Of course, any ideas as to what would armies be like without horses needs to take into account both the "tech level" of the troops, as well as cultural biases towards or against any arms or armour.
Much like the difference between east and west in regards to cavalry archers.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||||||
I wrote:
Benjamin Abbot wrote:
Yes, cavalry would certainly be faster. You missed by point or I was unclear abuot what I was sying. My point was that INFANTRY move faster than other infantry when in a looser formation. Not that loose order infantry could keep up with Cavalry.
Not really R Kolick, but I don't think we have enoughi info on how berserkers were used and deployed to make a good judgement. I'd thing the best anti - archer troops would be other archers, or even javelin and sword armoured loose infantry carrying a medium sized shield. Quick enough to close, no cumbersome large shields, but still a shield for defense. They can start their attack on archers at about 30m, and being shield and sword armed should do very well when the close for melee. And of course, the main battle line of infantry can effectively deal with archers if it gets close enough. I think there are a lot of factors that come into play though as to what is an effective way to deal with archers. Are the enemy erchers main battle troops in a close formation, or loose formation type that are more skirmishers? The loose skirmisher types would be tough for heavy infantry in tight formation to deal with - they could "push" them anywhere, but would have problems closing, and would take casualties and fatigue while attempting to close. The terrain makes a dfference too. The more rugged the terrain, the harder it is for heavy infantry to force the issue. |
well actually the ancient greeks already formulated a solution oto heir tight phalanxes being suckerpunched by peltests during the archaic age
which was a troop type called ekdromoi aka 'runners out' these were men with most normal equiptmen, but with alot less armour and lighter equiptment, who would dash out of the phalanx to chase off peltasts when needed, essentially these were melee based skirmishers, apparently Iphikrates made much more aggressive use of these guys
http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_koin...units.html not the best source of info but itll do for now.
Here's an example of how lighter armed peltast types can tear up heavy infantry, and I'm referencing Iphicrates, William :D
But those runners you mention, essentially hoplites with no armour other than a helm but still carrying the heavy aspis shield were effective in chasing off peltasts, though I'm not sure if they were effective at contacting them. But the combination of light armour, functioning in open order and good sized shield would seem to make them effective against archers as well.
ETA - I think what is also interesting is that it seems that standard practice was for greek horse to chase of peltasts and other skirmisher types. Without Horses this would not be an option, and would make the peltast types more effective.
Judging from the kinetic energy from both arrows and javelins, it seems Javelins would be more effective against heavy armour, so it seems against a body of heavy infantry with armour the javelins would be the more effective choice.
| Quote: |
| The Athenian commanders in Corinth, Iphicrates, who commanded the peltasts, and Callias, who commanded the hoplites, saw that an entire Spartan mora, or regiment, of 600 men was marching past the city unprotected by either peltasts or cavalry, and decided to take advantage of this fact. Accordingly, the Athenian hoplites drew up a little outside Corinth, while the peltasts went after the Spartan force in pursuit, flinging javelins at the Spartan hoplites.
To stop this, the Spartan commander ordered some of his men to charge the Athenians, but the peltasts fell back, easily outrunning the hoplites, and then, when the Spartans turned to return to the regiment, the peltasts fell upon them, flinging spears at them as they fled, and inflicted casualties. This process was repeated several times, with similar results. Even when a group of Spartan cavalrymen arrived, the Spartan commander made the curious decision that they should keep pace with the hoplites in pursuit, instead of racing ahead to ride down the fleeing peltasts. Unable to drive off the peltasts, and suffering losses all the while, the Spartans were driven back to a hilltop overlooking Lechaeum. The men in Lechaeum, seeing their predicament, sailed out in small boats to as close as to the hill as they could reach, about a half mile away. The Athenians, meanwhile, began to bring up their hoplites, and the Spartans, seeing these two developments, broke and ran for the boats, pursued by the peltasts all the way. All in all, in the fighting and pursuit, 250 of the 600 men in the regiment were |
But those runners you mention, essentially hoplites with no armour other than a helm but still carrying the heavy aspis shield were effective in chasing off peltasts, though I'm not sure if they were effective at contacting them. But the combination of light armour, functioning in open order and good sized shield would seem to make them effective against archers as well.
