Shields

[ROB_88]

The idea is that it is a tool how primary purpose isn't for fighting, like how the primary purpose for Aiel weapons isn't fighting, but the spear and bow could be used for hunting and a knife has all kinds of purposes.  I'm surprised the Aiel don't use handaxe/tomahawk type weapons also.

 

as you just said, they use weapons that could also be used for otherstuff aswell, that's why they never use swrods.

 

but axes wouldn't work either cause those are ment to cut down trees, but there are hardly any trees at all in th Waste so i don't think axes are used enough for that

But they can chop bones better then a knife, shrubs that grow in the waste, and can break up hard ground.  I said hatchet/small axe not a large axe.

 

when would they ever need to chop bones and/or shrubs that can not be taken care of by a good knife?

[Kaznen]

Because the chopping power of an axe is better then a cleaver.  And they use bones and shrubs for burning, along with manure, and hacking with a tomahawk would be better for butchering heavy bones then a knife.

[ROB_88]

they use poo for burning, not wood. that's better used for other stuff like shade and leaves for the sheep/whetever they have.

 

i think the Aiel, because of them being in the desert leave nothing to go waste, so the use the bones for jewelry and bows and stuff, so a butcher knife could badly damage a perfectly good bone when it's just as good to strip the meat off with a knife

[Kaznen]

Bones for jewelry?  They are not cavemen.  They use gold, silver, copper, bronze, and jewels to make jewelry.

 

And their bows are made from horn.  And historicly horn bows are composite bows made by glue layers of bone to layers of wood.  Tree do grow in the waste, were else do they get shafts for spears and arrows?  But they're small, stunted and few and far between so carrying a small axe would be smater then carrying a large one over distances.

 

And you would be surprised how many dense organic materials for crafts are first started by being spilt with an axe/handaxe.  When the men of the TR cut live yew to make their bowstaves they use an axe/handaxe combo, not saws.

 

Something else I just thought of.  To remove a limb "in the field" to save sombody's life a small axe would be handier then a large knife, there is no evedence the knives are serrated.

[Keithie]

Maybe a Kukri would make the most sense for a fighting/hunting/tree chopping tool?

 

"The kukri is basically designed for chopping and stabbing purposes as a weapon of war, but it still can be used in other household or daily tasks, such as: building or digging a furrow, to cut meat and vegetables, to cut trees etc. It functions as a cross between a knife and an axe"

 

From wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri

[ROB_88]

oh, wait. i was thinking of ivory for jewelry. not bones.

and that kukuri thing happens to be exactly what i pictured the aiel to use for a knife.

and for amputation it ould actually be better with a saw than an axe, but that's not carried around either

 

Tree do grow in the waste, were else do they get shafts for spears and arrows?  But they're small, stunted and few and far between so carrying a small axe would be smater then carrying a large one over distances.

 

as you just said, small, stunted and few. small also means "not thick" so a good knife would be good enough, so you don't have too carry around an extra axe.

 

i'm not actually saying that axes are never used, just that they are not used so often and by enough people for them to start using it as a weapon, which was the start of the whole damn argument.

 

it's possible that some craftsman like blacksmiths would use an axe for whatever reason, but they are not needed so much that every algai'd'siswai would carry them around.

at most there would be one in the packs on horses

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Go to your local library and go to the history section and look up Middle Age Warfare.  When infantry crossbowmen started to become a professional soldier and they started using cranks and windlasses to crank back their bowstrings they would hide behind tower shields, or carry them on their back and turn to reload, to protect themselves from enemy fire.

What....? You mean Pavise-style shields?... I mentioned that in my post...

Remember the shields the legion are carrying are not for person protection but to protect the crossbowmen behind them.  If their main purpose was hand to hand fighting then it would be wiser to carry pikes, but Rand notes their is not a single pike among them. 

Uhhh... you're making an assumption there...

 

And, the Legion is continuously described as being revolutionary.... not just a wall of shield-bearers behind which a line of crossbowmen stand...

 

Those men would have to be able to fight effectively when attacked. With those shields they can't.

 

As for the lack of pikes... the Roman legions never fought with pikemen. They relied upon depth and interlocked shields to resist a charge.

I looked it up on wikipedia and saw that pacises were the name of those tower shields.

