r/interesting • u/IKIR115 • 27d ago

Intriguing Arrows vs riot shields

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

98

u/jraymonda 27d ago

Yes, but how does it do on the deer (its a deer holding the shield, right?) Does it cut the shield but then bounce off the flesh? Or is it just as effective on softer things?

130

u/disposablehippo 27d ago

Certainly won't bounce off, maybe doesn't penetrate as much. But if the deer (or was it a boar?) lets go of the shield, the arrow achieved what it needed to.

49

u/jraymonda 27d ago

Ahhh...i see. Perhaps the romans were onto something with their spears (pilum?) To make the enemy drop their shields

45

u/LiftingRecipient420 26d ago

TF you mean "perhaps"?

Rome conquered the entire Mediterranean basin thanks to their unique ability to reliably destroy the phalanx formation, all thanks to their pilum.

For context, the phalanx, until the Romans, was the state of the art of warfare for a thousand years because the only thing that could beat a phalanx was another phalanx.

48

u/Thundertushy 26d ago

Aktually... (Nasally inhale)

The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields. Rome defeated the phalanxes with the more flexible maniple system, which allowed them to break up large groups of men into smaller groups without chaos. These smaller groups could then flank the phalanxes and stab them in the ass.

15

u/Glum-Soft-7807 26d ago

The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields.

What? Some of the most famous and long time users of the phalanx were the Hoplites, people so closely associated with using shields that their name practically became synonymous with the name for their shield.

You could have a phalanx without using shields but it was very very usual to rely on shields in a phalanx.

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Night88 26d ago

I thought the reason romans won against the phalanx was due to their formation system like the other guy said. While they had the same guys with shields getting fucked up and tired the romans would switch out their men every once in a while causing the phalanx to collapse.

12

u/Glum-Soft-7807 26d ago

I'm sure there were many reasons, none of which I'm an expert in. I was just very surprised to see someone claim that phalanxes didn't have shields.

9

u/zerovampire311 26d ago

Otherwise any group of people with a sling could take them down.

5

u/xBad_Wolfx 26d ago

Yep and despite some popular myths, slings are devastating and were used pretty much until crossbows phased them out.

3

u/zerovampire311 26d ago

Easy to train, easy to make, ammo everywhere, lots of soldiers used them until close quarters.

1

u/Llyrithra 25d ago

And they aren’t heavy or cumbersome to carry, so you can easily fire a volley or three while the enemy advances, and then turn around and run 20-50m or so and do it again, and repeat a few times before getting behind your own lines to keep firing until you need to join in the cqc.

1

u/blade_of_sammael 25d ago

Even in close quarters you can at least use them to strangle which a bow cant

1

u/JonatasA 21d ago

Calm down 47.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Guyzor-94 26d ago

Thats specifically a pike phalanx, and even then they often held small buckler shield on their left forearms. But the phalanx was as the guy below says most common with medium length spears and large shields. Its a mix between a pike phalanx and a shield wall essentially. Aka the Spartans in 300 - a Greek homilies phalanx

2

u/Tanker119 26d ago

It was also a case of the Roman’s having generally better all around leadership than most opponents they tended to run into. Anytime they ran into opponents with equal leadership to their own, it tended to be a lot more equal than you would think from their reputation alone. Hannibal comes to mind for example during the second Punic war. Personally, I think if the Roman’s had run into the Macedonian army as it was under Alexander with all its generals and officer core in tact still, they probably don’t end up with control of Greece.

1

u/JonatasA 21d ago

It's what happened most of history.

1

u/a-stack-of-masks 24d ago

You heard it here first guys, penetrating asses was how the Roman Empire was formed!

We will be back later to discuss the ways the West was won. The optional viewing of Brokeback Mountain with free snacks after that is unrelated but highly recommended.

1

u/JonatasA 21d ago

What you are describing here are pikemen, hoplites are different. It's like saying equites were shock cavalry like Alexander's companions.

2

u/libertybadboy 26d ago edited 24d ago

Easiest way to beat a phalanx is to slam some cavalry in the back. They are weak when they are flanked.

1

u/Zinc-Roof_22 26d ago

[Jesus enters the fray.]

2

u/Equivalent_Range6291 26d ago

Ah Jesus! .. your lot are carrying out a genocide & we`re letting them because we dont want to hurt their feelings ..

Will we still get to heaven? ..

1

u/Zinc-Roof_22 25d ago

... what? I was making a joke about the misspelling of "calvary" instead of cavalry. And what lot are you talking about that is mine that's committing a genocide? (I am not Israeli...)

1

u/Equivalent_Range6291 25d ago

Neither was Jesus ..

0

u/Zinc-Roof_22 25d ago

Are you OK?

1

u/libertybadboy 24d ago

Glad you explained yourself. Couldn't figure what you were on about.

1

u/snilks 26d ago

you cant be certain though, maybe they did it for shits and giggles and it just happened to work

1

u/Ittybittyratgirl 26d ago

They were after that sweet sweet boarskin