|
Jim March:
If you are discussing sword techniques only, why was it that you compared fully armed Hoplites (armor, spear and shield) with a "mob of highly skilled individual" Samurais? No, you were comparing a hypothetical group action.
In that scenario, it would be only fair to match the Hoplites with fully armed Samurais (horse, lance, bow and sword). Otherwise, it would be akin to matching a group of modern soldiers with only handguns against a group of fully armed 13th Century Mongol archers (who could easily kill from well outside the range of the handguns).
I can tell you that if you were to match a hypothetical INDIVIDUAL Hoplite armed with his primitive SWORD with a Japanese Samurai armed with his own SWORD, the contest, well, it wouldn't even be a contest...
Lastly, regarding Roman battle tactics, you seem to be confusing how the Roman shield was used during the "bombardment" phase and during actual physical clashes. Indeed, the "turtle" was used to protect the legions from missle volleys, but during close quarters combat, the Romans used a manipular, rather than a Phalanx system. The difference really became noticeable during the Macedonian-Roman clashes.
I suggest that you get a hold of Hans Delbrueck and read about the evolution of Western military techniques from Greece to Rome (and then through the medieval times to the era of the Thirty Years War) if you are interested in the topic.
Skorzeny
------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
|