Jump to content


Photo

Ancient armies face-off


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 Durandal

Durandal

    Sorry for the big signature Murph =D

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,190 posts

Posted 02 December 2004 - 0623 AM

Originally posted by Lev:
It's a matter of contention whether there were 300 cannon at Castillon, ie part of the 300 guns might be handguns. But either way you're wedded to static defensive positions in order to use them effectively. This can easily become a major drawback, especially if the romans have more than one army available.


with "if" you can put the town of Paris into a bottle.
If you have more than one roman army i will have more than one medieval army, i wonder why you need to give them that kind of advantages. with several medieval armies i can wipe out a single roman army etc..
  • 0

#122 toysoldier

toysoldier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts

Posted 02 December 2004 - 0653 AM

Originally posted by Durandal:
Invincible, not really but hard to break yes, well Spanish Squares were easily routed. Posted Image


well, in our wars with them (1868-1878 and 1895-1898)we never broke the squares. but it was convenient: none of our scarce ammo was lost on that bulk. they say it was imposible to miss spanish meat.
  • 0

#123 Guest_Sargent_*

Guest_Sargent_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2004 - 0827 AM

Originally posted by JohnB:
A typical Crusader army would have upto half and not usually less than a third of its force in Crossbowmen. Protected by mail and leather and entwined with spearmen carrying big shields the missile battle would be far from all one-way.
As in most battles it would come down to the quality of the Generalship.



Really? ISTR the heyday of the crossbow being well after the Crusdaes. And the winch-wound crossbows that had the big pavisses for protection were C13 and later.

And if it came down to generalship, the Mongols had them beat hands down. One does not overrun the world with inferior generalship. As mentioned before, look up Moti Heath to observe the result of a European military machine meeting a Mongol one.
  • 0

#124 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,976 posts

Posted 02 December 2004 - 0914 AM

Originally posted by JohnB:
A typical Crusader army would have upto half and not usually less than a third of its force in Crossbowmen. Protected by mail and leather and entwined with spearmen carrying big shields the missile battle would be far from all one-way.


What is "typical" Crusader army anyway? As it stands, Mongols DID meet Crusader armies (including Georgian, Teutonic and Polish) and those meetings went very badly for the Crusaders.
  • 0

#125 Dan Robertson

Dan Robertson

    59th saddest person here

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,853 posts

Posted 02 December 2004 - 1124 AM

Originally posted by Tomexe:
Not possible with the English Longbow.  Asian bows were either just generally smaller, or were asymmetrical like the Mongolian and Japanese bows.  It was not possible to shoot straight ahead over the head of a horse with the symmetrical English bow.  Perhaps you could shoot from horseback if you were parallel and shot to the side, but I think probably the lower part of the string would come into contact with your leg or saddle before you reached full pull.


A guy demonstrated firing a Longbow off while in the sadle on TV. (Channel 4, the weapons that made Britain)

He had a recurved longbow based on the design of those found on the Mary Rose. He never shot over the horses head but he was able to fire it off to the side and over the rear.

The way I understood it the mounted archer would canter parrallel to the front line just out of the range of thrown spears and fire into the massed soldiers.
  • 0

#126 Lev

Lev

    Ilksome

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 02 December 2004 - 1214 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Durandal:
with "if" you can put the town of Paris into a bottle.
If you have more than one roman army i will have more than one medieval army,
[/quote]

The if was in relation to Castillion, the reason it all went completely pear-shaped is that Talbot's was the only army on his side. After the one battle they had free reign in the area.
Historically a roman army that was defeated or caught in a tight spot was very likely to be reinforced by new troops sent into the theatre, or else new troops would show up the next year to do it all over.

[QUOTE]i wonder why you need to give them that kind of advantages. with several medieval armies i can wipe out a single roman army etc.. I didn't intend to give the romans extra advantadges (although I do think they'd be more able to raise more/fresh troops), just a miscommunication from sloppy writing on my part :
Besides one or two armies is essentialy meaningless anyhow, as armies don't have a fixed size Posted Image

[Edited by Lev (02 Dec 2004).]
  • 0

#127 Durandal

Durandal

    Sorry for the big signature Murph =D

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,190 posts

Posted 03 December 2004 - 0043 AM

Enough with Romans!
I played miniature wargames for 10 years, i never played a Roman army but i crushed them all the time, no defeat against romans. the best against Roman Marius during France championship 1/2 final with my Tibetans.
I know this is only miniature wargames but i hate the romans armies!!!! Posted Image Posted Image

ENOUGH WITH ROMANS OR I'LL UNLEASH MY TIBETANS CATAPHRACTS!!! Posted Image
  • 0

#128 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 03 December 2004 - 0130 AM

Originally posted by Sargent:
Really? ISTR the heyday of the crossbow being well after the Crusdaes. And the winch-wound crossbows that had the big pavisses for protection were C13 and later.

