| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The other thing - throughout history javelin/sword armed infantry have not been overly effective against quality heavy horse. Sure you throw the Javelins, but it's not as imposing as a wall of spears. The Huscarl axes are not great deterrents either, but are very effective, much more than shorswords I would think, in the ensuing melee.
Problem is with javelins you cannot use them but for one volley on closing horsemen. Throwing vavelins then switching to swords may kill/injure a few horsemen and disrupt the charge a little - but you would not be braced real well for combat.
Sitting behind a wall of spears in solid formation is also morale bolstering against charging horsemen.
EDIT - Just one thing I might add. The Romans were some of the best at copying other cultures weapons and tactics and assimilating them, such as mail, the Gladius, the Spatha even perhaps, though I'm not sure if it evolved from the gladius or longer swords used by the Gauls and Germanics.
The Romans after combat with the Parthians and Sarmations started incorporating both Cataphracts and slightly less armoured heavy lancers into their forces. By 250 AD or so, Eastern Roman armies had changed from a predominantly infantry force (maybe 20% cavalry here) to armies that were close to 50/50 in composition, even including Horse archers in the mix.
If the Legions were very effective against cavalry, they would not have moved in the direction of dramatically increasing the amount of heavy cavalry in the legions.
Now an interesting alternative I would also be interested in for Hastings is how Harold's army would have fared had he not had to deal with Hardrada's invasion in the North.
Without losing men in battles vs the Vikings, and if he could have kept togather (or at least rapidly re-mobilized) his great army he had in the south, things would have been different IMO.
As it was a near-miss thing anyway, having fresh troops that did not have to lose some of their number then force march south after force marching North would have made a big difference.
Harold's army that was guarding the south of England prior to Hardrada's invasion was said to be the largest Saxon army ever put together.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ave, Gary!
Gotta say I'm impressed with your knowledge of Roman history! Also have to say that I've spent way too many years focusing mainly on hardware, so I can't always come up with answers or citations for general historical events. But just wanted to pick on a few little points.
The account of Mons Grapius is from Tacitus' "Agricola". Agricola decided not to have any citizen casualties that day, so he lined his auxiliary infantry up in front of his legions. That's all I meant, is that if you want spears in front, use your auxiliaries (they tend to carry either thrusting spears or sets of throwing spears).
I also think you are way underestimating the impact of a volley of pila! Ever seen one? Even with only 15 or 20 guys, mostly office jockeys, it's darned impressive. Since each legionary is carrying two pila into battle, and we know that rear ranks are throwing missiles over the heads of those in front, any attacking force would have to withstand repeated devastating rains of hundreds or thousands of these lethal things during their charge. Pila are *designed* to disrupt charges. They don't have to wound a single knight to absolutely wreck a cavalry charge--all you have to do is wound and kill enough horses in front to make the rest trip over them.
If you assume that the Normans have 3 times as much cavalry, and that they are better protected, and that their stirrups give them any advantage, well, okay--why wait for them to attack? Any decent Roman general would launch repeated skirmishing attacks as soon as the Norman horse started coming onto the battlefield. Disrupt and harry them, wound and kill horses, ruin their plans for a nice lineup, that sort of thing. Support them with some archers and auxiliary infantry, and pull them all back up to the top of the hill when resistance got heavy enough. Heck, I might even attack with 4 or 5 cohorts of legionaries! The rest can wait in reserve, or even start fortifying the hill (though I'll understand if you don't allow them all their tools, caltrops, etc!). I'll also understand if you don't allow the Romans their normal compliment of artillery, because 50 or 60 catapultae would be riddling anyone near a banner.
I would never claim that the Romans were invincible, nor that they never lost a battle. But it really seems to me that in a situation like this, there simply is not enough in the Normans' favor. Again, I'm not up on the details of every Roman battle, but it seems to me that to beat a Roman army, you had to have overwhelming numbers, or the Romans either had to have very bad leadership or be in an impossible situation, or some combination of those factors. Here you've put the Romans in a VERY strong position with even numbers, and I'm assuming at least reasonable leadership. That is not a recipe for Norman victory.
On your new scenario, Sure! If Harold had not had to fight at Stamford Bridge, he would have been stronger. In fact, even after Stamford Bridge, his brothers urged him to let them take the army to fight William, while Harold raised a fresh new force. That alone could have led to Norman defeat, but Harold insisted on leading personally. And as others have said, it was a close thing even so.
Valete,
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Dec, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Gotta say I'm impressed with your knowledge of Roman history! |
Thanks. I'm more comfortable with the 600-1200 AD period, so I've had to do a bit of research to loo like I know what I'm talking about! 
| Quote: | | But it really seems to me that in a situation like this, there simply is not enough in the Normans' favor. |
As I said, I agree with you and would bet on the Romans. But I think you take the Normans too lightly.
| Quote: | | I also think you are way underestimating the impact of a volley of pila! Ever seen one? Even with only 15 or 20 guys, mostly office jockeys, it's darned impressive. Since each legionary is carrying two pila into battle, and we know that rear ranks are throwing missiles over the heads of those in front, any attacking force would have to withstand repeated devastating rains of hundreds or thousands of these lethal things during their charge. Pila are *designed* to disrupt charges. They don't have to wound a single knight to absolutely wreck a cavalry charge--all you have to do is wound and kill enough horses in front to make the rest trip over them. |
The Pilum was certainly an effective weapon. But it was for all intensive purposes a short range heavyweight javelin, maybe somewhat more effective than others but I'm not going to say it was a "superweapon", any more than the gladius was. The throwing of short range melee weapons prior to combat was a practice done by many armies of classical times, including the angon and fransisca and of course ordinary javelins. It is effective, javelins from what I know perice armour better than arrows at short ranges.