ETA - I think what is also interesting is that it seems that standard practice was for greek horse to chase of peltasts and other skirmisher types. Without Horses this would not be an option, and would make the peltast types more effective.
Judging from the kinetic energy from both arrows and javelins, it seems Javelins would be more effective against heavy armour, so it seems against a body of heavy infantry with armour the javelins would be the more effective choice.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||
Here's an example of how lighter armed peltast types can tear up heavy infantry, and I'm referencing Iphicrates, William :D
But those runners you mention, essentially hoplites with no armour other than a helm but still carrying the heavy aspis shield were effective in chasing off peltasts, though I'm not sure if they were effective at contacting them. But the combination of light armour, functioning in open order and good sized shield would seem to make them effective against archers as well. ETA - I think what is also interesting is that it seems that standard practice was for greek horse to chase of peltasts and other skirmisher types. Without Horses this would not be an option, and would make the peltast types more effective. Judging from the kinetic energy from both arrows and javelins, it seems Javelins would be more effective against heavy armour, so it seems against a body of heavy infantry with armour the javelins would be the more effective choice. |
also peletests apparently tended to strike the right flank since here was apparently alot less coverage from shields on that side...
| Ryan S. wrote: |
| I think for the longest time getting cavalry to charge in tight formation was hard, and I don't know how feudal armies where they did not train together would be able to do it. |
But they did train together! Read Verbruggen's The Art of War in Europe During the Middle Ages for heaps and heaps of examples about medieval men-at-arms drilling in formation on horseback. Obviously, not all men-at-arms had such a high standard of drill and discipline, but there were enough who did to give the lie to the idea that medieval knights were undrilled individual fighters.
| William P wrote: |
| well actually the ancient greeks already formulated a solution oto heir tight phalanxes being suckerpunched by peltests during the archaic age
which was a troop type called ekdromoi aka 'runners out' these were men with most normal equiptmen, but with alot less armour and lighter equiptment, who would dash out of the phalanx to chase off peltasts when needed, essentially these were melee based skirmishers, apparently Iphikrates made much more aggressive use of these guys http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_koin...units.html not the best source of info but itll do for now. |
This computer-game rendition--while perhaps rather more accurate than the original R:TW--gives the misleading image of a separate unit dedicated for chasing light troops. In reality (and if I'm not mistaken), contemporary sources point instead to a hoplite formation detaching a particular age group (which usually made up some two or three ranks) or peeling off a file or two from the edge of the formation in order to drive back and disperse enemy light troops when there were no friendly cavalry or light troops available for the task. I don't think there is any clear information on whether the men designated for these detachments were more lightly equipped than the rest, although it is possible that this could have happened as a natural consequence of recruiting practices since a younger hoplite would have had less time to accumulate wealth and kit than the older age groups.
Coming back to the general question, I mean no offense but I find it a bit silly because many campaigns were obviously fought entirely without horses even in societies that had them. For example, many Chinese expeditions into Indochina involved barely any cavalry at all since the mountainous and heavily wooded terrain was unfavourable for massed cavalry operations. Or look at many of the European colonial expeditions in the 19th century under similar circumstances. So, well, the thing I'd like to say as politely as possible to the original poster is: don't be lazy and start doing your own research.
youll note that i said the ekdromoi were part of the phalanx and dashed out of formation to chase down and kill peltasts, none of the total war games are capable of emulating that kind of unit dynamics so units like ekdromoi are presented as being a dedicated unit.
