Re: 信長時代的兵法(續)

[fw190a (las)]

※ 引述《ThomasJP (筆劍春秋梁父吟)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《fw190a (las)》之銘言：
: : 把槍投出去和長槍方陣的戰術似乎很不搭嘎xd
: 希臘重步兵的矛是可以投擲的
: 不過作者在這邊也大鍋炒了,桿硬不硬跟這些確實沒啥關係
同理羅馬短劍也是可以投擲的(誤)
The dory was not a javelin. Despite its aerodynamic shape, its weight and
length would have made it cumbersome and impractical to throw.

不過根據研究他的重量和長度都使投擲"不實用"，

: : 使用長戈倒是很早，不知道有沒有專業的可以跳出來解說。
: 戈跟討論的內容沒有半毛錢關係是也
: 硬要扯的話,那就要扯到薙刀上面了...
: 把槍跟長刀大鍋炒,這也是個人不贊成作者論點之處
: 畢竟他的技術論忽略了一個重點,那就是日本的武器技術並非只有本土來源
: 有很多重要的技術都是外來的(包括日本國寶"七枝刀"都是從朝鮮傳入的)
: 拿技術演進來做論點,是會產生理論上的硬傷的
我倒沒覺得兩者相像，薙刀比較像關刀的感覺了，
和我想表達的戈不同，一樣留待專家論述。
: : 考慮到方陣兵拿的巨大盾牌，從上方戳刺到對方腳部是很不可思議的，
: 現存的古希臘陶畫等就是這樣描繪的
: 你覺得是你的想當然比較正確,還是當時人畫下來的比較正確?
當時人只畫出一個反握，哪裡看得出是想戳腳，
再說畫了也不能保證就是對的，
我的說法是很實際的說考慮到盾牌的形狀與位置，戳腳很困難
(除非用我前文提到的用槍尾手法)

其實我認為若用正握法+利用盾是圓形會有空隙這點，還比較容易戳到腳就是了。

: : 除非直接往下插戳對方腳板? (下面會提到正確做法)
: : 總之方陣兵大腿一向都是不覆甲，那邊也最不可能被攻擊到。
: : 小腿的部份用上持的方式也很難攻擊到，而且那邊就有護甲了。
: : 反握使用騎槍不知道是指哪邊的文化用法?  西洋的話我只能想到反握丟標槍的騎兵。
: : (中間省略)
: 至於騎槍,沒有馬蹬的時代騎兵攻擊步兵的基本方式不是往前衝戳刺
: (這樣反作用力肯定讓你落馬)
: 而是從上往下攻擊,因此反握確實比起正握要方便
The xyston was wielded either underarm or overarm, presumably as a matter of
personal preference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_xyston.png
嗯，但是反握的狀況基本上犧牲了槍的長度優勢，
所以正握的機會應該也不少，至少在上文中只說同伴騎兵的長槍，
正握反握是看個人喜好

The Roman cavalry long thrusting spear was called a contus (from Greek
language kontos, barge-pole). It was usually 3 to 4 m long, and grasped with
both hands. It was employed by equites contariorum and equites catafractarii,
fully armed and armoured cataphracts.

At this time Antiochus came into contact with the Parthian cavalry, of which
some were heavily armed with scale armour for both the rider and horse and
longer lances known as a kontos. The kontos 'almost equalled the phalangite
sarissa'

雙手持用加上這種長度，應該就沒反握的選項了吧，不過算時間他們也沒馬蹬，
看來是用技術克服一切(誤)