But the Saxons had javelins too at Hastings. It was customary for Huscarls to carry two, I think they called them Aegir or something like that. My guess is the Thanes at least carried one or two, and some of the fyrd probably would have. Saxon/Viking battles usually had an exchange of javelins prior to contact. They probably did not have the amount of javelins a roman army would have, and may not have been as disciplined for volley fire, but they had them none the less.
The Javelins biggest problem (and the Pilum is relatively short ranged for a javelin) is that without the range of a bow, vs cavalry you are limited to one toss prior to contact if they are charging. The other thing is when throwing a weapon prior to holding of a cavalry charge makes it tough to brace yourself bs the charge.
There is a manuscript done by Arrius, a Roman general around 150 or so AD, who was writing down how best to handle a charge of Alans, Where he states the front 4 ranks will brace shields, the rear will throw javelins. I'm not sure how many ranks deep the romans customarily deployed in, but too many ranks would not be able to fire or fire effectively if there range was not much more than in front of their own men. This clearly shows the front ranks need to brace themselves for the charge, not worry about throwing Pila.
The other thing to rememer is too the best of my knowledge, cavalry broke into a canter maybe 50 yds or so from the enemy. A running man can cover that in less than 6 seconds, a cantering horse should be that speed. Now for the 20 yd or so effective range of pilum, you can make that 2-3 seconds between throwing a pila and contact.
I guess what I'm really trying to say by all this is the throwing of pila, while it would be more effective then the Saxons that threw their javelins, is not overly effective against horse. The front ranks are bracing shields and getting shortswords ready - the Saxons were in a shild wall with spears.
Another thing is 2 ranks can attack effectively with Saxon length spears - only one ranks of gladius can attack. This would make a difference after initial collision. And I'd rather have a spear to use against a mounted knight, or a long axe as opposed to a gladius. Gladius were best against infantry.
| Quote: | | but it seems to me that to beat a Roman army, you had to have overwhelming numbers, or the Romans either had to have very bad leadership or be in an impossible situation, or some combination of those factors. Here you've put the Romans in a VERY strong position with even numbers, and I'm assuming at least reasonable leadership. That is not a recipe for Norman victory. |
I think the victories over Gauls, other Celts, Iberians and Germanic tribes inflate Rom's numbers here. A few things - Tribal armies probably did not have nearly the Organization Roman one's did. I don't think a Roman general could rely on the Normans to fall along these lines. One thing that hurt Germancs and Gauls is they did not have a written language, making organizational things more difficult.
The other thing to think about - Victories vs Barbarians were only told historically from the Roman side, usually written by someone who would want to make the commnader look good. Beating 300,000 barbarians with an army of 20,000 sounds better than beating 30,000 barbarians with 20,000 Romans. I do think we have to take some of these numbers with a grain of salt as we have no written reords of the barbarians to compare them with.
Against more "civilized" opponents Rome did not seem to be as effective. Pyrrhus and Hannibal were beaten not because Rome beat them in the field, but Rome had more resources. Lose a legion, put two more in the field.
The battles that do suprise me a bit are the Vicory over Antiochus of the Selucids I think, and many Hellenistic Armies in general. Antiochus had Pikemen and Cataphracts - While one wing of Selucid Won, the other failed. But Rome did get the services of Pergamene Cavalry prior to this battle, equipped much like the Selucids. This probably played a factor.
Overall I see the reasons for defeats of Hellenistic armies as not pike versus gladius superiority, but a few specific reasons.
1) Pikes functioned badly in bad terrain or in headlong pursuit. Either the generalship was bad in a few of these situations, or the Pikemen were no longer of the caliber of Alexander's Companion infantry in training. There are mentions of levied Pike units, which could be some of the issue as they lacked some of the Roman professionalism. However, Pikes getting defeated this way never seemed to be a problem for Pyrhhus or Hannibal (Hannibal was more of a mixed infantry army, but Pikemen were part of it), so maybe it is generalship as well.
2) Many Hellensitic armies ceased to use pikes as Alexander did, as the anvil for the rest of the army to win the battle around. Instead the became overly pike focused, reducing the amount and focus on supporting troops. Against another pike army this works, but against a more flexlible opponent it is your undoing.
3) And of course Romes greater resources spent on the military. I don't know what some of these other countries had for their economic base, but either Rome was stronger economically or was more comitting of their "GNP" to military matters. The "kill one legion 2 come back" makes it difficult to win if you are not doing the same.
| Quote: | | Any decent Roman general would launch repeated skirmishing attacks as soon as the Norman horse started coming onto the battlefield. Disrupt and harry them, wound and kill horses, ruin their plans for a nice lineup, that sort of thing. Support them with some archers and auxiliary infantry, and pull them all back up to the top of the hill when resistance got heavy enough. Heck, I might even attack with 4 or 5 cohorts of legionaries! |
Not sure what I think about this. To give up a strong defensive position and expose your flanks to a force with stronger cavalry seems somewhat foolhardy, but who knows? Reminds me of Parmenio and Alexander:
Parmenio - If I were you, I would adivse to be more cautious (not the exact words her, but same idea).
Alexander - and if I were Parmenio I would do just that. But I amnot Parmenio, I am Alexander, and I will attack!
