainly led to believe that an army armed with long swords would make short work of any line of spearmen in close combat, except perhaps a phalanx.
According to analysis of ancient wars conducted History.com , armies in which soldiers relied on swords were at a significant disadvantage. A sword, even a short sword, requires considerable elbow room to wield properly. This is partly why the Roman legion favored short swords known as gladius , after closing in on their enemies, although even this was largely supported by javelins and slings to create gaps in the enemy lines. In conclusion, in ancient warfare, even the finest individual weapons were no match for the cohesion of a squad.
Dustin Kosky is a science fiction author. "A Tale of Magic Gone Wrong" , in which the character wields a spear-shovel. He hopes that he can someday spread the misconception that it was a real ancient weapon.
Оставить Комментарий