: : 這個推擠的理論也不是完全可以肯定的。 人多也不一定能把力量都傳到，
: 去參加過選前造勢或者遊行就知道了,人多的推擠力量真的非常可怕
: 話說前幾年上海世博,我去的那天正好是破紀錄的單日百萬人入場
: 體驗過之後就知道啥叫"投鞭斷流"了...
Adrian Goldsworthy, in his article "The Othismos, Myths and Heresies: The
nature of Hoplite Battle" argues that the physical pushing match model does
not fit with the average casualty figures of hoplite warfare, nor the
practical realities of moving large formations of men in battle.[9] This
debate has yet to be resolved amongst scholars.
推擠理論頗多人接受，但也有強力反駁，總之真相還在未定之天。
 no Greek art ever depicts anything like a phalanx pushing match and this
hypothesis is a product of educated speculation rather than explicit
testimony from contemporary sources. The Greek term for "push" was used in
the same metaphorical manner as the English word is (for example it was also
used to describe the process of rhetorical arguments) and so cannot be said
to necessarily describe a literal, physical, push of the enemy, although it
is possible that it did. In short, the hypothesis is far from being
academically resolved.
However, there are numerous examples of shallow phalanxes holding off an
opponent. For instance, at Delium in 424 the Athenian left flank, a formation
eight men deep, held off a formation of Thebans twenty-five deep without
immediate collapse
1.沒有任何希臘藝術顯示這種推擠的過程
2.希臘用語中推也只是像英文中推進那樣的抽象意義
3.例如在Battle of Delium，8列深的雅典軍也成功和25列深的底比斯軍隊對耗
很久

: : 反過來講人少方也時常成功抵住人多的。 至於後期變得厚實，Epaminondas
: : 一例他是在玩楔型戰術，只有一翼變厚，後來馬奇頓變厚實也主要跟兵器有關，
: : 所以即使有變得厚實也不一定和這推擠目的有關。
: 是有關的,斜線陣戰術就是因為不可能把全戰線變得更厚,因此徹底加強主攻的一翼
: 而馬其頓方陣的16x16其實跟葉巴米諾達的斜線陣比起來,算是沒有很厚的
: (斜線陣重點側的厚度據印象可以到三十人以上)
: 實際上馬其頓方陣與你說的正好相反,是利用新型兵器來節約人力才對
加厚也可以帶來士氣上的效果，或可調換生力軍，或可分兵側襲，
加厚一定會有戰術優勢，但是否確定來自於推擠作用則不可知，
 Xenophon insists that Spartans initially were able to hold back the gigantic
mass of the Thebans; however they were eventually overwhelmed
色諾芬說斯巴達一開始能抵擋，後來才被"海過"，(不知道確切方法)
找到原文引用在下:
the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle
may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to
take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting
in front of him been holding the advantage at that time.
論證的理由大約是在在前排的國王還能被活著拉回來


: : 至於推倒對方/踐踏而過也不太可能，基本上前列的士兵都有後列的盾牌靠，
: : 在該推擠理論中要被推倒是很困難的，就算真的失足，只要戰線沒啥進展，
: : 也不會演變出踐踏場景，這些狀況在方陣兵對戰中應該只有在一方開始潰逃
: : 才可能發生。
: 去遊行過就知道,在推擠中跌倒不但不是不可能,而且很危險
The ranks behind them would support them with
their own spears and the mass of their shields gently pushing them, not to
force them into the enemy formation but to keep them steady and in place.

但是背後的友軍也不是白目，他們就是在後面支撐你而非把你往前死裡推。

推倒/踐踏在有組織的方陣戰鬥中應該只能是特例而非常態，否則應該會有更多
利用它在對陣中殺敵的相關論述。


--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 1.171.113.25
→ payling:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Normans_Bayeux.jpg
→ payling:描繪征服者威廉的掛毯, 時代比現在的討論稍晚就是
But the Bayeux Tapestry shows all three uses of the lance, not just
over-hand: the couched position is used as well, and the underarm swinging
thrust; the overarm could also indicate throwing lances/spears: and most
probably does, since William of Poitiers states clearly that Normans threw
spears from a distance; while the Bayeux Tapestry also shows spears in flight
and quite a few of them sticking in shields and bodies.
嗯，總之三種姿勢都有可能，但反握很有可能是為了投擲

※ 編輯: fw190a          來自: 1.171.113.25         (10/02 17:49)
※ 編輯: fw190a          來自: 1.171.113.25         (10/02 20:52)
推 KoujikiOuji:推一下