Or somethng to that effect
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Dec, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: | | No Doubt the Normans Cav. would own in a fight agaisnt the Roman Cav. and seeing that the cavarly has fled and the legionaries stranded on top of a hill the Normans maybe would have sorruonded them that is maybe if they had more troops anyway if the Normans did surround them the legainares would have made an attempt to break out wich is likely to succeed and in a organised retreat flee thus forfeiting to battle to the Normans.OR with the Roman Cav. gone and the Normans attacking them with a charge from the Romans would have countercharge against the Inf. or Cav. doesn't matter with the speed gathering and counter charging down the hill at the charging Normans the Legions would have the advantage of a somewhat Cav. Charge(would have given my dog to see that battle) and narrowly won the battle...Narrowly that is.Both would have been given opprotunitys the seize the day it all depends if there leaders see that opportunity if they do then they win if they don't then all hell breaks loose and....they lose!but i vote for the Normans cause if they didn't win then history would blow up but thats after the battle.....fin |
If I may,
IMO, whatever cavalry the Romans would have had, Latins or auxiliaries (which were often drawn from conquered nations, not always friendly ones, making their willingness to die for Rome dubious at best), the Norman cavalry would have quickly eaten their lunch and driven them from the field. Then the Normans would have many options, while the Romans would have few. A fast mobile cavalry could move at will around the heavily armed, slow-moving legionnaries. A man cannot outrun a horse, and weighed down with armor, would quickly tire if they tried. Attlia mocked the slow-moving Romans, scoffing that "the dust of battle chokes them behind their shields.". If the Romans stood on the defense (their only real option against cavalry) the initiative is with the Normans. IF the Roman could be drawn out of their strong position, they could be flanked by the Norman cavalry, while the Norman infantry held the front long enough for the cavalry to break the Roman's ranks, preferably in a flanking or rear attack. This worked over and over for Hannibal, where his cavalry almost always delivered the coup de grace. This was the case at the Trebia, Lake Trasimeno, Cannae, and probably many other incidents. Most of the time when the Romans went up against heavy cavalry they got the worst of it. Adrianople and Carrhae are two other examples where they were virtually annihilated by cavalry.
Now don't get me wrong, the Norman infantry would be no match for the Romans in hand to hand close quarters combat. But if they could hold on long enough for the cavalry to come to their aid, history might repeat itself, such as when the Gauls held Hannibal's front until the cavalry returned to smash into the Roman rear at Cannae.
But all this depends on many factors. For instance,Hannibal cared little for how many Romans he faced, asking instead for a description of the opposing Roman General's personality. He then made his plans accordingly, to the Roman's inevitable destruction. In the end, generalship is what would decide this particular scenario, so who can really say? A bad general can lose when he has all the advantages, and a clever general can win against all the odds. Moral, logistics, loyalty and training all play a role as well, and also other unpredictable factors such as weather. Many battles have been won or lost simply because of rain, wind or snow.
In the end however, I will put my money on the most mobile force, with the ability to attack or withdraw at will. Even if all the Norman infantry and archers were lost, the cavalry arm was what really mattered, and properly managed, would easily escape the trudging legionnairies. Continental commanders cared little for their infantry, always concentrating on increasing the numbers of their horse. By this time the day of infantry armies slugging it out over shield walls was waning, and the heavy horse would rule the fields of Europe, at least for a time.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antonio Lamadrid
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Dec, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
IMO, whatever cavalry the Romans would have had, Latins or auxiliaries (which were often drawn from conquered nations, not always friendly ones, making their willingness to die for Rome dubious at best), the Norman cavalry would have quickly eaten their lunch and driven them from the field. |
I completely agree with that. Normans had stirrups and high saddles, they simply outclassed any calvary put against them by the Romans.
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
If the Romans stood on the defense (their only real option against cavalry) the initiative is with the Normans. IF the Roman could be drawn out of their strong position, they could be flanked by the Norman cavalry, while the Norman infantry held the front long enough for the cavalry to break the Roman's ranks, preferably in a flanking or rear attack. This worked over and over for Hannibal, where his cavalry almost always delivered the coup de grace. This was the case at the Trebia, Lake Trasimeno, Cannae, and probably many other incidents. Most of the time when the Romans went up against heavy cavalry they got the worst of it. Adrianople and Carrhae are two other examples where they were virtually annihilated by cavalry. |
One of the "conditions" I put was the Romans having a good commander. Since the Normans had a competent one (calling Duke William a genius would be too much IMO), I think this is only fair. Hannibal in Cannae faced Paullus and Varro. When faced with a good leader like Scipio in Zama things went wrong for him. Crassus proved to be a competent leader against Spartacus, but at Carrhae he just blew it. All that campaign was a shambles. About Adrianople… If Valens was a military wonder, he did not show it that day.
I think the Romans would win it. A legion consisted of almost 6000 men, almost all highly trained elite warriors. Out of the 7000-8000 Saxons, most were fyrd, ill-trained warriors. Harold's huskarls were probably less than a thousand, as many died in Stamford Bridge, then you had the Danes sent by Svein Estridsson, probably a few hundreds, plus also a number of well equipped and trained thegns. All these were roughly 2000 or so first class warriors. And the thing is that the Saxons almost pulled it off. Had the battle lasted for just one more hour, English history would have been very different. All the Saxons had to do was to hold the ground till dusk. A tie meant victory for them. Unlike the Normans, they could expect reinforcements.
If only the impatient Harold had waited one more week in London, so troops from the north (Edwin's and Morcar's huskarls, archers left in the north after Stanford Bridge, fyrd from other shires) could gather...
Last edited by Antonio Lamadrid on Sun 14 Dec, 2008 8:06 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squires
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Dec, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
As specifically regards cavalry, the second most important factor (after the quality of the fighting man himself) are the mounts, and in that the Normans would have been in an entirely different league. Their mounts were of a breed specifically shaped for use in war, being taller, heavier, faster, and much more aggressive and tenacious in battle than anything the Romans would have ever seen, drunken elephants notwithstanding. On top of that, they were themselves trained to fight.
Even assuming William were to use the same tactics as he employed at the real Hastings, the Roman line might have found itself losing its cohesion as more and more of its men were disabled by Norman mounts breaking legs, crushing shield-arms, and biting faces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antonio Lamadrid
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Dec, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no consensus on the size of horses used in Hastings. They may not have been as big as the destriers of later centuries.
