This magazine is for sharing artwork of historical events, places, personages, etc. Scale models and the like also welcome!
Generally speaking, actual photos of a historical item should go to [email protected]
Photos of ruins should go to [email protected]
Photos of the past should go to [email protected]
I have question, assuming the shields don't break (and people holding them are strong enough) and there are no sideways attacks (or we have people forming a circular arrangement to better cover), is there any way to break this ? This seems like a really good defensive arrangement. Though I understand most of the shield is wood, and it breaks, but that will require a lot of targetted attrition
Fatigue. It's a tiring position to hold, so as long as you constantly pepper them with arrows or other missiles, eventually, some will get through. Most times enemy troops would run out of ammunition long before that, but there are instances, such as the Battle of Carrhae, where constant resupply of ammunition made the constant fire effective. The Roman commander at Carrhae thought he could 'outwait' the enemy's ammunition, which normally would be a good bet, except that the enemy had arranged for supply trains of camels laden with nothing-but-arrows so that they could endlessly shoot at the Romans.
The other method is that it's a terrible close-range position, since it requires everyone to hold a pretty static stance. This was also exploited at the Battle of Carrhae, with troops in testudo formation charged by heavy cavalry whenever they formed up.
Testudo formations usually cover the sides if there are no allied forces on the flank, or, on rare occasion, even cover the rear (if that was a concern).
Catapults
That is just like a very strong way to break the shields, though I do agree. A follow up question - how much range does catapult require to be effective - I am presuming atleast a 100ish meters or even more, otherwise, it would not just have enough momentum to cause damage (though it most definitely depends on mass, which I am presuming would be in order of 10ish KGs. If foes are close enough, this may not be bad. Though cannons definitely can even work at much smaller distances, but I am assuming these 2 things would not be present at same point in history.
I'm not a physicist, but it's not shooting self propelled ammunition. The velocity (therefore force) would be the highest at the launch point and drop due to air resistance.
The minimum range is more of a usability and design issue. It's hard to aim and, unlike a cannon, has a high release point. At close range it can't turn quickly enough or aim low enough.
Thank you for answering
