Why no 1hs tank weapons

Discussion in 'Tanks' started by KalbicWidmer, Jul 20, 2021.

  1. Cannikin Elder

    I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here anymore. Your quotes indicate that the pilum can and was documented to be used as a melee weapon in addition to as a javelin to disable shields. I did clearly indicate in my initial statements that the primary battle weapon was
    of which a pilum fits in both categories. Not every enemy the Romans faced had shield formations, and so against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, a pilum would be quite effective as a melee weapon, especially if, as your quotes suggest, they often carried a second pilum that was heavier than the one intended to be thrown.

    As it is pretty much impossible to use a sword like the gladius while carrying a polearm like the pilum, issuing one or even multiple pila to soldiers indicates that they expected it to always be used in every battle, and the sword only comes out when the polearm is unusable, it is arguable which was really the "primary" weapon and which is the sidearm.

    I will admit I was perhaps too overbroad in my assertion that no standing army ever issued swords as the primary battle weapon, the aforementioned ~202-107 BC Roman period being a contradicting example. Romans were known to experiment with, adopt and adapt advanced technology for the time, and so their abandoning the sword-only approach after fewer than 100 years, returning to a polearm/ranged weapon that must be used in battle first, and eventually advancing to a heavier polearm for which the primary purpose was a melee weapon, is strong evidence for the battle-tested conclusion that polearms are superior to swords in combat.

    By the medieval period (and before the Roman period), which most fantasy settings like EQ draw inspiration from, polearms and ranged weapons were firmly established as kings of the battlefield, which was my original point. I will apologize for the overbroad statement that lead to debating the technicalities of individual military forces in history.
  2. Wyre Wintermute I'm just a butterly dreaming I'm a man

    So let's just clear this up. The pilum and spiculum were javelin type weapons. They were not polearms. They were not spears. They were not halberds. They were not lances.

    In 387 BC, the Roman Empire reformed it's tactics and got rid of the use of polarems, used in the Greek phalanx style and adopted a more advance set of weaponry.

    While the units varied in tactics and gear, the mainstay of the legions had 2 Pilum (Javelins) and a gladius (short sword) and/or a pugio (dagger). The use of the pilum was to be thrown into the advancing forces, followed by the 2nd (if time permitted) or thrust into the encroaching forces. At this point, the gladius would be used for close quarters combat. This was tied in to the formations the Romans used for their foot soldiers. The second row would allow the formation to keep the enemy at a distance while the first row drew their swords, and the third row for the second.

    Additional forces (Velites) were added which would run through the formations and throw smaller javelins called veruta. They were also armed with a gladius or pugio.

    The use of the pilum and spiculum were not intended for primary melee use. They were to soften the enemy forces before engaging with the gladius in close combat.

    Polearms gained much popularity in the medival times due to the effectiveness of phalanx and square formations, as well as being cheap and "familair" for conscripted peasants to use effectively.

    I'm not saying that the polearm wasn't a preferred weapon for many (most?) forces throughout history, it surely was. There were few empires that rose quite like the Romans or greater Persian empires. They had the money and means to have standing armies. They're in a total class of their own compared to most civilizations throughout history. It was merely a jab at the comment:
    when the Romans specifically did and for MUCH longer than 100 years as you keep trying to assert.

    What neither of us have even touched on, was the divisions of the Roman forces which DID maintain polearm type weapons throughout all of the changes. Here we're mostly going back and forth about the mainstay foot soldier/legionnaire types and not even taking into account that the Romans would have (and did) field special units specifically for combat against calvary and "long range" combat.
  3. Cannikin Elder

    I don't believe there's any point (pun not intended) in going further off topic here, and I definitely don't claim to be an expert of all historical militaries, so I won't argue any more about any specific military force in history. Again, I apologize for the overly broad statement that lead to the derailment.

    However, no offense, but this statement:
    is definitely not correct. Look up the definition of "javelin" in any dictionary, encyclopedia or historical source and they all define it as "a light spear designed to be thrown" or some close variation thereof, the definition of a spear being a long shaft with a pointed head. Doesn't matter what the specific tactics of its use are, a weapon (armament) constructed as a long shaft (pole) with an offensive attachment at its end is a polearm by definition.
  4. ZenMaster formless, shapeless

    'Age of Samurai' is actually well-made and a respectable effort. It is a sobering historical documentary for the most part. I'm assuming none here have seen it based on the snarky reactions. I recommend it. (I'm also familiar with Japanese Zen Buddhist/warrior works so I'm somewhat in a position to incline a good or bad review).

