No No No

[Runyan99]

Yeah. It's worth remembering when people talk about "the good old days" or "simpler times" or when they say things are going bad or increasingly violent. The truth is society has always been nasty, and life dirty and short. Modern people will never appreciate what they have, unless it is taken away. We few history buffs have a wider view of the human experience on this planet.

[Other Means]

I've often wondered what it was like in a sword battle at the sharp end. Did people just stand and fight in line until they died, did the lines swap, what was the life expectancy when face to face with an enemy, was it a big shoving match until advantage was gained?

How, in fact, did the whole thing work on a micro level? I understand the larger tactics but right in the front line how did they do?

The closest I've seen to an answer was from the program "Rome" where they swapped people out of the front lines on a whistle - I think that must have happened. It would certainly explain how the Romans, with practised battle drill, managed to so often overcome much larger but disorganised armies.

For things like Cannae there must have been a push back of/retreat by the Romans to a line that was too tight to swing a sword, or swap people out, leading to the front line being exhausted and eventually succumbing to Hannibal's men who'd had 10 minutes rest.

If anyone knows better illuminate me, cheers.

[Runyan99]

According to Goldsworthy, the Roman front line changed in a matter of minutes. Prolonged contact might be interspersed with periods where both sides broke contact and caught their breath within short range. Based on my very limited boxing experience, I can well imagine the actual hand to hand stuff was short and exhausting.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yup, I seem to recall reading that the Romans rotated their front lines every few minutes.

In more Medieval times this probably wouldn't have happened, feudal armies rarely being very well trained or disciplined. But some ad hoc stepping back seems very likely to me. You'd have to.

However, I caution against having too brutal a view of combat in any case. Charging the enemy a la Braveheart doesn't seem to me to have been widely practised. Given that some battles raged evenly for hours with pretty minimal casualties, I'm convinced that there would typically be little enthusiasm to exposing oneself the other sides' pointy things.

I'm sure things got a bit more vigorous if there was a particular grudge, religious difference or tactical advantage but as a whole most killing got done on an opponent trying to run for it.

One of my favourite bits of history takes place during The Rough Wooing.

During one battle, possibly Pinkie, Henry VIII gets a bit testy with the commander of his Border Horse, after observing that their charge against their opposite number of Scottish Borderers didn't seem to produce any casualties even after a protracted melee.

Turns out that the various clans on both sides valued their familial and "business" ties to their nominal opponents more then their respective remote Kings.

Some of the finest light cavalry in Europe, and they got told off for not trying to kill the enemy.

[Affentitten]

I've often wondered what it was like in a sword battle at the sharp end. Did people just stand and fight in line until they died, did the lines swap, what was the life expectancy when face to face with an enemy, was it a big shoving match until advantage was gained?

How, in fact, did the whole thing work on a micro level? I understand the larger tactics but right in the front line how did they do?

The closest I've seen to an answer was from the program "Rome" where they swapped people out of the front lines on a whistle - I think that must have happened. It would certainly explain how the Romans, with practised battle drill, managed to so often overcome much larger but disorganised armies.

For things like Cannae there must have been a push back of/retreat by the Romans to a line that was too tight to swing a sword, or swap people out, leading to the front line being exhausted and eventually succumbing to Hannibal's men who'd had 10 minutes rest.

If anyone knows better illuminate me, cheers.

Keegan's Face of Battle attempts to look at this individual perspective and spends quite a lot of time talking about the crush from behind, the limited field of view and the utter helplessness of the foot soldier.

A lot of the Medieval battles were much smaller in scale than the big Roman engagements, though the actual size of the campaign force might be larger due to the large numbers of retinue the nobles trailed around with them.

[Merkin Muffley]

On Radio 4 the interviewer asked Russell Crowe why he had given RH an Irish accent. That went down well. "You've got tin ears, mate".

I've heard a few clips. Sounded oirish to me, via unknown northern English filter.

[Pinetree]

Kevin Costner's "Robin Hood" was one of my all time favorites when I was younger, and I still like it to this day.

You gotta be kidding, Disney's version pwns all other versions....

[Elmar Bijlsma]

On Radio 4 the interviewer asked Russell Crowe why he had given RH an Irish accent. That went down well. "You've got tin ears, mate".

