How did manlet armies win in ancient warfare?

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Calf kicks

 

[Rozko]

Quite honestly in the case of the romans I suspect they had numerical superiority in most cases and they certainly had the ability to supply their armies with provisions in a way that the newer/smaller societies largely lacked.

It was their tight formations, unit cohesion, mutual support in close quarters, superior armor and battlefield tactics. They slaughtered numerically superior armies all the time because it. The Gaul's tactic of charge and swing was suicide if the shield wall didn't buckle in the opening moments.

 

[RowdyLesnar]

Is this the time to come out from manlet closet?

 

[Zer]

I guess medieval manlets could spend more time training and plotting since they're not getting pussy. Same as today.

 

[raty tat tat]

Tools.

Weapons are tools.

Organization helps too.

And strategy.

 

[Texan6533]

Better strategies and numbers

 

[Vergilius]

You look at the Romans, and they're 5'6" men fighting against German savages that are 6'+ and 180-200 lbs. You look at Japan, and they're like 5'3", so it's just like how did they have these amazing armies? How did the Romans beat down guys with a 50+ lb weight advantage and 8+ inches of reach on them?

The Romans had mass produced body armour and weapons as well as organization and tactics over their opponents. There is even a recorded speech where the commander of a Roman army points out to his men that their opponents look huge and fierce but that they aren't wearing armour. And the result was what you'd expect.

 

[JbModest]

Tactics and logistics.

 

[Phlog]

Depends on the manlets in question. The Romans were using a professional army at that point.

Soldiers whose job it is to fight, who are well experienced. It was a technological innovation that revolutionised warfare.

 

[clutchCAT420]

Constant training, rules in warfare, discipline and the gladius. Read a book ts

 

[Rozko]

Technology/tactics > unorganized brute strength

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_of_Boudica

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachme...39442114035773/Screenshot_20210131-154544.png

 

[Bacco]

in b4 pages of broscience about romans

"Numbers" is one of classic ones, pages already filled with it
Reality is romans won tons of battles while heavy outnumbered

Romans won a lot because
-superior tactics/strategy/logistic
-superior discipline and field movements
-superior equipment
-superior variety of units/weapons
-superior flexibility
-stab>slash
-range advantage (both arm and blade) become an handicap in the kind of very close quarter melee the romans forced

Also there's the wrong misconception the roman legionary was a weak individual.
Chances are hardened veteran had hell of life and trained, fought and killed much more than most of his enemies did.
During a campaign they had ridicolous though routine, classic example was foreigners auxiliaries having hard time adapt to it despite not having full armor/equipment weight legionairs had
There's a reason they was called Marius Mules
Roman war campaign was though life as you can get

There's truth behind them having trouble at 1v1, but it was related to their kind of equipment being designed not for that
Large scutum (shield) and short gladius were awesome in a formation close quarters mass conflict, but was a disadvantage in a not-formation fight where the lighter equipped enemy have space to footwork and out-maneveur, and longer sword(and maybe arm) could be used as effective range advantage

As for japanese (the other group mentioned by TS), i don't think they ever had to face much larger opponents
Their whole ancient warfare has been limited to east asia, and i don't know if koreans, chinese and mongols were much larger than them
Btw first interaction with bigger men i think was when portoguese soldiers were there and during "friendly" sparring with the locals whooped everybody ass lol
But we are talking swordmanship here wich have little to do with mass battles

Mongols were small and whooped eastern europe ass with incredible speed, but tbh their style of war had almost nothing to do with melee

 

[Bald1]

Training
Working as a unit

 

[revoltub]

They used the lost art of shifting

 

[cmw43]

Professional well equipped and supplied army.

Vs
Poorly equipped tribesman.

 

[Mr Mojo Lane]

I train stick and knife fighting. Height reach advantage is real and I have a good understanding of it, but it certainly doesn't mean the tall guy always wins.

You'd be surprised how many short guys become coordinated and fast in less than half the time than some of the taller guys. I knew a couple of real tall guys who could do Cinco Teros (the five basic strikes) after a year. I knew one really tall guy who couldn't do it after two years. It's unbelievable that they can't do that after a year. Now, if they do get some coordination and speed they get much tougher

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

You look at the Romans, and they're 5'6" men fighting against German savages that are 6'+ and 180-200 lbs. You look at Japan, and they're like 5'3", so it's just like how did they have these amazing armies? How did the Romans beat down guys with a 50+ lb weight advantage and 8+ inches of reach on them?

Technology, organization, discipline, logistics, means and intelligence.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Shear numbers. It's well known that manlets gestate for much shorter times in the womb and reach full maturity and size at 4 months. When you're the size of a rabbit, you can breed like one as well.

Legit lol

 

[forum poster]

They're much harder to shoot in for a takedown on.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

It was their tight formations, unit cohesion, mutual support in close quarters, superior armor and battlefield tactics. They slaughtered numerically superior armies all the time because it. The Gaul's tactic of charge and swing was suicide if the shield wall didn't buckle in the opening moments.

That and siege technology. Defensive and offensive. Romans were pretty gangster at that.