During ancient wars, how did they decide which soldiers would be at the front?

[Douglas_Quaid]

Originally Posted by Auser

Fuc.k broscience have a warm helping of brohistory

Lmao at brohistory.
Lots of it in this here thread.

[AusPower]

Originally Posted by SurfinBird

no, because they didn't use shield walls, they could have never broken a roman phalanx. Certain military tactics just proved to be the most effective and riding around with your horses while shooting arrows at your enemies might work in a wide open field against smaller armies but definitely not against a roman legion. Ofc their military was effectiv at their time and against their enemies, but they certainly weren't superior to the romans or even the teutons or danes for that matter.

Yes becaue there never was a case of a horse archer based army completely destroying more than one roman legion at once.

Oh wait, Crassus.

The Mongols never pentrated into Western Europe because the land didn't suit their style of warfare, just as the lands to the east did not suit the Roman style of warfare.

(Aware they were two different time periods but the fact still stands).

Also, the Roman's didn't use a phalanx except during the very early years of the city. If you are by chance thinking of their tortoise, which was mostly impervious to arrow fire then you need to keep in mind there is only so long you can walk around holding a heavy shield above your head and while doing so you can't fight particularly effectively either.

[GettinBig1989]

vollunteers ?

[SurfinBird]

Originally Posted by Auser

Fuc.k broscience have a warm helping of brohistory

I'm not claiming to be an expert of historical warfare or something, but it's quite funny that there is not even ONE reply that setting things right other than "you're wrong" or "NU UH mongols would win!!11".

[Domstar104]

I always figured it was staggered at the front line with a veteran unit next to a green one, followed by another vet unit and so forth. So basically the green unit would be spurred on by the vets and build confidence.

anyone whos seen 300, knows that confidence and experience trump anything on battlefield

[Douglas_Quaid]

Originally Posted by Domstar104

anyone whos seen 300, knows that confidence and experience trump anything on battlefield

Although that comment is true to an extent.. Lmao at basing your knowledge of ancient warfare from watching a movie based on a comic book loosely based around a historical even.

[Auser]

Originally Posted by SurfinBird

I'm not claiming to be an expert of historical warfare or something, but it's quite funny that there is not even ONE reply that setting things right other than "you're wrong" or "NU UH mongols would win!!11".

lol its the misc man. I wasn't just referring to your post. I think you should have a formal debate with AusPower as he seems the most knowledgeable itt.

[Domstar104]

Originally Posted by Douglas_Quaid

Although that comment is true to an extent.. Lmao at basing your knowledge of ancient warfare from watching a movie based on a comic book loosely based around a historical even.

I mentioned 300 for the less knowledgeable, and its a good example

[Dorsai]

Originally Posted by SurfinBird

no, because they didn't use shield walls, they could have never broken a roman phalanx. Certain military tactics just proved to be the most effective and riding around with your horses while shooting arrows at your enemies might work in a wide open field against smaller armies but definitely not against a roman legion. Ofc their military was effectiv at their time and against their enemies, but they certainly weren't superior to the romans or even the teutons or danes for that matter.

Roman Phalanx...

10/10 Would be trolled again.

[Douglas_Quaid]

Originally Posted by AusPower

Yes becaue there never was a case of a horse archer based army completely destroying more than one roman legion at once.

Oh wait, Crassus.

The Mongols never pentrated into Western Europe because the land didn't suit their style of warfare, just as the lands to the east did not suit the Roman style of warfare.

(Aware they were two different time periods but the fact still stands).

Also, the Roman's didn't use a phalanx except during the very early years of the city. If you are by chance thinking of their tortoise, which was mostly impervious to arrow fire then you need to keep in mind there is only so long you can walk around holding a heavy shield above your head and while doing so you can't fight particularly effectively either.

Parthian armies mostly won over Romans in minor skirmishes and huge tactical blunders (carrhae)

Whenever the Romans got their **** together and took the offensive they had no problem kicking Parthian ass.
(no Roman cawk sucking)

I go agree with the overall point of the post though.

[arctic_wave]

this can be easily solved, open age of empires 2,

make 2 army each with ths same troops and the same amount, plain field same formation and everything, make the feild just large enough to fit them and a few square between them,

1 army will have champions in the front and man-at-arms in the back and vise versa who ever wins will be your answer, ill try this later tonight

[Bruzey]

Originally Posted by Benny__Blanco

If 2 sides were facing off in a field with 50,000 men on each side, how did they determine which soldiers would be at the front, and which at the back? being at the front would be a sure death

Not if yer Tom Cruise, brah.

[matteothefart]

Originally Posted by SurfinBird

wut, the mongols? Did they even have a true military? I've never heard mongols use formations, shield walls or anything like that, they would have been crushed by a roman phalanx.

lel, the mongols could have taken rome if their leader didn't die and things didn't fall apart...

and they were the invaders...