And if it came down to generalship, the Mongols had them beat hands down. One does not overrun the world with inferior generalship. As mentioned before, look up Moti Heath to observe the result of a European military machine meeting a Mongol one.



Also Leignitz (Legnica) & other 13th century battles in Poland, Hungary & Russia. Outcomes almost universally in favour of the Mongols, despite usually being outnumbered. Superior command & control, discipline & generalship.
  • 0

#129 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,615 posts

Posted 03 December 2004 - 0333 AM

Originally posted by Durandal:
ENOUGH WITH ROMANS OR I'LL UNLEASH MY TIBETANS CATAPHRACTS!!! Posted Image


I think Durandal is suffering from "Alesia-syndrome" Posted Image

Just relax, take 2 sips of red wine and think of Gergovia !! Posted Image

Cheers,

M.S.
  • 0

#130 JohnB

JohnB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts

Posted 03 December 2004 - 0444 AM

Originally posted by Yama:
What is "typical" Crusader army anyway? As it stands, Mongols DID meet Crusader armies (including Georgian, Teutonic and Polish) and those meetings went very badly for the Crusaders.


Phil Barker's DBM Army Lists Volume 4 'Later Crusader'
  • 0

#131 JohnB

JohnB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts

Posted 03 December 2004 - 0459 AM

Originally posted by Sargent:
Really? ISTR the heyday of the crossbow being well after the Crusdaes. And the winch-wound crossbows that had the big pavisses for protection were C13 and later.

And if it came down to generalship, the Mongols had them beat hands down. One does not overrun the world with inferior generalship. As mentioned before, look up Moti Heath to observe the result of a European military machine meeting a Mongol one.



I was thinking Richard Coeur de Lion in the Third Crusade. In one (or more, I dunno) battles he organised his army into a square with knights on the inside, infantry outside organised as spearman front rank, crossbowmen or ordinary bowmen second and third ranks. He scored a number of victories over Saladin whose own armies fought in a not dissimilar style to the Mongols.
It almost goes without saying that to stand a chance against the Mongol hordes you would need a rather more than competent general and they were something of a rarity in medieval armies...

Friar Carpini who lived amongst the Mongols as a missionary recommended a 'Scorched Earth' policy as the best way to defeat them. A army of 150,000 horses cannot maintain itself indefinitely.
  • 0

#132 Durandal

Durandal

    Sorry for the big signature Murph =D

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,190 posts

Posted 03 December 2004 - 0613 AM

Originally posted by Sardaukar:
I think Durandal is suffering from "Alesia-syndrome"    Posted Image

Just relax, take 2 sips of red wine and think of Gergovia !!    Posted Image

Cheers,

M.S.



Can i take Coca cola?
And never write/say Alesia again!!!! Posted Image
you are allowed to say Gergovie Posted Image

edit : this is the end of the day i am tiiiiiiiiiiiiiired
i don't even saw you Gergovia Posted Image
WELLSAY SARDAUKAR!!! Posted Image



[Edited by Durandal (03 Dec 2004).]
  • 0

#133 Lev

Lev

    Ilksome

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 06 December 2004 - 0132 AM

Originally posted by Durandal:
Enough with Romans!
I played miniature wargames for 10 years, i never played a Roman army but i crushed them all the time, no defeat against romans.


Were the romans allowed to dig? A few trenches can be a big help to a cavalry-deficient army. Speaking of which, I know entrenchemnts were used in the 16th century, but were they used in medieval times? (outside the obvious use in sieges).
  • 0

#134 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 December 2004 - 1507 PM

Well if the Romans can entrench, its a whole 'nother story as they say. I still like the Byzantines over the classical Romans.