Yeah.

 

But a scutum is also commonly referred to as a “tower shield”. Yet a scutum is much smaller than a pavise shield.

 

“Tower shields”, the scutum aside, were very rare in troop types that were expected to fight. Given that the scutum is the smallest of the tower shields, and also the most commonly used, it stands to reason that it’s because it’s the most effective size.

 

Given that the men aren’t just standing in place to act as a shield wall.

 

Given the fact that people comment on their revolutionary approach and the fact that they’re the only armed force that is totally dependent/loyal to Rand alone, it doesn’t make sense that Bashere and Mat have just created, essentially, a load of crossbow and a shield wall…

[Kaznen]

Know why the Romans didn't use pikes?  I do, it was because pikes weren't invented until about 800 years after the fall of Rome.  A pike is a very long spear, and they were invented for infantry to hold off mounted knights holding there long lances.

 

A moving wall holds with Mat's principle of "cover your enemy with arrows."  And if the enemy does get to close the shield bearers can drop the shields they are carrying with both hands and draw their short sword, like any other archer or crossbow man would do.

 

Fact is the shield bearers are not meant to be front line fighters when the people they are protecting have an effective range of 500 yards. 

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Know why the Romans didn't use pikes?  I do, it was because pikes weren't invented until about 800 years after the fall of Rome.  A pike is a very long spear, and they were invented for infantry to hold off mounted knights holding there long lances.

Ahhh... patronizing, lovely.

 

Know what the ancient Greek word for "pike" was? I do. It was "sarissa". Sarissas were carried by the Macedonians under Philip and Alexander. Hint: Alexander was around well before the Medieval period.

 

Now, if there was need for a Sarissa in the time of Alexander, why not when the Romans were around? Answer: Military tactics, i.e. the transition to short sword and heavy armour with missile weapons in support, had meant that they were irrelevent. The pike (or sarissa) re-emerged when the heavily armoured knight appeared. Because, let's face it, Medieval tactics (if not weaponry) had gone backward when compared to those of the Romans.  Added to that, the Macedonian Sarissa was not primarily designed to be used against horsemen by the way. Just as pikemen, and billmen for that matter, were not necessarily designed to fight horsemen.

 

Now, there are heavily armoured knights in WoT, yet the legion isn't carrying spears.

 

They're carrying shortswords. Which means that the huge shield is an impossibility.

 

In fact, one could argue that the shortsword and shield combination strongly suggests a tight formation. After all, neither the Romans or Greeks did relied upon spears after the initial clash with the enemy. They used shortswords.

A moving wall holds with Mat's principle of "cover your enemy with arrows."

But the huge shield (which is very heavy) doesn't hold with his "move quickly" principle.

And if the enemy does get to close the shield bearers can drop the shields they are carrying with both hands and draw their short sword, like any other archer or crossbow man would do.

What's the point of fighting two handed with a 2 foot blade? It's a complete waste of time.

 

Plus, dropping your shield to face a charge from trollocs is a good way to die.

 

Secondly, why are they carrying the shield in the first place if they intend to drop it on contact with the enemy?

 

Thirdly, if they're using it to protect themselves from archers then they're somewhat redundant as they're not defending their own crossbowmen. Given that an arrow goes up and then falls down, the simple answer is that opponants can shoot over them.

 

So, given the above, what purpose do they serve?

Fact is the shield bearers are not meant to be front line fighters when the people they are protecting have an effective range of 500 yards. 

Again, you're assuming that their job is merely to stand infront of the crossbowmen.

 

You can't say that for certain.

 

The simple answer to this is that the shield is not as big as you propose and that they are in fact meant to engage in hand to hand combat.

 

That would make sense given that they're armed with shortswords. Why would Bashere and Mat (1 great captain and a guy who is probably a great captain) arm their men with weapons that they could not use?

 

Attacking a trolloc with a shortsword having thrown away your shield seems like a sure way to die.

[Kaznen]

Know why the Romans didn't use pikes?  I do, it was because pikes weren't invented until about 800 years after the fall of Rome.  A pike is a very long spear, and they were invented for infantry to hold off mounted knights holding there long lances.

Ahhh... patronizing, lovely.

