The Utility of the Sword

WillInNewHaven · November 03, 2017, 12:36:42 AM

Quote from: Bren;1005257What is "AK/JTs/22"?

We see a similar rock-paper-scissors in the black powder period with artillery-infantry-cavalry.

Holdem poker. All-in, AK is a favorite over JTs and 22 is a favorite over AK but JTs is a favorite over 22. People treat this as something you could use to win bar bets, saying "you pick one" to the sucker and then you can always pick the one that beats it. But each of the favorites is such a narrow favorite that you would need a massive number of trials to likely make any money.

WillInNewHaven · November 03, 2017, 09:54:02 PM

Quote from: markmohrfield;1004653There is at least one major exception to this; the Roman Gladius. Granted not many rpgs take place in the Roman Republic/Empire or derivatives of it.

Having been through the M14/M16 transition and having heard about the M1/M14 transition, I always imagined that a whole lot of Centurions were really pissed when infantry legions were issued the spathe in place of the gladius.

Other sword users interrupted the reign of the spear and/or pike. Gonsalo de Cordoba's tercios were sword and buckler and they owned the European battlefield for awhile.

Bren · November 03, 2017, 10:05:00 PM

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005542Having been through the M14/M16 transition and having heard about the M1/M14 transition, I always imagined that a whole lot of Centurions were really pissed when infantry legions were issued the spathe in place of the gladius.

I strongly suspect you are not wrong.

QuoteOther sword users interrupted the reign of the spear and/or pike. Gonsalo de Cordoba's tercios were sword and buckler and they owned the European battlefield for awhile.

I thought they were a mix of pike, arqubus, and sword and buckler. Though I confess that my knowledge of 15th and early 16th century formations and tactics is kind of spotty.

WillInNewHaven · November 04, 2017, 11:32:46 AM

Quote from: Bren;1005556I strongly suspect you are not wrong.

I thought they were a mix of pike, arqubus, and sword and buckler. Though I confess that my knowledge of 15th and early 16th century formations and tactics is kind of spotty.

Well, I typed "spathe" instead of "spatha," so I was wrong. But I think the language used in response to the transition would have been colorful.

Of course, you are correct that de Cordoba had pike formations and, by then, everyone had arqubus units but the sword and buckler units were credited by at least some authorities with breaking the pike formations.

Bren · November 04, 2017, 07:10:33 PM

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005625Of course, you are correct that de Cordoba had pike formations and, by then, everyone had arqubus units but the sword and buckler units were credited by at least some authorities with breaking the pike formations.

I get that. Much like the Roman maniples against the latter day Macedonian phalanx.