It is not clear either that the cavalry charged against the shield wall. Probably they threw javelins from a few meters away in the first stages of the battle. Later in the afternoon, when the shield wall started to break away, they couched their lances through the gaps.
I think there cannot be certainty on all this, only theories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Dec, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: | | IMO, whatever cavalry the Romans would have had, Latins or auxiliaries (which were often drawn from conquered nations, not always friendly ones, making their willingness to die for Rome dubious at best), the Norman cavalry would have quickly eaten their lunch and driven them from the field. |
WOW. No offense intended, but that sounds incredibly over-confident to me! Roman auxiliary cavalry was considered by them to be very effective and prestigious. Auxiliaries of all sorts frequently fought very well for Rome, and some were famed for their ferocity in battle. I don't sell the Normans short, but a few people here really sell the Romans short!
| Quote: | | Then the Normans would have many options, while the Romans would have few. A fast mobile cavalry could move at will around the heavily armed, slow-moving legionnaries. |
So are you suggesting that the Romans have only their cavalry on their flanks, with no concept of moving other units into line to close gaps if necessary? The entire Roman army was based on flexibility, allowing them to assume any number of formations, or changing their formation whenever needed. It was common for them to arrange their units in 2 or 3 battle lines, allowing any area to be reinforced immediately. Note that Harold's army did NOT have this sort of flexibility, but even after many of his flank troops were killed by the Norman feigned flights the Normans did not "move at will" around their flanks. Senlac Hill is a very strong position.
| Quote: | | Attlia mocked the slow-moving Romans, scoffing that "the dust of battle chokes them behind their shields.". |
Very different armies in very different situations. I have already agreed that Romans lost plenty of battles! Plus, that's kind of what one would expect Attila to say, eh?
| Quote: | | If the Romans stood on the defense (their only real option against cavalry) the initiative is with the Normans. IF the Roman could be drawn out of their strong position, they could be flanked by the Norman cavalry, while the Norman infantry held the front long enough for the cavalry to break the Roman's ranks, preferably in a flanking or rear attack. |
That's a pretty big "IF"! While I maintain that a Roman advance is an option in some cases, no decent commander would allow that if there was a danger of getting outflanked.
| Quote: | | This worked over and over for Hannibal, where his cavalry almost always delivered the coup de grace. This was the case at the Trebia, Lake Trasimeno, Cannae, and probably many other incidents. Most of the time when the Romans went up against heavy cavalry they got the worst of it. Adrianople and Carrhae are two other examples where they were virtually annihilated by cavalry. |
Again, very different situations with very different armies. Hannibal was a genius at luring the Romans out of strong positions, putting them right where he wanted them, and exploiting their weaknesses. He relied on his cavalry because he knew his infantry was no match for the Romans in a stand-up fight. Trebia and Trasimene were both ambushes (at least partly so), and Trasimene was mostly an infantry battle, as I recall. Carrhae was out in open plains with Crassus surrounded by horse archers. Adrianople I don't know as much about, but I seem to recall that the Romans ended up with a major cavalry force behind them. And by the way, Hannibal's best cavalry was Numidian, basically guys in tunics without saddles, using mostly javelins. Not quite Normans!
| Quote: | | Now don't get me wrong, the Norman infantry would be no match for the Romans in hand to hand close quarters combat. |
Agreed!
| Quote: | | But if they could hold on long enough for the cavalry to come to their aid, history might repeat itself, such as when the Gauls held Hannibal's front until the cavalry returned to smash into the Roman rear at Cannae. |
But that assumes the Norman cavalry went somewhere else while the legions engaged the Norman foot--not sure why they'd do that. The Romans could either trash the attacking Norman foot first, leaving the Norman cavalry unsupported, or trash the Norman cavalry if they attacked first, and finish off the infantry at their leisure. Of course, they might just be stuck holding out against repeated cavalry attacks on their hilltop, as Harold was, but they should at least be able to do that as well as he did or better. In that case, as Antonio pointed out, the Romans win.
| Quote: | | A bad general can lose when he has all the advantages, and a clever general can win against all the odds. Moral, logistics, loyalty and training all play a role as well, and also other unpredictable factors such as weather. Many battles have been won or lost simply because of rain, wind or snow. |
Very true!
| Quote: | | In the end however, I will put my money on the most mobile force, with the ability to attack or withdraw at will. |
That would be the Romans. They are sitting on the only road out of the area, and Senlac Hill narrows to a ridge just behind the battle line. Saxon rearguard actions at that place cost the Normans some casualties AFTER the Saxon army had been defeated and was retreating. That's a broken and completely disorganized force. The Romans were masters of organization, and could have held that chokepoint for quite a while, even after substantial losses. It would be child's play for the Roman general to peel off centuries or cohorts and send them down the road in a very orderly retreat. Once on the road, they could move twice as fast as most medieval armies (that's in regular marching order, with baggage, etc.). Plus, if this scenario allows them their usual baggage train, they would probably have a fortified camp built even before the battle starts--they would simply retreat to that and defend the ramparts, completely negating the Norman cavalry.
| Quote: | | Even if all the Norman infantry and archers were lost, the cavalry arm was what really mattered, and properly managed, would easily escape the trudging legionnairies. Continental commanders cared little for their infantry, always concentrating on increasing the numbers of their horse. By this time the day of infantry armies slugging it out over shield walls was waning, and the heavy horse would rule the fields of Europe, at least for a time. |
But medieval armies always had far more infantry than cavalry! Any cavalry lacking a solid infantry force to support them was toast. While Hastings was the defeat of the last major all-infantry army of that time, the Normans and plenty of other people fought dismounted on many occasions after that. There may have been medieval battles in which cavalry did all the fighting, but I doubt you can find any in which there was no infantry on one or both sides. Infantry was not held as prestigious by nobility, of course, but few of them were arrogant enough to ignore it!