you simply cant split a unit in half, or into pieces and make each piece attack multiple targets at the same time,the game engine simply cant do hat so instead unitsare given as seperate battalions, youll also note the psiloi have three varients because, i dont THINK the game is able to do that sort of thing and have a unit with random allotments of weapons. (or at least i hink no.
i was merely using the website to suppo the point that they were used in a more aggressive fashion (apparently) by Iphicrates
though i know its a reletively crap source to use, i didnt feel like trawling the depths of the net for something this small.
you simply cant split a unit in half, or into pieces and make each piece attack multiple targets at the same time,the game engine simply cant do hat so instead unitsare given as seperate battalions, youll also note the psiloi have three varients because, i dont THINK the game is able to do that sort of thing and have a unit with random allotments of weapons. (or at least i hink no.
i was merely using the website to suppo the point that they were used in a more aggressive fashion (apparently) by Iphicrates
though i know its a reletively crap source to use, i didnt feel like trawling the depths of the net for something this small.
| William P wrote: |
| youll note that i said the ekdromoi were part of the phalanx and dashed out of formation to chase down and kill peltasts, none of the total war games are capable of emulating that kind of unit dynamics so units like ekdromoi are presented as being a dedicated unit.
you simply cant split a unit in half, or into pieces and make each piece attack multiple targets at the same time,the game engine simply cant do hat so instead unitsare given as seperate battalions, youll also note the psiloi have three varients because, i dont THINK the game is able to do that sort of thing and have a unit with random allotments of weapons. (or at least i hink no. i was merely using the website to suppo the point that they were used in a more aggressive fashion (apparently) by Iphicrates though i know its a reletively crap source to use, i didnt feel like trawling the depths of the net for something this small. |
The ekdromoi were a Spartan idea on how to apply superior close combat power against light ranged troops. It's only stated that the youngest hoplites operated in this role without their bodyarmour, more akin to armoured running that was practiced as a sport. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/running.html directs you to more sources.
Iphicrates had a different solution for the problem, soldiers with very long spears, swords and a small shield, a pelta. They were either marine infantry armed in this fashion or peltasts re-armed in this fashion. Whatever, the idea was to combine speed with close combat supremacy and have a unit that could apply close combat to peltasts as well as maneuver against hoplites.
Both developments were part of one trend. The heavy equipment of hoplites became lighter in order to enable them to use speed to force the issue and possibly increase their numbers (then often mercenaries). The other development was making the javelin throwers increasingly better armed because they were at risk by fast close combat troops, like the hoplites were becoming.
The solutions to these problems were the thureophoroi, thorakitai and increasingly phalangites in the Macedonian Diadochi fashion. It differs from the concept employed by Phillip and Alexander that shared more characteristics with Iphicrates' ideas which in turned were due to influences from Egyptian marines.
In the end the best "thureophoroi and thorakitai", the Roman legions ended the disputed by outright winning. The idea was continued by the professional legions who had auxiliary infantry that would be mainly classified as thureophoroi, while the legions themselves were a conceptual successor to the thorakitai. It's even possible that the Romans under pressure by Eastern cavalry experimented with reintroducing the long spears of a phalanx.
Rome did have more or less important cavalry, but their combat was infantry based. A good source on infantry fighting are the marines of the Classical Age with their frequent fighting on land.