I've heard a few clips. Sounded oirish to me, via unknown northern English filter.

I agree, you can hear a bit of Irish in it easy enough.

[REVS]

Well, it's hardly a surprise that Rusty has a tin ear.

And of course we're all expert on how the accent sounded in 1235 (or whenever) in that region, aren't we?

[Michael Emrys]

Supposedly RH was a Saxon, so his accent might in some way have been vaguely Germanic.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

And of course we're all expert on how the accent sounded in 1235 (or whenever) in that region, aren't we?

Heck, in the 13th Century, they'd all be speaking Middle English. I don't know if any of you have tried to read a work from this era as it was originally written (as opposed to a modernization), but the grammar and vocabulary of English has changed a lot since then. I can only imagine how different the actual dialect was. And the nobility probably would have spoken Norman French and/or Latin a lot of the time...

One of my college professors was an expert in Middle English literature, and would read us passages from works like the Canterbury Tales and Tristan and Isolde in his (highly educated) conjecture of what the language might have sounded like at the time the works were written. It's certainly nothing like any modern English dialect I've ever heard, though to my ear the cadence and lilt did bear some similarities to the West Country dialect (Devon and Cornwall).

Edit to add: Just looked over my copy of the Canterbury Tales, and it reminded me: Some of the vowel changes in Middle English are reminiscent of modern Gaelic dialects of English. So RC's choice of Irish coloring might not be entirely incorrect. In any event, it can't possibly be worst than Kevin Costner's attempt...

[Michael Emrys]

In any event, it can't possibly be worst than Kevin Costner's attempt...

IMO Costner's reading of the RH legend was an absolute disaster. It confirmed my suspicion that he is not a very good actor and might well have set it in concrete.

Michael

[Other Means]

When I used to do Judo, you worked up to 7 minute rounds. They'd absolutely knacker you. OTOH, you were that fit a 10 minute rest and you were ready to go again, I'd imagine professional soldiers were about that level - mostly. Your conscripted peasant stock though...

Affentitten, might look that up, cheers.

Heck, in the 13th Century, they'd all be speaking Middle English. I don't know if any of you have tried to read a work from this era as it was originally written (as opposed to a modernization), but the grammar and vocabulary of English has changed a lot since then. I can only imagine how different the actual dialect was. And the nobility probably would have spoken Norman French and/or Latin a lot of the time...

One of my college professors was an expert in Middle English literature, and would read us passages from works like the Canterbury Tales and Tristan and Isolde in his (highly educated) conjecture of what the language might have sounded like at the time the works were written. It's certainly nothing like any modern English dialect I've ever heard, though to my ear the cadence and lilt did bear some similarities to the West Country dialect (Devon and Cornwall).

Edit to add: Just looked over my copy of the Canterbury Tales, and it reminded me: Some of the vowel changes in Middle English are reminiscent of modern Gaelic dialects of English. So RC's choice of Irish coloring might not be entirely incorrect. In any event, it can't possibly be worst than Kevin Costner's attempt...

Via the Great Vowel Shift, no doubt.

[Stalins Organ]

Roman "line replacement" is pretty well attested in many sources - but the exact mechanics are not known. However it was probably not unique - the Carthaginian formation at Zama - in 3 lines, was probably intended to do the same thing, and the 3rd line there is noted as refusing entry to the fleeing remnants of the lines in front - implying that moving through lines was fairly common.

Later Byzantine manuals we have note quite wide gaps between formations of heavy infantry, in which light infantry operated and through which cavalry were expected to be able to charge out and retire through.

Even such not-so-well drilled troops as Crusader infantry and knights were expected to operate in a similar manner.

As far as I can see such changes would take place out of actual; contact - cavalry would charge out against a retreating foe....or against horse archers who were shooting from a distance. Infantry probably replaced each other during lulls - the Carthaginians lines at Zama were not closely pursued for example, and there are other cases where troops are noted as being close to each other but not actually exchanging sword blows - often 1 side is emboldened to come within javelin range, while the other is either timid...or faking waiting for them to come even closer so they can't get away fast enough when the charge does happen!