 

Know what the ancient Greek word for "pike" was? I do. It was "sarissa". Sarissas were carried by the Macedonians under Philip and Alexander. Hint: Alexander was around well before the Medieval period.

 

The primary tactic of the Macedonians was the phanlyx(?).  The soliders would hold their 12 foot spears (shorter then a pike) about halfway down the shaft and with a large group would be told to march forward, that was it, no stunning manuvers just march forward and let the enemy (primary infantry at that time) impale themselves on the spear.

 

You know, I was going to point by point despute the rest of your arguments but it's pointless.  You are so wrong but you can't admit your feeling flush if your cloths are on fire.  So I'm going to say again go to your local library and study up on Middle Age warfare.

 

 

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

The primary tactic of the Macedonians was the phanlyx(?).  The soliders would hold their 12 foot spears (shorter then a pike) about halfway down the shaft and with a large group would be told to march forward, that was it, no stunning manuvers just march forward and let the enemy (primary infantry at that time) impale themselves on the spear.

Yes... congratulations... which is why I posted this earlier...

 

Now, if there was need for a Sarissa in the time of Alexander, why not when the Romans were around? Answer: Military tactics, i.e. the transition to short sword and heavy armour with missile weapons in support, had meant that they were irrelevent. The pike (or sarissa) re-emerged when the heavily armoured knight appeared. Because, let's face it, Medieval tactics (if not weaponry) had gone backward when compared to those of the Romans.  Added to that, the Macedonian Sarissa was not primarily designed to be used against horsemen by the way. Just as pikemen, and billmen for that matter, were not necessarily designed to fight horsemen

I've amended your, quite rude, response:

You know, I was going to point by point despute the rest of your arguments but it's pointless. I am so wrong but I can't admit that I can't refute your posts.  So I'm going to say again go to your local library and study up on Middle Age warfare in the hope that you'll drop the argument.

Whatever man. If you can't refute the post, that's ok. It just means you're wrong. There's no need to get unpleasant about it.

[harlequin115]

I know I'm new on these boards, so I probably shouldn't start out in an antagonistic manner, and please believe I don't intend to.  I am, however, both a major fan of RJ's work, and a bit of a history nut--especially in terms of military tactics.  Kaznen, is it necessary to act so superior when you really aren't so sure about the topic you're discussing?  If you can't spell phalanx, you probably shouldn't be lecturing on its use.  While you're right in suggesting that the phalanx typically had spears of up to 12 feet long, the Macedonian sarissas pioneered by Philip of Macedon and used to great effect by Alexander generally were closer to 20 to 21 feet long--about as long as the longest pikes of the Medieval period (and actually significantly longer than the halberds used by the Swiss in the fifteenth century). While you're correct that there were few brilliant tactical maneuvers which could be performed by the fairly rigid phalanx, innovations such as attacking in an oblique formation (as pioneered by the Thebans to finally crush Sparta's famous troops) did provide some evolution in phalanx military strategy.  Additionally, you could make the same argument about Medieval pike formations--generally they were formed up into large columns, with little ability to maneuver (I do recognize the exceptions, like the organization of swiss pike deployments into cantons, for example).

 

Basically, my point is, there are many similarities in pike warfare across the ages.  Medieval tactics were modified slightly because they were concerned with charges from more heavily armored cavalry (aided by stirrups), but frankly, if you collect enough men with long pointy objects in front of a cavalry charge, it turns out the cavalry break almost every time (witness the effectiveness of infantry squares even through the Napoleonic period). 

 

I'm sure RJ, as a much stronger student of history than myself, was well aware of all of these factors.  So here is my guess for how he thought such a situation would work:

 

While The Thin Inn Keeper is right that the Romans were able to avert cavalry charges by having deep ranks and locking shields, you have to remember that the Romans never had to deal with the equivalent of the Medieval Knight--the lack of stirrups meant that cavalry weren't as heavily armed, and could never have used a lance effectively.  So in this respect, I might sort of agree with Kaznen, that the shield bearers of the Legion aren't meant to stand up to a direct cavalry charge.  My belief is that the Thin Inn Keeper is correct about the size of the shield, however--the reason being that those individuals are intended to stand up to infantry assault, and delay them from closing with the crossbowmen.  Remember that cavalry, no matter how tightly packed, cannot stand as close together as infantry (you can fit roughly six to eight men standing in the same space a single horse would occupy, assuming the men are acting as pikemen, so let's say four crossbowmen).  This suggests that Mat's plan with the Legion is to assume that any cavalry charge will be completely cut to pieces before actually reaching the line--not necessarily a stretch, considering the effectiveness of heavy crossbows).  Thus, it is only units which can engage the Legion with superior numbers of individuals which might reach them in any sort of fighting order--this would be an infantry attack.  The few infantry who actually make it close enough to engage the Legion will be met by a smaller force bearing shield and sword, fighting in a similar manner to the Roman Legionnaire, as suggested earlier.