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | ||
The ekdromoi were a Spartan idea on how to apply superior close combat power against light ranged troops. It's only stated that the youngest hoplites operated in this role without their bodyarmour, more akin to armoured running that was practiced as a sport. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/running.html directs you to more sources. Iphicrates had a different solution for the problem, soldiers with very long spears, swords and a small shield, a pelta. They were either marine infantry armed in this fashion or peltasts re-armed in this fashion. Whatever, the idea was to combine speed with close combat supremacy and have a unit that could apply close combat to peltasts as well as maneuver against hoplites. Both developments were part of one trend. The heavy equipment of hoplites became lighter in order to enable them to use speed to force the issue and possibly increase their numbers (then often mercenaries). The other development was making the javelin throwers increasingly better armed because they were at risk by fast close combat troops, like the hoplites were becoming. The solutions to these problems were the thureophoroi, thorakitai and increasingly phalangites in the Macedonian Diadochi fashion. It differs from the concept employed by Phillip and Alexander that shared more characteristics with Iphicrates' ideas which in turned were due to influences from Egyptian marines. In the end the best "thureophoroi and thorakitai", the Roman legions ended the disputed by outright winning. The idea was continued by the professional legions who had auxiliary infantry that would be mainly classified as thureophoroi, while the legions themselves were a conceptual successor to the thorakitai. It's even possible that the Romans under pressure by Eastern cavalry experimented with reintroducing the long spears of a phalanx. Rome did have more or less important cavalry, but their combat was infantry based. A good source on infantry fighting are the marines of the Classical Age with their frequent fighting on land. |
you can see that trend culminae wih he infantry of the later byzanine armies of the 10th-12th centurys.
where the main infantry type was men wielding the kontarion, a pike abou 4m long, these guys also were equipped wih kite shields and other gear.
the menavion bearers (a kind of really thickly shafted hewing spear about 8ft.) are alot like the ekdromoi since hey took he mostly geared oward adding a hardened edge to the pike phalanx when cavalry hit.
around that priod it seemed that he infanry were very much arrayed and deployed in order to face enemy cavalry. and act as a mobile sally poin for their own heavy cavalry o operate. the militay manuals dont say much on byzanine infantry facing other infantry.
The Hypaspists seemed to function as thureophoroi. It would be very interesting if we truly know how they were armed/armoured.
I would not say the roman model was the one that "won". While they indeed did win battles, it to me is hard to say that their model of army is why they one.
There are many other factors - perhaps better trained troops, better recruiting methods, better officers, etc. etc.
Reason why I say this - the Phalangites would generally win in a head on clash, when the phalangites lost it was due to pursuits where the lost formation, or where they were flanked due to not being properly supported by their thureophoroi. The idea of the Hypaspists as elite support troops seems to have disappeared in the later Hellenic Kingdoms - some even kept the "hypapspist" name but were merely elite phalangites.
They roman legionairre heavy footman was more flexible, yes - but better? I think a propelry supported Phalanx (perhaps with legionairre style troops as the support) would be superior to the Roman Model.
| Quote: |
| In the end the best "thureophoroi and thorakitai", the Roman legions ended the disputed by outright winning. The idea was continued by the professional legions who had auxiliary infantry that would be mainly classified as thureophoroi, while the legions themselves were a conceptual successor to the thorakitai. |
I would not say the roman model was the one that "won". While they indeed did win battles, it to me is hard to say that their model of army is why they one.
There are many other factors - perhaps better trained troops, better recruiting methods, better officers, etc. etc.
Reason why I say this - the Phalangites would generally win in a head on clash, when the phalangites lost it was due to pursuits where the lost formation, or where they were flanked due to not being properly supported by their thureophoroi. The idea of the Hypaspists as elite support troops seems to have disappeared in the later Hellenic Kingdoms - some even kept the "hypapspist" name but were merely elite phalangites.
They roman legionairre heavy footman was more flexible, yes - but better? I think a propelry supported Phalanx (perhaps with legionairre style troops as the support) would be superior to the Roman Model.
Maybe this is just me, but if I were a commander in a world without horses and I saw a running bovine knock someone flying I would go: Hmmm, if you could just get 'em docile enough to carry a person around on their back. . .
The art of horsemanship has had thousands of years to domesticate and train the equine and the modern rider has thousands of years of experience and development to fall back on in a world without horses you might see something similiar with cows.
You might also see people training Elephants more so they wouldn't be as prone to panic and adding more Armour so they wouldn't panic because of arrow fire or or a wound to the trunk.