    *I'm also going to assume coffee table military history books from 'Barnes and Noble', and military lectures from 'The Great Courses' are equally as tacky to make us experts.

    I'm quite familiar with Japanese military history (and not based on Netflix).

    This is misinformation. Japanese society was largely feudalistic before the Meiji Restoration (and industrialization). The nobles (lords) employed a professional class of warriors (samurai) equipped with swords. To this day, the name of the legendary swordsmith Masamune is revered around the world. However, major clans were able to arm the peasants with swords in wartime. Most notably, during the Kaga rebellion, the ikki (or Buddhist warriors) used swords to resist and fight Oda Nobunaga. The rebellion was so terrible that Oda Nobunaga had to disarm the entire provincial population of their swords.

    Japanese warrior (culture) relied on Bushido (warrior's code of honor). Their military tactics were largely defined by honorable one-to-one duels with a sword (katana as primary, wakizashi as secondary) although as the ideal. There were major battles during the Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu periods fought in close-quarters sword battles (albeit many skirmishes were assisted by the arquebus). While it may sound equivalent in terms of impracticality (and detriment) to the British formations during the American Revolutionary War, Japanese sword battles were ferocious (contemporary accounts refers to the decapitation of tens of thousands of troops in several key battles).

    You are forcing modern,Western views of "practicality" (long range/reach weapon) to pigeon-hole other cultures' strategy and tactics into a pre-defined/biased paradigm. With regard to Japanese culture, it is a bit of a disservice (and a bit presumptuous for us Americans/Europeans to pretend to know their history and culture).

    Obviously, this debate won't be resolved on the EverQuest forums by amateurs including myself. (I'm not taking this debate too seriously - hence the grassroots Netflix reference). We have military professors at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs who teach entire courses on different civilizations' strategies, tactics, and weaponry. On the other hand, a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's armor and collection may see it in a different light. I doubt there is a universally accepted "correct" position - swords seeing a more primary role in combat at various time periods within different cultures.
  5. Cannikin Elder

    I was going to stop debating individual historical military forces, as I said in my previous post, but I'll address this:
    I'm not sure what "Western" views have to do with anything. My parents and relatives are all from China/Taiwan (and one uncle is from Korea, and my grandparents lived under Japanese occupation of Taiwan) and they know a lot less about Chinese/Asian military history than I do.

    I'll just point out that the most successful pre-industrial military force in history, the Mongol Empire, defeated every single civilization they encountered from East Asia, to South Asia, to the Middle East and Eastern Europe with an army composed almost entirely of horse archers (with the longest range bows of their time), lancers (with various sidearms) and were the earliest users of practical firearms. Yes, that includes battles with the Japanese before the Mongols were driven off by weather destroying their ships both times. The reality of range/reach being king of the battlefield is not a cultural debate.

    By the way, just a word of advice, your post makes you seem heavily inclined to defend the "honor" of the Japanese, so I'll also point out that Japanese people don't appreciate foreigners "white knighting" for them either. See the recent Ghosts of Tsushima "controversy" where western social media users tried to raise hell over a western developer making a Japanese historical game ("cultural appropriation" or whatever nonsense) and were subsequently mocked by the Japanese for their attempts to declare what is or is not offensive to them. It sold and reviewed great in Japan for the record.
  6. ZenMaster formless, shapeless

    When I refer to the "Western" view of war, I am not writing about critical race theory or cultural appropriation. I am referring to the Carl von Clausewitz principles of war. The strategy, tactics, and weaponry of Japanese, Chinese, Mongolian, and even Ancient Greco-Romans cannot be fairly put into modern Western (Clausewitzian) categories (economy of force) without comprehending the historical nuances and cultural contexts.

    I simply wanted to get the facts straight on swords. You are free to disagree. Like I said, we could ask a professor at West Point, a professor at Annapolis, and a curator at The Met, and get three different opinions on the primacy of swords in historical combat.