 

The point being, if you're ever in a position where the enemy can bring forward enough cavalry to make it through the hail of bolts that the Legion can unleash, they outnumber you by such an amount that you're screwed anyway.  Even still, it will be a pretty Pyrrhic victory for them.

 

*Whew! Long first post!* Sorry if I came on too strong, but I do find this sort of thing fascinating, and I'm glad to find a community that's also interested!

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

I might sort of agree with Kaznen, that the shield bearers of the Legion aren't meant to stand up to a direct cavalry charge.

I didn’t seriously think they we intended to stand up to a heavy cavalry charge, merely that they could.

 

At the end of the day, any infantry formation without some form of big pointy stick is in for trouble when charged.

 

However, given depth, they’d probably stand. And, given that they have large shields and shortswords, once the initial impact has been absorbed, the horsemen are dead men. The whole, charge, wheel, charge routine is a tricky one to pull off.

 

Once they’re off their horse (which has been hacked at with a shortsword) then they’re using sabres of some sort against men with shortswords and a scutum. They’re stuffed.

This suggests that Mat's plan with the Legion is to assume that any cavalry charge will be completely cut to pieces before actually reaching the line--not necessarily a stretch, considering the effectiveness of heavy crossbows).  Thus, it is only units which can engage the Legion with superior numbers of individuals which might reach them in any sort of fighting order--this would be an infantry attack.  The few infantry who actually make it close enough to engage the Legion will be met by a smaller force bearing shield and sword, fighting in a similar manner to the Roman Legionnaire, as suggested earlier.

Before I start, this isn’t meant to be confrontational at all.

 

The whole idea of the Legion seems a little off to me.

 

OK, we (apart from Kaznen) appear to think that the Legion is basically RJ’s twist on a Roman Legion.

 

I don’t know… the idea of a static line of legionnaires whose sole purpose in life is to guard crossbow men from the enemy seems a little, well, uninspired. It’ll work, but I don’t think it’s the revolutionary approach talked about by Mat/Bashere/Rand.

 

I mean, if you asked me how to defend a batch of missile troops, that’s one answer I’d offer.

 

Know what I mean? It’s hardly awe-inspiring.

 

Additionally, Rand/Bashere keep saying that the Legion is the one force that is truly loyal to Rand. Everyone else supports him for one reason or another. These guys support him because he’s the Dragon Reborn. It seems a little odd to me that Bashere and Mat would create a force that is, essentially, just a load of crossbowmen behind a shield wall. It doesn’t seem to suggest the flexibility of a fully-fledged force. Especially given that the force is the only one loyal to Rand himself.

 

I mean, sure, it’s based on the Legions, but its tactics and range of equipment seems limited in comparison.

 

I’m kind of underwhelmed by the Legion.

 

In order to be effective they’d have to fight like the Roman Legions… and that’d take some doing, in terms of training and equipment… hell, the whole system.

 

Another thing that’s bothered me with the whole plan for the Legion is the crossbow issue. Crossbows can fire (loose) indirectly, in that the bolts go up and then come down, but I’m under the impression that they’re most effective when fired directly. I’ve always understood that the crossbow relied upon a flatter trajectory than, say, a longbow.

 

I might be wrong there, please do correct me if that’s the case… it’s something I’ve never really thought hard about…

 

If, and it’s redundant if I’m wrong on the above, crossbows fire on a flat trajectory… then how does the Legion work?

 

What? The crossbowmen fire until the enemy is close and then retreat through the shield wall?

 

Seems a little, well…. Awkward.