The art of horsemanship has had thousands of years to domesticate and train the equine and the modern rider has thousands of years of experience and development to fall back on in a world without horses you might see something similiar with cows.
You might also see people training Elephants more so they wouldn't be as prone to panic and adding more Armour so they wouldn't panic because of arrow fire or or a wound to the trunk.
| Ben P. wrote: |
| Maybe this is just me, but if I were a commander in a world without horses and I saw a running bovine knock someone flying I would go: Hmmm, if you could just get 'em docile enough to carry a person around on their back. . .
The art of horsemanship has had thousands of years to domesticate and train the equine and the modern rider has thousands of years of experience and development to fall back on in a world without horses you might see something similiar with cows. You might also see people training Elephants more so they wouldn't be as prone to panic and adding more Armour so they wouldn't panic because of arrow fire or or a wound to the trunk. |
you were talking about bovine cavalry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18UPCJdt08k
Last edited by William P on Tue 03 Jul, 2012 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sub-Saharan Africa is a good example of using herds of bovines for initial shock. The Battle of Tondibi is famous on how this can go wrong, similar to the elephants at the Battle of Zama. But don't ask me about the details of how they did it. In my opinion, the Bantu expansion that formed the world to a degree few other groups did (like the Indo-Aryans, Semites, Turks or Han-Chinese) was highly dependent on shock combat from a combination of bovines, iron weapons like javelins and spears with long shields, very much like the Roman legions, but with less armour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tondibi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion
Rome won against the Hellenistic kingdoms because it could stomach defeats, they couldn't fight on after a Cannae. They had a small ethnic group that was meant for heavy infantry service, the Greeks and Macedonians, and tried to rule numerous subdued people by outstanding military capabilities of the few. Rome by contrast integrated a lot of subdued people into her heavy infantry.
It might have been interesting if the more mobile combined arms earlier Macedonian phalanx model met the Romans, but I think a military genius like Hannibal was aware of that option and voted for a different route despite the deep Hellenic influence on him. Livius is quite right in pointing out the Roman leadership capabilities of numerous outstanding commanders with their philoi, a situation in a republic that no diadochi could tolerate for safety of his throne, making the whole Macedonian monarchy system vulnerable from the top on any battlefield. So systemic stability dictated that no victory against Rome was possible, just a delay of defeat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tondibi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion
Rome won against the Hellenistic kingdoms because it could stomach defeats, they couldn't fight on after a Cannae. They had a small ethnic group that was meant for heavy infantry service, the Greeks and Macedonians, and tried to rule numerous subdued people by outstanding military capabilities of the few. Rome by contrast integrated a lot of subdued people into her heavy infantry.
It might have been interesting if the more mobile combined arms earlier Macedonian phalanx model met the Romans, but I think a military genius like Hannibal was aware of that option and voted for a different route despite the deep Hellenic influence on him. Livius is quite right in pointing out the Roman leadership capabilities of numerous outstanding commanders with their philoi, a situation in a republic that no diadochi could tolerate for safety of his throne, making the whole Macedonian monarchy system vulnerable from the top on any battlefield. So systemic stability dictated that no victory against Rome was possible, just a delay of defeat.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
But they did train together! Read Verbruggen's The Art of War in Europe During the Middle Ages for heaps and heaps of examples about medieval men-at-arms drilling in formation on horseback. Obviously, not all men-at-arms had such a high standard of drill and discipline, but there were enough who did to give the lie to the idea that medieval knights were undrilled individual fighters. |
You don't happen to know what formation(s) they trained in? I would think they would not be able to train in large groups, because they weren't standing armies.
| Ryan S. wrote: | ||||
You don't happen to know what formation(s) they trained in? I would think they would not be able to train in large groups, because they weren't standing armies. |
A conroi of lancers en haye was about 10 men according to Verbruggen. You don't need a standing army to train if there are tournaments where groups can make lots of money.
| Quote: |
| Rome won against the Hellenistic kingdoms because it could stomach defeats, they couldn't fight on after a Cannae. They had a small ethnic group that was meant for heavy infantry service, the Greeks and Macedonians, and tried to rule numerous subdued people by outstanding military capabilities of the few. Rome by contrast integrated a lot of subdued people into her heavy infantry |
I agree but I don't think it's quite that simple. The Romans were using only Italians I believe as regualr legionairres by the time of the Hellenic wars.