Not sure how much more I can argue about this, some of the opinions seem a little dogmatic. In my own defense, I was a Hastings-era reenactor long before I started doing Roman stuff. I've stood in a shield wall at the top of a hill while mounted Normans charged up at us--including my wife!--and it was pretty darned impressive. I fully agree that I'd rather have a bazooka than a short sword while attacking mounted knights! But I think being an armored professional killer with daily weapons training in a highly organized and well-controlled army is worth even more than spears and big axes. I just don't see how the Normans could beat a Roman army when they darn near didn't beat a Saxon one. Even if the Norman cavalry was wildly superior, after all, the Saxons had no cavalry whatsoever! So inferior cavalry can't be so much of a disadvantage that the Normans could win.
Valete,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antonio Lamadrid
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Dec, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | But medieval armies always had far more infantry than cavalry! Any cavalry lacking a solid infantry force to support them was toast. While Hastings was the defeat of the last major all-infantry army of that time, the Normans and plenty of other people fought dismounted on many occasions after that. There may have been medieval battles in which cavalry did all the fighting, but I doubt you can find any in which there was no infantry on one or both sides. Infantry was not held as prestigious by nobility, of course, but few of them were arrogant enough to ignore it! |
Actually there is one major medieval battle that I know of where one side fought with a cavalry-only force: Legnano, 1176. Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, was arrogant enough to try it and, needless to say, lost against a combined arms army of the Lombard League, proving your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As specifically regards cavalry, the second most important factor (after the quality of the fighting man himself) are the mounts, and in that the Normans would have been in an entirely different league. Their mounts were of a breed specifically shaped for use in war, being taller, heavier, faster, and much more aggressive and tenacious in battle than anything the Romans would have ever seen, drunken elephants notwithstanding. On top of that, they were themselves trained to fight. |
I'd have to disagree here. The Roman horses were thought to be in the 14-15 hands height range, pretty similar to Norman horses of the time. The Middle Ages warhorse was generally considered to be in the 1000-1200 pound area. Destriers were not a breed of horse, but a class. And these were likley not much bigger, more the top end weight, perhaps stronger for their weight, and the best trained and best temperament. But they were not a seperate type of horse, just the "elite" horse of the time, usually amounting to no more thaqn 5% to 1.5% of the horses used.
Actually, a loss of Roman horse breeding centers after the Fall of Rome is why european horses were of low quality for a while.
Crusaders preferred Native horses to their own - more hardy, better spirited. No talk of being smaller. I think the idea of huge horses ridden by knights is a combination of (at the time) european propaganda, and that some now look at the 2000 pd dradt breeds and think those were middle ages warhorses.
Romans (at a latter date) has horses strong enough to bear a rider in full armour, and the horse was fully armoured. So they had solid warhorses.
| Quote: | | IMO, whatever cavalry the Romans would have had, Latins or auxiliaries (which were often drawn from conquered nations, not always friendly ones, making their willingness to die for Rome dubious at best), the Norman cavalry would have quickly eaten their lunch and driven them from the field. |
These barbarian auxilliaries were more to be rlied on the the native troops in general, between combat ability and morale. These Roman auxilliaries performed very well at this stage of the empire, but I would still give Norman cavalry the advantage.
| Quote: | | But that assumes the Norman cavalry went somewhere else while the legions engaged the Norman foot--not sure why they'd do that |
Apparently Mathew you are not giving the Norman cavalry the tactical knowledge or ability to perform flanking attacks. I'd have to strongly disagree here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | But that assumes the Norman cavalry went somewhere else while the legions engaged the Norman foot--not sure why they'd do that |
Apparently Mathew you are not giving the Norman cavalry the tactical knowledge or ability to perform flanking attacks. I'd have to strongly disagree here. |
No no, didn't mean that! There just seem to be an assumption that the Romans would waltz down the hill to attack the Norman foot while ignoring the Norman horse, *unless* the Norman horse was out of sight somewhere, presumably off the battlefield. No, I am very aware that tactics in the early middle ages could be a lot more clever and organized that the general public might think, but you have to allow that the Romans would hardly leave their flanks hanging wide open to assault as well.
I don't remember how specific the accounts of the actual Battle of Hastings are, but I don't recall a flanking maneuver that had any significant effect. At least one reconstruction that I've seen shows the Saxon line shortening up and the ends curling back, a simple matter of the men shuffling towards the center as casualties occur, and facing left or right as necessary. So if the Normans did outflank such a formation, it didn't seem to have a lot of effect, though eventually the Saxons did break, of course. Carrhae was mentioned as a victory of cavalry over legions, but it is also a perfect demonstration of legions moving in square formation to keep cavalry out. That would work for retreat at Hastings even better, since the ravines behind Senlac Hill would prevent the Normans from continuing to encircle the Romans.
Just throwing out ideas as they pop into my head! Valete,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most infantry, including Roman, puts itself at a disadvantage on the open field vs cavalry. I'm not saying encirclement would be easy or automatic, but as mentioned in Rome's defeats it is often what happened. The other side wins the cavarly battle, then encircles the Roman Infantry. It would certainly be a disadvantage.
That would be my concern as a Roman general taking the offensive, you have a strong defensive position, why leave it? You would gain some suprise value I'm sure, but IMO the Romans would hold the High ground at Hastings if they stayed.
The Roman cavalry could be used as Arrius said they should vs the Alans - draw them up behind or even a bit on the flanks of the main body. Here they could be used for a rapid attack followed by withdrawl of the Norman's ist line of archers.
They could also be used with good effect to pursue a feigned flight - a lot more effectively than infantry. THey just have to be careful and hopefully the generalship and discipline are there to stop the pursuit of the Norman cavalry early enough. Otherwise they would be cut up like the Saxon infantry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben P.
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jan, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to Caballus Et Caballarius Norman steeds would have been around seenteen hands. Roman steeds would be around fourteen-fifteen hands, cavalry would have pretty much equal equipment so thats a toss-up
A Legion has sixty Ballistae with them  and I think thats just scorpions not counting onagers, stone throwers, etc.
and if they use Arrians formation which was used on cataphracts which are much heavier than norman knights and they will also have archers with them so I think the romans win but it would be a hard fought battle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Warren
Location: Manhattan, Kansas Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jan, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this fight would have gone down in similar fashion to those encounters between the Normans and the Byzantines in Southern Italy during the 11th century. Yeah, I know that an 11th century Byzantine army is not the same thing as a Classical Roman army, but I still think the Normans have a demonstrated track record of performing well versus disciplined infantry. I give this one to the Normans, if only marginally.
Non Concedo
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Jan, 2009 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
at best), the Norman cavalry would have quickly eaten their lunch and driven them from the field.[/quote]
WOW. No offense intended, but that sounds incredibly over-confident to me! Roman auxiliary cavalry was considered by them to be very effective and prestigious. Auxiliaries of all sorts frequently fought very well for Rome, and some were famed for their ferocity in battle. I don't sell the Normans short, but a few people here really sell the Romans short!
A lot of incorrect assumptions here, which I will try to answer one by one.
The Normans were formidable iron-clad knights who ranged all over Europe, down into Italy, Sicily. and the Holy land, creating their own kingdoms as they went that lasted for quite a while. They were professional warriors who knew their business, and were ruthless and effective conquerors, and would certainly match anything the Romans fielded in the way of cavalry. Remember, originally the Roman "knights" were made up largely of patrician's sons, and the idea that they could withstand the Norman cavalry is pretty far-fetched. So we're also talking about WHICH Roman cavalry. Auxiliaries may perform better, but would still be outmatched and outnumbered, bsed on the number of cavalry with the average Legion. I think it is only reasonable to assume that the Normans would spank the Roman cavalry if given the chance.
| Quote: | | Then the Normans would have many options, while the Romans would have few. A fast mobile cavalry could move at will around the heavily armed, slow-moving legionnaries. |
So are you suggesting that the Romans have only their cavalry on their flanks, with no concept of moving other units into line to close gaps if necessary? The entire Roman army was based on flexibility, allowing them to assume any number of formations, or changing their formation whenever needed. It was common for them to arrange their units in 2 or 3 battle lines, allowing any area to be reinforced immediately. Note that Harold's army did NOT have this sort of flexibility, but even after many of his flank troops were killed by the Norman feigned flights the Normans did not "move at will" around their flanks. Senlac Hill is a very strong position.
Sure it's a strong position. I already said that the Romans would have to be drawn out for the Normans to get at them with their horse. This is where Generalship decides, as I've freely said. If the Romans stay put, they are relatively safe. But there is no reason that William would HAVE to assault such a strong position. He wasn't stupid. He would have to draw the Romans down. And it's not like that never happened to the Romans before, either. Bad Generalship was their downfall many times, and it could come into play here as well, if they were that unlucky. And flexibility is fine, but limited on such a confined area. Any piecemeal movement down the hill would be dangerous against fast-moving heavy cavalry. As I said before, a man cannot outrun a horse, especially weighed down with armor, heavy shield, etc. If they got into trouble, they may not regain the summit any more than the Saxons did, unless they stayed in very tight formation. Even then it would be dicey.
| Quote: | | Attlia mocked the slow-moving Romans, scoffing that "the dust of battle chokes them behind their shields.". |
Very different armies in very different situations. I have already agreed that Romans lost plenty of battles! Plus, that's kind of what one would expect Attila to say, eh?
Of course. Just like this scenario. I'm just pointing out what Attila, with his mounted Hunnish hordes, thought of slow heavy infantry. And his Huns remained a threat to Rome for years, even after Chalons. He died from hard partying, not Roman swords.
| Quote: | | If the Romans stood on the defense (their only real option against cavalry) the initiative is with the Normans. IF the Roman could be drawn out of their strong position, they could be flanked by the Norman cavalry, while the Norman infantry held the front long enough for the cavalry to break the Roman's ranks, preferably in a flanking or rear attack. |
That's a pretty big "IF"! While I maintain that a Roman advance is an option in some cases, no decent commander would allow that if there was a danger of getting outflanked.
Yes it is a big "IF." I already acknowledged that. Norman victory depends on it. But as I said, Duke William was no fool, and would not stupidly attack such a strong position manned by Roman legionaries without a plan to draw them down.
| Quote: | | This worked over and over for Hannibal, where his cavalry almost always delivered the coup de grace. This was the case at the Trebia, Lake Trasimeno, Cannae, and probably many other incidents. Most of the time when the Romans went up against heavy cavalry they got the worst of it. Adrianople and Carrhae are two other examples where they were virtually annihilated by cavalry. |
Again, very different situations with very different armies. Hannibal was a genius at luring the Romans out of strong positions, putting them right where he wanted them, and exploiting their weaknesses. He relied on his cavalry because he knew his infantry was no match for the Romans in a stand-up fight. Trebia and Trasimene were both ambushes (at least partly so), and Trasimene was mostly an infantry battle, as I recall. Carrhae was out in open plains with Crassus surrounded by horse archers. Adrianople I don't know as much about, but I seem to recall that the Romans ended up with a major cavalry force behind them. And by the way, Hannibal's best cavalry was Numidian, basically guys in tunics without saddles, using mostly javelins. Not quite Normans!
I'm aware of the cavalry Hannibal used, and yes, Numidians are not Normans. But that's beside the point. Hannibal also had heavy cavalry and heavy African infantry which by all accounts performed well, and his Spaniards were also very effective. His wild and hairy Gauls were his weakest most undisciplined troops. But he used them all to his best advantage, negating any real or perceived superiority of the Roman legionnaire. At Cannae he placed his Gauls and Spaniards facing the Roman front in an outwardly bulging line. When the Romans smashed his line flat and then caved it inwards, thinking they were winning, they wedged themselves between Hannibal's heavy African infantry on either flank, who wheeled into the Romans on their flanks. Then Hannibal's cavalry returned and struck the Roman rear, the classic "double envelopment." The rest, as they say, is history. I think that Duke William would have to come up with something similar for him to win, which is not impossible, since so often Roman defeat was caused by lousy Roman Generals, who were often little more than politicians. But yes, I acknowledge that a good General would not allow this to happen.
| Quote: | | Now don't get me wrong, the Norman infantry would be no match for the Romans in hand to hand close quarters combat. |
Agreed!
No argument here.
| Quote: | | But if they could hold on long enough for the cavalry to come to their aid, history might repeat itself, such as when the Gauls held Hannibal's front until the cavalry returned to smash into the Roman rear at Cannae. |
But that assumes the Norman cavalry went somewhere else while the legions engaged the Norman foot--not sure why they'd do that. The Romans could either trash the attacking Norman foot first, leaving the Norman cavalry unsupported, or trash the Norman cavalry if they attacked first, and finish off the infantry at their leisure. Of course, they might just be stuck holding out against repeated cavalry attacks on their hilltop, as Harold was, but they should at least be able to do that as well as he did or better. In that case, as Antonio pointed out, the Romans win.
I said previously that the first task of the Norman cavalry was to get rid of the Roman horse. If the Roman horse took on the Norman horse, they would lose. Period. Then the Norman horse would return and regroup to deal with the Roman foot IF they could (Note that I am not, as you claim, selling the Romans short). This is where Generalship REALLY comes into play, and the outcome is simply unknowable. Duke William's cavalry would be in little danger from the Romans without their cavalry, since as I've said repeatedly, a man cannot outrun a horse. His infantry and archers would be. That would be the bait he would use to lure the Romans down, IF they fell for it. If the Romans stand still, they are probably safer, although a short sword is not going to be as effective against lances and long cleaving Norman swords coming down on them from above as they would be at ground level against footmen, which Duke William would be aware of I am sure.
| Quote: | | A bad general can lose when he has all the advantages, and a clever general can win against all the odds. Moral, logistics, loyalty and training all play a role as well, and also other unpredictable factors such as weather. Many battles have been won or lost simply because of rain, wind or snow. |
Very true!
Yep.
| Quote: | | In the end however, I will put my money on the most mobile force, with the ability to attack or withdraw at will. |
That would be the Romans. They are sitting on the only road out of the area, and Senlac Hill narrows to a ridge just behind the battle line. Saxon rearguard actions at that place cost the Normans some casualties AFTER the Saxon army had been defeated and was retreating. That's a broken and completely disorganized force. The Romans were masters of organization, and could have held that chokepoint for quite a while, even after substantial losses. It would be child's play for the Roman general to peel off centuries or cohorts and send them down the road in a very orderly retreat. Once on the road, they could move twice as fast as most medieval armies (that's in regular marching order, with baggage, etc.). Plus, if this scenario allows them their usual baggage train, they would probably have a fortified camp built even before the battle starts--they would simply retreat to that and defend the ramparts, completely negating the Norman cavalry.
Once again, Generalship will be what decides things. A good Roman General could withdraw in good order to a fortified camp, but that's hardly a victory, and few would think so. And it would depend on what shape the Roman army was in at this point. The Legionaries rarely lost their courage, but when they did, or when they could not form into their familiar formations, they could be cut down like sheep, like at Lake Trasimeno when individual units were surrounded and cut down in the fog while they tried to figure out what to do, or at Teutoburg forest, where once again they were lured into an impossible situation. But let's assume that they were able to retire in good order. They would still be an infantry army besieged by a strong cavalry force, and that would make foraging parties a very risky business, since as I say again, a man cannot outrun a horse, especially if they are carrying supplies back to their camp. Now if the Romans are expecting reinforcements and supplies, well then that's different. But to be fair you would have to allow the same for Duke William.
Let's be honest here-this is all just meaningless speculation, and anyone can create any scenario they like to make sure their side wins. You could claim that five Roman Legions are just over the hill, loaded with supplies, giant cave trolls, and 105 mm cannon. I could say that William was unloading 10,000 cavalry and 50 fire-breathing, whip-snapping Balrogs from a supply fleet as we speak. But that's hardly fair. Let's assume that neither side can expect any support.
| Quote: | | Even if all the Norman infantry and archers were lost, the cavalry arm was what really mattered, and properly managed, would easily escape the trudging legionnairies. Continental commanders cared little for their infantry, always concentrating on increasing the numbers of their horse. By this time the day of infantry armies slugging it out over shield walls was waning, and the heavy horse would rule the fields of Europe, at least for a time. |
But medieval armies always had far more infantry than cavalry! Any cavalry lacking a solid infantry force to support them was toast. While Hastings was the defeat of the last major all-infantry army of that time, the Normans and plenty of other people fought dismounted on many occasions after that. There may have been medieval battles in which cavalry did all the fighting, but I doubt you can find any in which there was no infantry on one or both sides. Infantry was not held as prestigious by nobility, of course, but few of them were arrogant enough to ignore it!