 

And I know this certainly did happen with infiltrators or skirmishers of various types… but typically they weren’t armed with crossbows (certainly, this sort of tactic seems to have died before the advent of the mass produced crossbow). Crossbows also tend to be fairly heavy and awkward.

 

Dunno. Just seems a little odd.

 

Regardless of how the crossbowmen work in relation to the soldiers, it all seems like a waste of time. You’ve got a group of men, trained in accordance with the thinking of 2 great captains (ok, Mat doesn’t officially have the title), drilled by 1 of those captains, commented on as being a totally new approach to war …. All to do what? Stand in a line and protect missile troops?!?

 

Am I / Are we missing something here?

 

- Yes, I know warfare in WoT (discounting the recent advent of the use of the Power) is very basic … but come on.

*Whew! Long first post!* Sorry if I came on too strong, but I do find this sort of thing fascinating, and I'm glad to find a community that's also interested!

No, no. It’s all good.

 

It’s great to have people who are interested in a wide variety of things.

 

You never know, if a load of people thrash out a subject then there might be a little nugget in there that someone comes across.

 

The Legion has always bothered me from the get go, for example.

[harlequin115]

Before I start, this isn’t meant to be confrontational at all.

 

Hah, no worries there--I love this sort of discussion, and I know it's not meant to be confrontational--it's only confrontational if someone thinks they know everything and belittles another poster, right? That's my opinion, in any case.

 

Regarding your post, I'm afraid I've got a lot of work tonight, so I'll respond in more detail later when I can spend more time on it. In short though, I kind of agree with you that the description of the Legion's tactics are still a little vague for us to determine exactly how they would work.  The way I've always pictured them is essentially as massed crossbowmen with a thin line of troops in front to act as a barrier to an all-out charge by enemy infantry.  The shield troops would operate in a manner similar to the Roman Legions, but there would be far fewer of them as a percentage of the overall army--they rely significantly on the ability of the crossbowmen to ensure that any troops that actually make it to their line are almost broken already due to heavy casualties.

 

Regarding the crossbows ability to be fired directly or indirectly, the main advantage of the crossbow over the longbow in Medieval Europe was that it didn't take over a decade to train an individual to use it properly, allowing for far greater numbers of crossbowmen to be trained, then longbowmen.  English longbows and most crossbows had roughly the same range (crossbows had probably an advantage of fifty meters in terms of optimal range), but the crossbow fired a much heavier bolt, making it slightly more effective against plate armor.  Generally, however, to achieve maximum range, crossbows were also fired in an indirect manner, and I'm sure this is how RJ intends the Legion to operate as well.  This actually makes the Legion fairly versatile, as they can operate in large set-piece battles in a manner similar to a large force of longbowmen, firing over the heads of the men in front of them, while also being more effective in woods and ambushes, where they can effectively destroy smaller forces without ever engaging them hand to hand.

 

Ultimately, however, I have to say that I agree with your point that the Legion doesn't have the flexibility of a fully fledged force, as you pointed out.  It has severe weaknesses, especially if it is surprised--an attack by cavalry or infantry from the rear, or an ambush, could leave them fatally exposed.  But I think I see where RJ was operating when he called this a 'revolutionary approach.'

 

It's Mat paying more attention to grand strategy than battlefield tactics--something that doesn't seem to be relevant in modern Randland.  Current Randland militaries are largely composed of noble cavalry, backed up by poorly equipped infantry, who are generally pikemen.  More importantly, almost all of these men are professional soldiers, and their armies are relatively small compared to their populations.  What Mat has done relates to what I mentioned earlier--ease of training.  Mat's found a way to arm MASSIVE numbers of individuals and make them effective, in spite of their highly dubious fighting abilities.  Remember, while we've yet to see the true numbers of the Legion, I expect by the end of the series, they'll be ENORMOUS--we've seen foreshadowing of massive movements of individuals across the continent searching for a way to assist Rand, and now Mat's provided a way they can serve.  One of the major reasons for the adoption of muskets by European nations was that they were extremely easy to learn to use, and to train large numbers of people in their use--this allowed for the start of conscription.  The same was true for crossbows, but during the Medieval period they were extremely expensive to manufacture, a problem which apparently doesn't apply to Rand.

 

Essentially, my point is that Mat has found a weapon which a very unskilled individual can be trained to use relatively easy, and he'll be relatively inexpensive to equip (most of the Legion won't need to wear armor, and they won't need more than the most basic training in hand-to-hand combat.  Those few with existing combat experience will likely form the line to protect those who don't, and in this manner, these men can be brought onto the battlefield as quickly and effectively as possible.  Rand has other military forces to provide cavalry support, if necessary, or pike support.  There's no time to train this many individuals in those roles, so Mat's found the best possible option.

 

That's my opinion though.  Let me know what you think.

[zanotam]

I might sort of agree with Kaznen, that the shield bearers of the Legion aren't meant to stand up to a direct cavalry charge.

At the end of the day, any infantry formation without some form of big pointy stick is in for trouble when charged.

 

 

 

I read up to there... See, you're just not thinking this through all the way. It doesn't matter HOW awesome the guys charging are, I'm sure I can make a big enough stick that the idea of charging at it, is both stupid and suicidal...I mean.....Any large enough pointy stick is indistinguishable from a nuke.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

I might sort of agree with Kaznen, that the shield bearers of the Legion aren't meant to stand up to a direct cavalry charge.

At the end of the day, any infantry formation without some form of big pointy stick is in for trouble when charged.

I read up to there... See, you're just not thinking this through all the way. It doesn't matter HOW awesome the guys charging are, I'm sure I can make a big enough stick that the idea of charging at it, is both stupid and suicidal...I mean.....Any large enough pointy stick is indistinguishable from a nuke.

Ummm….

 

Did you actually read the post you’re referring to?

 

I think we’re both in total agreement with you.

 

But the fact is that the Legion of the Dragon isn’t carrying spears/pikes/polearms.

 

I’m not sure I understand why you posted that.

 

How haven’t I thought it through?

 

The only thing I’ve missed is mass production, which harlequin115 brings up later… and your post doesn’t appear to be alluding to that.

--it's only confrontational if someone thinks they know everything and belittles another poster, right? That's my opinion, in any case.

It’s one I’d agree with.

Regarding your post, I'm afraid I've got a lot of work tonight, so I'll respond in more detail later when I can spend more time on it. In short though, I kind of agree with you that the description of the Legion's tactics are still a little vague for us to determine exactly how they would work.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe we’ve seen them fight.

The way I've always pictured them is essentially as massed crossbowmen with a thin line of troops in front to act as a barrier to an all-out charge by enemy infantry.  The shield troops would operate in a manner similar to the Roman Legions, but there would be far fewer of them as a percentage of the overall army--they rely significantly on the ability of the crossbowmen to ensure that any troops that actually make it to their line are almost broken already due to heavy casualties.

Right.

 

Which is why I’m a little underwhelmed. Like I said before, that’s a bit, well, 5th Grade in terms of military tactics isn’t it?

 

I guess the comments about “new approach”, “armed differently” “odd looking” etc. have got me expecting more.

 

I mean, Mat has created the Band. The Band is essentially an example of combined arms in the Medieval period. You’ve got horsemen, crossbowmen and pikemen / foot soldiers operating in a co-ordinated manner.

 

Then…. He goes on to create the Legion. And essentially, it’s a line of guys with big shields standing in front of crossbowmen.

 

If anything the Legion is, tactically, a massive step backward from the Band.

Regarding the crossbows ability to be fired directly or indirectly, the main advantage of the crossbow over the longbow in Medieval Europe was that it didn't take over a decade to train an individual to use it properly, allowing for far greater numbers of crossbowmen to be trained, then longbowmen.

Which is why the levy system worked so well for the English.

 

It wasn’t actually the barons training their archers, essentially you’re using men who can already use a bow.

 

Once the system of annual call ups was introduced and every man in the area had a bow and was integrated into the system you’d actually have a fairly deep pool of archers. Sure, it took a long time to train them, but then new people were being added continuously.

 

I think the main reason the French went for the crossbow was because they didn’t use the levy system in quite the same way. Plus, the longbow was a quintessentially English weapon. The men knew their way around a longbow before they were introduced to one in a military sense.