I think perhaps what one of the issues was - the Romans made other countries that were brought into the republic feel as if they were "Romans" themselves. I don't know the specifics of all the Hellenic Kingdoms, but I wonder if the pikemen had the same social status as legionairres.
But you are right, Rome seemed to be able to handle defeats and keep on going, while the Hellenic Kingdoms did not have that ability it seems to sustain warfare.
Pyrrhus, ruler and general of one of the first Hellenic Kingdoms Rome fought, had 3 battles against the Romans, 2 victories and a tie, which meant a loss of the campaign.
I actually think in reality, the "Pyrrhic victories" he had had more to do with the fact that Rome could replentish themselves - it was far more difficult for him to do so.
@ Gary, I agree and if Pyrrhus hadn't been first, Hannibal would today be known for his "Pyrrhic" victories.
I'm currently reading Carroll Quigley's "Weapon Systems and Political Stability" available as free pdf manuscript because he unfortunately couldn't finish. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Weapons%20S...bility.pdf
Despite being dated in some aspects it's still an outstanding work. The real advantage of Rome seems to have been to offer a system of integration for people from diverse backgrounds, be it of tribal or polis organization. They were even able to make large armies out of slaves turned citizens operating in the field! Other groups simply were not so eager to integrate anyone because they had a narrative and structure of distinction.
I'm currently reading Carroll Quigley's "Weapon Systems and Political Stability" available as free pdf manuscript because he unfortunately couldn't finish. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Weapons%20S...bility.pdf
Despite being dated in some aspects it's still an outstanding work. The real advantage of Rome seems to have been to offer a system of integration for people from diverse backgrounds, be it of tribal or polis organization. They were even able to make large armies out of slaves turned citizens operating in the field! Other groups simply were not so eager to integrate anyone because they had a narrative and structure of distinction.
ive heard that as well that in roman society supposedly you could rise all the way to the top no matter where you you were from or what class you started out as..
i think one of the famous roman generals was of north african descent (and not scipio africanus, i know HIS name refers to him beating hannibal)
i think one of the famous roman generals was of north african descent (and not scipio africanus, i know HIS name refers to him beating hannibal)
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | ||||||
A conroi of lancers en haye was about 10 men according to Verbruggen. You don't need a standing army to train if there are tournaments where groups can make lots of money. |
It wouldn't be hard to train in groups of ten, but I still think that knights wanting to break formation and competing for glory was a constant problem for commanders.
| Ryan S. wrote: |
|
It wouldn't be hard to train in groups of ten, but I still think that knights wanting to break formation and competing for glory was a constant problem for commanders. |
Depends on the unit, one might be dependable, solid and coolheaded enough to hold their ground and then another unit from another duchy, barony, what have you, might be about as reliable and controllable as herd of cats.
While there's a lot of coverage given to cavalry charges that went horribly awry there's not much (that I've seen anyway) given to units that executed controlled charges and remained cool under fire.
| Ben P. wrote: | ||
Depends on the unit, one might be dependable, solid and coolheaded enough to hold their ground and then another unit from another duchy, barony, what have you, might be about as reliable and controllable as herd of cats. While there's a lot of coverage given to cavalry charges that went horribly awry there's not much (that I've seen anyway) given to units that executed controlled charges and remained cool under fire. |
probably for the same reason alot of people proportedly watch the nascar to watch the spectacular crashes as much as watch the racing.
and the idea hat newspapers supposedly print bad news more than good. (or so the perception goes anyway)
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum