Some time ago someone posted a topic on historical inaccuracies and said that pole arm weapons had the advantage not like BG shows when most people have blades. This i agree with but the reason for the lack of pole arms is that the only advantage to pole arms was that you could defend against cavalry, rarely did people use pole arms in a one on one situation as the sword could be moved faster and more accurately than a big pole. Infact the only people to use pole arms were people defending against cavalry or honour guards of a king etc..
So that is the reason for a lack of pole arms in BG IMHO
Please give me your opinions and lets discuss the benefits and disadvantages of weapons whether they are ranged, melee, crushing whatever!
[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]
History
History
Perverteer Paladin
You say that Bruce but if you have six mega powerful archers/mages then it takes the fun out of the game. All you need to is step back wait till character comes into view and bam it's dead. However having 1 or 2 archers and the rest fighter types is exciting. You see the mighty warrior cutting, thrusting and parrying and then you see the archer, a mile away wimpily pulling a piece of hair back.Originally posted by Bruce Lee:
<STRONG>I think archery is the most effective way of fighting. Especially against large creatures. Lets say someone wanted to slay an elefant then they would not use a twohanded sword but bows and javelins instead. Everyone should be proficient with a ranged weapon.</STRONG>
Don't get me wrong i respect archers as they can drop men dead from far away but it just seems boring.
It's like the British and their longbow men.
They had like 40 archers and decimated hundreds of French cavarly in the Hundred year wars (in fact the introduction of ranged weapons like bows and xbows was the end of knights on horses as they could penetrate massive armour). While i'm British and i like the fact that we won in the war the game seems too easy using archers.
My point earlier on the end knights I think is actually a good reason why archery in BG2 is so easy. To kill an ogre with a bow would take about 3 arrows, to fight it would take more slashes. But this is just my opinion let's hear other peoples!!
Perverteer Paladin
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Depends upon the place and the time, IMO. Polearms were the traditional weapon-of-choice of city guards long after artillery made archers more or less obsolete. They were perfect for guarding fortified, relatively entrances against small, unsupported bands of intruders. Swiss mercenaries seem to have spread the custom of polearms throughout the German provinces, and there are plenty of examples from the 15th through 17th centuries that survive.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
polearms also look very snappy w/ the uniform. (and they give you something to lean on, one advantage vs the sword)
fable - the swiss iirc, were the masters of pike warfare, and while they were coveted or feared on the battlefield, the pike is not a practical one on one weapon.
fable - the swiss iirc, were the masters of pike warfare, and while they were coveted or feared on the battlefield, the pike is not a practical one on one weapon.
"all around you is tinder for the gods"
Polearms (halberds, pikes etc..) historically, are used more for defensive purposes by a group of guards.
For example, 2 people with polearms guarding a doorway (classic setup) can stand side by side holding their pikes forward to prevent their enemies from rushing the doorway. The long bladed poles kept the enemy at bay, while at the same time protecting the guards from weapons with much shorter reach (like swords).
This may be traced from the Greek (later Roman) phalanx, where in men were organized with the first and second rows of a unit were equipped with long spears to keep the (infantry as well as cavalry) enemy at bay and preventing them from charging and breaking up their formation.
Then while the enemy was held, men from the rear would launch spears and arrows. Skirmishers in loose formation will also creep up between the lines to stab the men caught between the spears.
Thus battle discipline became paramount in importance rather than sheer mob ferocity.
Here's another question: Anyone know why later Romans favored shortswords?
btw I like this topic
I'm a military history freak
For example, 2 people with polearms guarding a doorway (classic setup) can stand side by side holding their pikes forward to prevent their enemies from rushing the doorway. The long bladed poles kept the enemy at bay, while at the same time protecting the guards from weapons with much shorter reach (like swords).
This may be traced from the Greek (later Roman) phalanx, where in men were organized with the first and second rows of a unit were equipped with long spears to keep the (infantry as well as cavalry) enemy at bay and preventing them from charging and breaking up their formation.
Then while the enemy was held, men from the rear would launch spears and arrows. Skirmishers in loose formation will also creep up between the lines to stab the men caught between the spears.
Thus battle discipline became paramount in importance rather than sheer mob ferocity.
Here's another question: Anyone know why later Romans favored shortswords?
btw I like this topic
I'm a military history freak hey Fedaykin,
the romans prefered the hsort sword over the long becuase it was an easier stabbing weapon. The romans used there great shields to gaurd the front of themselves but then would go onto stab the enemy to there left. This enabled them to hold rank and kill unarmourd men they so often came across when they fought the goths. Also if u ever see a roman sword they r very different to short swords as they are veyr broad and the perfect stabbing weapon. Hoped this helped, coz i have "played" with roman weaponry and armour.
the romans prefered the hsort sword over the long becuase it was an easier stabbing weapon. The romans used there great shields to gaurd the front of themselves but then would go onto stab the enemy to there left. This enabled them to hold rank and kill unarmourd men they so often came across when they fought the goths. Also if u ever see a roman sword they r very different to short swords as they are veyr broad and the perfect stabbing weapon. Hoped this helped, coz i have "played" with roman weaponry and armour.