How about comments on the Parthians?
  • 0

#135 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,183 posts

Posted 25 December 2004 - 0847 AM

The spartans were man-for-man better warriors, and in a stand-up fight on level terrain they should wipe the floor with the romans (especially if the roman army is a non-permanent force, eg an expeditionary force during the republic).
But if the romans are under a competent general they will accept battle only on broken/uneven terrain, or from entrenchments, and they would be able to break-up the Spartan formations and waste their army. (They might even be able to secure some decent ancillary cavalry and use that to beat the Spartans, and than use their infantry to mop up the remainders).

<font size=1>[Edited by Lev (18 Nov 2004).]

View Post


The Spartans,man for man, were not trained for man on man combat, they fought in a phallanx, a relatively inflexible 'roller', which would have been easy for a Roman maniple to avoid, whilst causing initial casualties by pila and then attacking gaps and flanks.
  • 0

#136 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,183 posts

Posted 25 December 2004 - 0854 AM

Were the romans allowed to dig? A few trenches can be a big help to a cavalry-deficient army. Speaking of which, I know entrenchemnts were used in the 16th century, but were they used in medieval times? (outside the obvious use in sieges).

View Post


The shield wall was a type of entrenchment in itself, however, if we are talking about prepared positions, the stakes carried by English longbowmen, and hammered into position in front of the English line, were a type of entrenchment, in that a line of stakes was a viable obstacle to charging cavalry, and took less time to prepare than digging a long trench that was wide enough to stop a horse from jumping over it.

Even the Romans, in battle, did not entrench, this was mainly used to procted camps, and obviously in seige works.
  • 0

#137 Guest_Murph_*

Guest_Murph_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 December 2004 - 1026 AM

True thats why the Romans took apart the Phalanx of the Macedonians, the Marian Legions were just so much more flexible.



The shield wall was a type of entrenchment in itself, however, if we are talking about prepared positions, the stakes carried by English longbowmen, and hammered into position in front of the English line, were a type of entrenchment, in that a line of stakes was a viable obstacle to charging cavalry, and took less time to prepare than digging a long trench that was wide enough to stop a horse from jumping over it.

Even the Romans, in battle, did not entrench, this was mainly used to procted camps, and obviously in seige works.

View Post


  • 0

#138 Sikkiyn

Sikkiyn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,669 posts

Posted 25 December 2004 - 1053 AM

The Spartans,man for man, were not trained for man on man combat, they fought in a phallanx, a relatively inflexible 'roller', which would have been easy for a Roman maniple to avoid, whilst causing initial casualties by pila and then attacking gaps and flanks.

View Post


Man for Man the Spartan citizen "i.e. soldier" was more than an equal for his Roman counter-part; this has to do with his upbringing from age(s) 6-7 through 20, and his life of service from 20-60.

The Spartan failing was in their outrageous machismo, however everyone took this seriously, and for a very good reason.

The Roman army of Cincinatus onwards would have beaten Sparta, however not without a painful cost.

My curiousity would be over the Persian response, as their would have been a profit in it somewhere for them.
  • 0

#139 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 26 December 2004 - 0650 AM

Man for Man the Spartan citizen "i.e. soldier" was more than an equal for his Roman counter-part; this has to do with his upbringing from age(s) 6-7 through 20, and his life of service from 20-60.

The Spartan failing was in their outrageous machismo, however everyone took this seriously, and for a very good reason.

The Roman army of Cincinatus onwards would have beaten Sparta, however not without a painful cost.


But by the time the Romans arrived in Greece there were so few Spartan citizens (that "outrageous machismo" you rightly identify as their failing resulted in ever-higher standards, & ever-diminishing numbers) that the Romans could just roll over them, with trivial cost. Sparta disappeared from history with about 1000 citizens. The average quality of Spartan troops at the end was atrociously low, because most of them were unwilling, unreliable & virtually untrained conscripted helots.

People go on about the Spartans so much, but consider how effective a system is that results in your pool of recruits shrinking every generation, until eventually you run out. Long-term, Sparta committed societal suicide by its exclusivity.
  • 0

#140 Sikkiyn

Sikkiyn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,669 posts

Posted 26 December 2004 - 1824 PM

Swerve, I do agree with both of our assesments; running a similar course to the eventual conclusion, I dare guess that we should not leave out the Perioeci in the Spartan caste, who obviously provided no buffer-favors to the state during their societies end.

What had amazed me when I had to study that time period is that the Spartan "democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy" goverment was considered to be highly stable; outside of their ever growing intense internal-paranoia over the Helot's, and their neighbors.
  • 0