English longbows and most crossbows had roughly the same range (crossbows had probably an advantage of fifty meters in terms of optimal range), but the crossbow fired a much heavier bolt, making it slightly more effective against plate armor.  Generally, however, to achieve maximum range, crossbows were also fired in an indirect manner, and I'm sure this is how RJ intends the Legion to operate as well.  This actually makes the Legion fairly versatile, as they can operate in large set-piece battles in a manner similar to a large force of longbowmen, firing over the heads of the men in front of them, while also being more effective in woods and ambushes, where they can effectively destroy smaller forces without ever engaging them hand to hand.

Fair enough, it’s something I’ve seen argued both ways to be honest.

 

Given that I hated physics when I was in school it’s a subject that I regard as black magic.

Ultimately, however, I have to say that I agree with your point that the Legion doesn't have the flexibility of a fully fledged force, as you pointed out.  It has severe weaknesses, especially if it is surprised--an attack by cavalry or infantry from the rear, or an ambush, could leave them fatally exposed.

It just seems to me that you can protect missile troops in other ways … one example being the square. Sure, it takes more men, but it’s ultimately more effective. Though to use a square, you’d need pointy things…

It's Mat paying more attention to grand strategy than battlefield tactics--something that doesn't seem to be relevant in modern Randland.  Current Randland militaries are largely composed of noble cavalry, backed up by poorly equipped infantry, who are generally pikemen.  More importantly, almost all of these men are professional soldiers, and their armies are relatively small compared to their populations.  What Mat has done relates to what I mentioned earlier--ease of training.  Mat's found a way to arm MASSIVE numbers of individuals and make them effective, in spite of their highly dubious fighting abilities.  Remember, while we've yet to see the true numbers of the Legion, I expect by the end of the series, they'll be ENORMOUS--we've seen foreshadowing of massive movements of individuals across the continent searching for a way to assist Rand, and now Mat's provided a way they can serve.  One of the major reasons for the adoption of muskets by European nations was that they were extremely easy to learn to use, and to train large numbers of people in their use--this allowed for the start of conscription.  The same was true for crossbows, but during the Medieval period they were extremely expensive to manufacture, a problem which apparently doesn't apply to Rand.

 

Essentially, my point is that Mat has found a weapon which a very unskilled individual can be trained to use relatively easy, and he'll be relatively inexpensive to equip (most of the Legion won't need to wear armor, and they won't need more than the most basic training in hand-to-hand combat.  Those few with existing combat experience will likely form the line to protect those who don't, and in this manner, these men can be brought onto the battlefield as quickly and effectively as possible.  Rand has other military forces to provide cavalry support, if necessary, or pike support.  There's no time to train this many individuals in those roles, so Mat's found the best possible option.

 

That's my opinion though.  Let me know what you think.

You’re probably spot on.

 

It certainly makes sense in terms of how easy it would be to get large numbers of men onto the battlefield.

 

However, as we’ve both pointed out, it still leaves you with a massive, tactically inflexible mass of men. Because of this inflexibility, they’re potentially open to serious problems.

 

And yes, anything more complex would take time that, apparently, they don’t have.

 

I guess I’ve been taken in by the “only force that’s loyal to Rand” lines. If you’re creating a force like that, then it would make sense for it to be operationally independent at the end of the day. But the Legion isn’t.

 

It’s, we appear to think, merely a new way of protecting missile troops. Certainly, when used in conjunction with pikes and horse, not to mention cannons, Channelers and Aiel, then it’ll have its place.

 

Revolutionary in the sense that it’s getting lots of men on the field? Yes. Revolutionary in terms of tactics? Yes (for WoT)… but hardly spectacular…

[BKVMC]

in my mind it  seems like the  books  go more in  depth  with  people  who use  swords except the aiel and perrin of  course and most  of the  major   sword  users  seem to  use  2  handed  swords or  duel wield a  sword/sword  or something else  like  juilin  using a staff and sword breaker ( at least what  has  stuck  in my mind after to  many rereads  lol) i  think thats why  i  never really notice  shields that often when reading  the series.

 

But logically  thinking im  sure  lots of   soldiers are  using shields  that would  be like the  best  defense  you have except for the heavy armor.

[Durinax]

one note on the legion is that a general would use them as the body of an army and use other more mobile groups to attack flanks while the enemy is focussed on the massive group of crossbowmen. At least thats how it works in my mind.

also with bashere or mat in charge of the legion it is unlikely that they will be surprised since both like to use scouts

I bet almost every proffessional soldier has some kind of shield available to them

[ForsakensOverlord]

You guys have been arguing for a while

[Muad Cheade]

I agree with most of the things harlequin said.