If i ever die..........i'm taking you all with me!!!!
I'm not sure if you are asking why the Romans changed to the throwing spear/short sword combo or why the combo became so effective.
To try and answer the second part first, the thrown spear (which evolved through time to become lighter and longer ranged) would break up a charge or disrupt a phalanx. The strength of the short sword lay in its combination with the shield. Imagine being punched by the relatively large shield and imediately afterwards havinng to deal with and upwards stab from the sword, then imagine it happening again and again. If the Romans could hold their line, this would have been a particularly efficient meat-grinder against large, infantry armies. Such a setup would also be at much less of a disadvantage on uneven terrian than a phalanx that depended on a hedge of pikes or long spears.
To answer the first part is a bit harder. The classical greek phalanx and the early Roman long spear based armies were also social structures since only the upper caste formed part of these units - Alexander's phalangites are a different case and another discussion - and their numbers were, as such, limited. To create a large army it was perhaps easier to train masses of men to use the throw/punch/stab method outlined above. Thes methods would also be more suited to fighting the Gauls where difficult terrain would require greater flexibility of movemnt. It is interesting, however, that tactical flexibility and flair was conspicuously lacking from many of the early Roman campaigns. Only after the 2nd Punic War (which resulted in 22 years of experience being built up throughout the army) do we see tactical flexibility becoming the norm - well after the reorganisation of the army. So the need for tactical flexibility may not have been the driving force of reorganisation. Perhaps the 'sociology' of creating a large army required the change in equipment and organisation in the army to take place?
To try and answer the second part first, the thrown spear (which evolved through time to become lighter and longer ranged) would break up a charge or disrupt a phalanx. The strength of the short sword lay in its combination with the shield. Imagine being punched by the relatively large shield and imediately afterwards havinng to deal with and upwards stab from the sword, then imagine it happening again and again. If the Romans could hold their line, this would have been a particularly efficient meat-grinder against large, infantry armies. Such a setup would also be at much less of a disadvantage on uneven terrian than a phalanx that depended on a hedge of pikes or long spears.
To answer the first part is a bit harder. The classical greek phalanx and the early Roman long spear based armies were also social structures since only the upper caste formed part of these units - Alexander's phalangites are a different case and another discussion - and their numbers were, as such, limited. To create a large army it was perhaps easier to train masses of men to use the throw/punch/stab method outlined above. Thes methods would also be more suited to fighting the Gauls where difficult terrain would require greater flexibility of movemnt. It is interesting, however, that tactical flexibility and flair was conspicuously lacking from many of the early Roman campaigns. Only after the 2nd Punic War (which resulted in 22 years of experience being built up throughout the army) do we see tactical flexibility becoming the norm - well after the reorganisation of the army. So the need for tactical flexibility may not have been the driving force of reorganisation. Perhaps the 'sociology' of creating a large army required the change in equipment and organisation in the army to take place?
The Roman short sword was called the Gladius and favoured shorts stabbing motions. The formation of the Romans allowed them to use the sword with the right hand and the shield with the left. This way they protected themselves and could also kill loads of people. They used this to great success against the Gauls and the Celts as the 'Barbarian' nations preferred to fight man to man etc with sweeping broad swords and massive axes. This made the fight with gaps in the formation and the Romans just broke through the formation. The formation of the Roman armies allowed people to replace any dead men at the front so the formation was rarely breeched. The javelin of the Roman army was used to break up advancing armies at a run. They hurled the javelin and took down a lot of people. What was frightening about this army was that they rarely lost above 1000 men in a battle as the catapaults and batalista decimated many men before the actual hand to hand stuff began. Anyone seen the big battle in Gladiator?
[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]
[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]
Perverteer Paladin
Does anyone agree with me that the Roman army was the most organised and powerful army ever. Considering differences with weapons etc what are people's views. I think that Gengis Khan and his Mongol hordes were amazing. Their tactics were simple. Ride in with horses destroy enemy, pillage and destroy anything that gets in the way. Simple and effective.
[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]
[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]
Perverteer Paladin
IIRC, Roman expansion eastward was halted by the horsemen of Parthia. Just like the Mongols, they were excellent horsemen, weidling spears, bows and wearing light chain-type armor.
The rigid and slow moving formations of the Roman legion were no match for them. I think a confrontation between the Mongol hordes and the Roman legion would lead to a decisive Mongol victory as well.
The rigid and slow moving formations of the Roman legion were no match for them. I think a confrontation between the Mongol hordes and the Roman legion would lead to a decisive Mongol victory as well.
I have to agree but didn;t Parthia win by using raids. A perfect tactic but in a real war against each other face to face I think Romans would win through sheer shield walls. Nothing would get through. However Carthage was the Romans bane. They lost the most wars against Carthage.
Perverteer Paladin