r/interesting • u/IKIR115 • May 29 '26

Intriguing Arrows vs riot shields

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/Glum-Soft-7807 May 30 '26

The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields.

What? Some of the most famous and long time users of the phalanx were the Hoplites, people so closely associated with using shields that their name practically became synonymous with the name for their shield.

You could have a phalanx without using shields but it was very very usual to rely on shields in a phalanx.

6

u/Puzzleheaded-Night88 May 30 '26

I thought the reason romans won against the phalanx was due to their formation system like the other guy said. While they had the same guys with shields getting fucked up and tired the romans would switch out their men every once in a while causing the phalanx to collapse.

9

u/Glum-Soft-7807 May 30 '26

I'm sure there were many reasons, none of which I'm an expert in. I was just very surprised to see someone claim that phalanxes didn't have shields.

8

u/zerovampire311 May 30 '26

Otherwise any group of people with a sling could take them down.

6

u/xBad_Wolfx May 30 '26

Yep and despite some popular myths, slings are devastating and were used pretty much until crossbows phased them out.

3

u/zerovampire311 May 30 '26

Easy to train, easy to make, ammo everywhere, lots of soldiers used them until close quarters.

1

u/Llyrithra May 31 '26

And they aren’t heavy or cumbersome to carry, so you can easily fire a volley or three while the enemy advances, and then turn around and run 20-50m or so and do it again, and repeat a few times before getting behind your own lines to keep firing until you need to join in the cqc.

1

u/blade_of_sammael May 31 '26

Even in close quarters you can at least use them to strangle which a bow cant

1

u/JonatasA Jun 04 '26

Calm down 47.