 

However, I think that the Legion is meant to be used more against Trollocs than human armies. You must remember that Mat had the most input in the formation of the Legion and he is doing the same with the Band of the Red Hand.

 

Think about it: The Shadow has virtually no cavalry, so there would be no need for pikemen to counter that.

 

With Rand's Coalition getting ready to declare a truce with the Seanchan there will most likely not be any major battles between conventional human armies (ccavalry, infantry etc.)

[Builder]

Lets not all forget that the Shadow doesn't have much of a cavalry, only infantry, so the Legion will be quite effective against trollocs and myrdraal. Weren't they one line of heavy shields, then pikes and in the back crossbowmen? I got a bit confused by all the talking about phalanxes, crossbows and what breadth and width the heavy shields are.

[Muad Cheade]

Lets not all forget that the Shadow doesn't have much of a cavalry, only infantry, so the Legion will be quite effective against trollocs and myrdraal. Weren't they one line of heavy shields, then pikes and in the back crossbowmen? I got a bit confused by all the talking about phalanxes, crossbows and what breadth and width the heavy shields are.

 

The Legion is an all infantry force that is equipped with swords, crossbows, and large shields. No pikes, which is thought to be a major faux pas by the nobles because after all, they do see cavalry as he most important part of warfare. I think we'll see both the Band of the Red Hand and the Legion of the Dragon to be the first two effective forces against the Shadow in aMoL.

[Epic]

I thought that the Legion was just gonna be the precurser to gunpowder troops in Randland.  Rand makes canons(Dragons) then Mat says "Hey, Rand, do you think you could get them to make a whole bunch more, only handheld size and roughly these dimensions?"

 

The thing about Trollocs is that they pretty much are cavalry; roughly same height and run really, really fast.  A head on Trolloc charge would F*** the Legion up if it had enough Trollocs to make it there --> shortswords do no good against scimitars and great big battle axes.

[Dunedain Fal]

The Legion was pretty effective against the Seanchan in POD.  Remember the Legion does not fight out in the open.  They use cover.  Think of the Revolutionary War where the British use long well formed standing lines in red uniforms and firing against the militia.  The Minutemen won because they used cover and terrain to provide effective screening and cover while firing and sniping away at the British.

[Muad Cheade]

I thought that the Legion was just gonna be the precurser to gunpowder troops in Randland.  Rand makes canons(Dragons) then Mat says "Hey, Rand, do you think you could get them to make a whole bunch more, only handheld size and roughly these dimensions?"

 

The thing about Trollocs is that they pretty much are cavalry; roughly same height and run really, really fast.  A head on Trolloc charge would F*** the Legion up if it had enough Trollocs to make it there --> shortswords do no good against scimitars and great big battle axes.

 

 

Well, Rand is not aware of Aludra and Mat's attempts to create cannons/dragons or the use of gunpowder in warfare. Seeing how the Legion and Rand are a long way away from mat, it's not likely Rand will create the dragons/cannons or the Legion will grab a hold of the Band of the Red Hand's new crossbow cranks.

 

Yes, Trollocs are capable of running really fast, but they are also very stupid and can be effectively fought against with swords. The same cannot be said with fighting against cavalry really. Also, with the way the Legion of the Dragon is set up, any Trolloc army that it faces will have lost quite a lot of men/Trollocs before the close in for close combat due to the Legion's crossbows.

 

The Legion was pretty effective against the Seanchan in POD.  Remember the Legion does not fight out in the open.  They use cover.  Think of the Revolutionary War where the British use long well formed standing lines in red uniforms and firing against the militia.  The Minutemen won because they used cover and terrain to provide effective screening and cover while firing and sniping away at the British.

 

Well, actually Rand's entire army did well. Not just the Legion. If rand had not pushed towards Ebou Dar, it would have been an outstanding victory instead of a Pyrrhic victory. It was actually Bashere's plan and it made sense. An army in wooded terrain would not need to be large if it can move instantly to any nearby place with the use of Traveling (by Asha'man). So it wasn't really, the forces used in the battle but rather the strategy.