Your Army

My army would consist of:

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin Yawn...it wasn't funny when the first person did it.

It's always funny when the administrator does it.


I'm liking the use of megalodon, seko. Did you see the article about their bite strength?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7540835.stm


Edited by TheARRGH - 05-Aug-2008 at 22:22

Originally posted by TheARRGH Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin Yawn...it wasn't funny when the first person did it. It's always funny when the administrator does it.

No, that makes it less funny.  As a position of power, "message board administrator" ranks pretty low, I'm surprised you'd need to arse-kiss.

Hey the thread is about your army not jokes. I don't think Darius appreciates this.

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Originally posted by Count Belisarius Hey the thread is about your army not jokes. I don't think Darius appreciates this. Very true.

My apologies, Darius.

...Personally, I'm still trying to figure something out about logistics, because while I'd like to flesh out the whole "army" theme,  I'm not really able to do so without knowing more about..well..how armies were/are supplied.


However...

I'm intrigued as to what made you pick maces as a highly featured weapon in your army. They're definitely easy to make and can be hard-hitting, but they don't seem like the most effective military weapon if you're in a close-ranked formation.

...Then again, that's what they always say about axes...



Edited by TheARRGH - 06-Aug-2008 at 01:21

I'm glad you guys worked out some of your sensitivities. I wouldn't want to get in the way of a fine truce. I do have something pertinent to say though. We appreciate the opening of new topics and tend to support them in general. However, there is no rule that says the one who opens a thread owns it. The threads are for all members to participate in and it is our duty as staff members to monitor them. Threads tend to veer off the original topic and when they do we trust you, the membership, will bring things back on track, which you successfully have done here. If and when the staff do go off on tangents, sometimes being funny and sometimes not, then bear with us. We like to act silly too at times, even 'message board administrators'.  Oh, and by the way, a little brown nosing never did hurt!

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Well...It comes down to my tactics. Most of my army is lightly armoured, perfect for surrounding and overwhelming heavier close-ranked formations. Maces and axes can be used to cut paths into enemy formations, allowing lighter troops to follow, such as my curved-sword infantry. Maces as you said, are hard-hitting, capable of breaking skulls in one blow.

True, but from what I understand, maces require more of a wind-up than an axe or something similar--for the simple reason that a mace has to rely on blunt force, while an edged weapon focuses whatever force there is to a point. That's why axes were so widely used (besides the ease with which an axe could be made): they are weapons which hit with significant force, but can be light and quick and, often, don't require a large swing in order to be effective--because your force is amplified/focused by the edge.

Then again, maces are a LOT cheaper, and they were used quite a bit--so maybe I'm just being nitpicky. Plus, I have to admit a slight bias: I like axes. As you can see from my army.

Still, I do feel that maces are a little limiting...they're like warclubs, you need a looser formation and room to swing, and that can be problematic.

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa True. But I am quite fond of loose formations. The trauma dealt by a mace would be devastating. Although it does not have the cutting power, it does have the kinetic energy needed to cause great damage. Mace cavalry use longer maces to cleave down enemy infantry. The Egyptians and Persians were both great users of the mace and used it to win many of their battles.

Well, far be it from me to cast aspersions on a formula that worked.

then again, the Persians had a lot of cavalry--the mace tends to work better for cav than for the humble men-at-arms on their own two feet.

And...no offense to the Egyptians, but they were not that terribly impressive a military power. they won quite a lot, but not against the Persians, Macedonians, and many conquerors after. I wouldn't blame that on a use of Maces--tactics, training, and logistics matter much more than just weaponry. But they may not be the best role models as far as a choice of equipment.

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa They did have great victories against other peoples, such as the Libyans, Nubians, Canaanites, Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians and a list of other peoples and nations. To call the Egyptians a  non-impressive military force is blaspheme in my opinion. At the time of Cambyses, the Persians recognized Egypt one of the last remaining "big threat" in the ancient world.

I guess you're right...I suppose I'm just taking the wrong perspective here. I'm probably thinking a little bit too much about "military might" as defined by the Romans and so forth...


I need to learn more about the military capacities of Middle Eastern states...about the only ones I know anything about in that area were the Persians (and Sassanids and Parthians), and the Hittites. I had no idea they were so highly regarded by the Persians.