    And to be clear, I am not here to unduly glorify Japanese culture. (The atrocities committed by the Empire of Japan during World War II is inexcusable). They had/have a sword culture which was a direct counterpoint to your argument (in the same way The Philippines has a blade/knife culture). My argument was misunderstood as pitting chauvinism against chauvinism.
  7. Wyre Wintermute I'm just a butterly dreaming I'm a man

    Spears can be divided into two broad categories: those designed for thrusting as a melee weapon and those designed for throwing as a ranged weapon (usually referred to as darts or javelins).

    You are most definitely referring to the first category, which (again) is NOT a pilum.

    As for "polearm" There is no distinct definition. It's a melee weapon on a stick. "Spear" is included in the generalization of polearms due to the thrusting, melee variant. And while a melee spear can be thrown, the act of intended use and design of the weapon is what classifies it.

    I don't know why you want to be so adamant about the weapon semantics. Just because there are two.. two documented cases in all of Roman history, where the pilum was used in melee vs its intended use to be thrown, does not magically turn it into some other form of weapon.

    "Polearms" are underrated for their impact on history (the most prolific group of weapons ever existing). At the same time, they were not the absolute best of the best weapons, nor were they the best in every situation. As I said earlier, they became as popular because they were cheap and because peasants (untrained militants) could use them with familiarity and make an effective phalanx or square formation.
  8. Cannikin Elder

    I can see where this is going. I merely provided dictionary definitions, and here you are being the one to argue "semantics", twisting definitions and your own words, moving goalposts, and projecting your meanings on to me, in an attempt to avoid backtracking on something as minor as a dictionary definition.

    You said:
    Now you say:
    So which is it, a spear or not a spear? Your own words contradict yourself. By the way, the etymology of the word "javelin" is from Old French which is quite literally "(diminutive) spear".

    Is it not a "pole" with an "armament" attached to the end?

    Please share with us the source you have that clearly states "melee" as the defining characteristic, rather than just a common characteristic (similar to how "live birth" is a common characteristic, but not the defining feature of a "mammal")? Meanwhile, you can read the second sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_weapon.

    Oh, so now you can read my mind instead of reading my words? What was I referring to in my very first post?
    I believe this discussion is done. I already admitted multiple times that my statement regarding "any standing army" in history was not accurate, and yet you cannot do the same for something as simple as acknowledging literal dictionary definitions.

    I'm sure you will make another post doing mental gymnastics and word twisting in an attempt to get the "last say" in. If you do, well then congratulations!!! You win teh internets in a thread where I bet everyone except you, ZenMaster and I have stopped reading a long time ago.
  9. Axel Furry Hats OP

    I believe this discussion is irrelevant because there is a 1hs tank weapon... In fact, there are 2! Velium Endowed Broadsword and Commanding Blade as far as raid weapons are concerned. Did OP forget that warriors exist?
  10. Szilent Augur

    Weapon for "tanks" vs. weapon [for knights] to "tank with". OP's intent was clear from context. Pot is quite stirred enough, ty
  11. Triconix Augur

    Ask Ngreth if it's possible to remove the weapon type restriction (not slot restriction IE 1h/2h/shield/range) from the ornaments in Overseer. Problem solved. Based on zam, it looks like some don't have a weapon type restriction such as https://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=140427. I would have to log in and double check if I can slap that in a 1hb.
  12. Bigstomp Augur

    Interestingly we just did some HoT stuff, where weapon type used to matter (in theory it still did but with a random person turning on autoattack out dpsing what a raid was back in the day, it didn't matter much)
  13. Bigstomp Augur

    Give wars knight options, give knights warrior options.
  14. Szilent Augur

    Blending classes like that is a highly unpopular move long-term. Players are generally happier with their characters having distinct identities and capabilities as long as they can perform their core roles. Rubbing away a substantive difference like that in service to cosmetic goal would be Pretty Silly.
  15. Tucoh Augur

    Agreed, in the next xpac:
    War: get a rune proc weapon
    Shd: get a lifesteal weapon that just steals from the nearest paladin
    Pal: get a weapon that heals the nearest warrior
    Ozon likes this.
  16. BloodyDaTrolly Apprentice

    i do not see any downside to this tbh ;)
    Ozon likes this.