As to he hack and slash - some Greek plays give an idea IIRC - Hanson's "The Western Way of War" highlights a few passages where men are gouging each other with their hands and teeth once spears are broken and swords lost, and the crush at Cannae was not unique - similar cases where troops are so tightly packed as to be unable to use their weapons are noted in other battles.

The job of then slaughtering those men seems pretty horrific and not something many modern people think about!

[Runyan99]

Yeah you would think the hand to hand and mass slaughter involved in say the sack of a city must have led to a hell of a lot of severe PTSD cases in the ancient world. Imagine what basket cases these men would be as they left military service and returned to their farms and families.

Anyway, I wonder how long it will be now before Crowe puts on a moustache and does Wyatt Earp.

[Affentitten]

Yeah you would think the hand to hand and mass slaughter involved in say the sack of a city must have led to a hell of a lot of severe PTSD cases in the ancient world. Imagine what basket cases these men would be as they left military service and returned to their farms and families.

Yes and no. I suspect that societal tolerance of violence was much greater. In the present, we have been indoctrinated for decades / centuries that violence is an aberration, accidents are avoidable and death is something that is best avoided. Therefore we are traumatised when it happens. Even natural death is endlessly grieved over. A woman in 21st century Australia who loses a child would be rushed off to counselling and we would expect her to have 'long term' psychological damage. A woman in 12th century France who lost a baby would be worried if it hadn't been baptised yet and get ready for her next pregnancy.

Also, PTSD does take some time to manifest. If you're dying before age 40 from an abcessed tooth, you're not going to run the gamut of these psych disorders.

[Stalins Organ]

The Romans in particular had quite long lifetimes - in the 1st couple of centuries AD a non citizen could join the army as "Auxilia" - and after 20 or 25 years service (I forget which....) be mustered out as a citizen.

Auxilia were usually used as the front lines tho - to soften the enemy up forhte citizen legions, and Tacitus specifically commends his father in law Agricola for defeating the Caledones at Mons Grappius using only Auxilia and not risking roman lives!

Citizen veterans of the legions would muster out with land.

As with most armies, most soldiers probably saw little action in their service - the chances of being in a major battle were fairly slim outside hte well known wars -and would have survived.

The Romans actually had a pretty good medical system, and as you'd expect the military had their own system too.

I think "moderns" usually think of "dark age" & medieval medicine when they think of ancient times - presuming that anything earlier must have been even worse.

[Affentitten]

Well we know at the very least that a Roman's bathing practice was a lot more developed than the average Saxon peasant!

The difference in type of service is a very important point. A Roman soldier might spend decades of his service in a garrison in Iberia or wherever. Even on 'campaign', the chances of having a toe-to-toe fight were unlikely and in so many cases were a mis-match anyway. But a feudal era peasant would be levied specifically to go and fight on a specific campaign and would probably be facing up to an equivalent foe.

[Stalins Organ]

Yep - that pretty much summarises it!

[Affentitten]

Maybe you should give the hamsters some options. Like by sticking them up your zhu-zhu.

[Affentitten]

Maybe you should give the hamsters some options. Like by sticking them up your zhu-zhu.

Please note the above reply was not to SO, but to a spam that has been deleted. Mind you, if the hamster fits....

[Stalins Organ]

If the hamster fits it probably involves duct tape and cardboard tubing :eek:

[Michael Emrys]

If the hamster fits it probably involves duct tape and cardboard tubing :eek:

Curious reading habits you have there, SO.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

I was prompted by the Aussie's comments to see what is out there - google does the rest!:cool:

[gautrek]

Well i had to take my lad to see this today.Its not too bad.But its a total load of bollocks from start to finish.RC is not Robin Hood.His accent is wrong on so many levels i wonder why they didn't just pick an English guy to start with.He does sound Irish.

I think they must have looked at the story's about robin hood and thought we don't need all that old bollocks lets rewrite them.So it makes no sense at all now.In fact it should be good to see how the Saracen is brought into the story in the future (thats if they even bother).

But Tuck fighting in armour is wrong,Maid Marion fighting in fitted armour is wrong,everyone being on horseback is wrong.

But the 2 main issues i have are why do we keep plonking our ideals and values on 12century people.

Like Robin having issues with massacring Muslims(err excuse me why did he go on crusades then) and Robin banging on about liberty and freedom like a throw back to Brave Heart.