Of course they always had more infantry than cavalry. Lots more. When did I ever say they didn't? I am simply saying that medieval commanders spent all their time trying to increase the numbers of their iron knights, and they were always in smaller numbers than the footmen, for obvious reasons. A well supplied, well trained knight was a lot harder to come by and maintain than a common soldier armed with a wooden shield and spear, and maybe a helmet.They made up the bulk of cannon fodder for most armies before and since up to the present day.
Not sure how much more I can argue about this, some of the opinions seem a little dogmatic. In my own defense, I was a Hastings-era reenactor long before I started doing Roman stuff. I've stood in a shield wall at the top of a hill while mounted Normans charged up at us--including my wife!--and it was pretty darned impressive. I fully agree that I'd rather have a bazooka than a short sword while attacking mounted knights! But I think being an armored professional killer with daily weapons training in a highly organized and well-controlled army is worth even more than spears and big axes. I just don't see how the Normans could beat a Roman army when they darn near didn't beat a Saxon one. Even if the Norman cavalry was wildly superior, after all, the Saxons had no cavalry whatsoever! So inferior cavalry can't be so much of a disadvantage that the Normans could win.
Well. I don't wish to either, but I felt that there were some assumptions being made here that I wished to respond to. And I respect your position. But this particular scenario is like matching up martians and pirates. They are entirely different armies from entirely different epochs, and it is simply unsolvable. I maintain that Generalship would win the day. But who? We may assume that Duke William is commanding the Normans. What do we know about him? He was intelligent, brave and ruthless. A very competent commander at least. He was able to inspire men in various ways, such as his ability to leap unassisted onto his horse's back fully armored (no mean feat if anyone thinks this is trivial), and he leads from the front, having three horses killed beneath him at Hastings. He is alleged to have personally killed Gyrth, one of King Harold's brothers, and was in the thick of it splitting skulls with his men, showing himself to be taking the same risks they did, which mattered a lot back then. He was known as a man who rewarded those who followed him, and was able to draw a large following based on his reputation. My heart races at the thought of following such a leader, and I don't doubt that most of his warriors felt that way too. I had an ancestor there among the Bretons myself. So I'm told, anyway.
Now for the Romans. There is no General put forward, but let's name a few candidates. Julius Caesar? Absolutely. A good commander, but mostly against undisciplined barbarians. Valens? God Forbid. Marius? A good blood-and- guts General. I like him. Flaminius? Competent but too rash. Fabius "The Delayer"? Not real flashy, but he would be sure to keep his troops safe on the hill away from the cavalry, so I consider him a safe choice at least. Marcellus? A brave but impetuous and cruel General who died needlessly. Scipio Africanus? Sure. He was innovative, and his men (some of them leftovers form Cannae that he sort of adopted) were his devoted dogs.
If the Romans held their position, with a good General behind them, they could probably at least expect a draw, or a victory if Duke William really screwed up. But if they made a mistake that Duke William could exploit, they would probably be in trouble. Just my opinion. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben P.
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Jan, 2009 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: | | at best), the Norman cavalry would have quickly eaten their lunch and driven them from the field. |
A lot of incorrect assumptions here, which I will try to answer one by one.
The Normans were formidable iron-clad knights who ranged all over Europe, down into Italy, Sicily. and the Holy land, creating their own kingdoms as they went that lasted for quite a while. They were professional warriors who knew their business, and were ruthless and effective conquerors, and would certainly match anything the Romans fielded in the way of cavalry. Remember, originally the Roman "knights" were made up largely of patrician's sons, and the idea that they could withstand the Norman cavalry is pretty far-fetched. So we're also talking about WHICH Roman cavalry. Auxiliaries may perform better, but would still be outmatched and outnumbered, bsed on the number of cavalry with the average Legion. I think it is only reasonable to assume that the Normans would spank the Roman cavalry if given the chance.
The norman cavlary isn't any heavier than the romans and they would be charging uphill whereas the roman are going downhill also roman cavalry of the republic was good at a charge
| Quote: | | If the Romans stood on the defense (their only real option against cavalry) the initiative is with the Normans. IF the Roman could be drawn out of their strong position, they could be flanked by the Norman cavalry, while the Norman infantry held the front long enough for the cavalry to break the Roman's ranks, preferably in a flanking or rear attack. |
| Quote: | | This worked over and over for Hannibal, where his cavalry almost always delivered the coup de grace. This was the case at the Trebia, Lake Trasimeno, Cannae, and probably many other incidents. Most of the time when the Romans went up against heavy cavalry they got the worst of it. Adrianople and Carrhae are two other examples where they were virtually annihilated by cavalry. |
What about the battles that Artorius fought? or against the Parthians?
the romans beat the parthians plenty of times and cataphract is much more dangerous than a norman knight
I said previously that the first task of the Norman cavalry was to get rid of the Roman horse. If the Roman horse took on the Norman horse, they would lose. Period. Then the Norman horse would return and regroup to deal with the Roman foot IF they could (Note that I am not, as you claim, selling the Romans short). This is where Generalship REALLY comes into play, and the outcome is simply unknowable. Duke William's cavalry would be in little danger from the Romans without their cavalry, since as I've said repeatedly, a man cannot outrun a horse. His infantry and archers would be. That would be the bait he would use to lure the Romans down, IF they fell for it. If the Romans stand still, they are probably safer, although a short sword is not going to be as effective against lances and long cleaving Norman swords coming down on them from above as they would be at ground level against footmen, which Duke William would be aware of I am sure.
Well. I don't wish to either, but I felt that there were some assumptions being made here that I wished to respond to. And I respect your position. But this particular scenario is like matching up martians and pirates. They are entirely different armies from entirely different epochs, and it is simply unsolvable. I maintain that Generalship would win the day. But who? We may assume that Duke William is commanding the Normans. What do we know about him? He was intelligent, brave and ruthless. A very competent commander at least. He was able to inspire men in various ways, such as his ability to leap unassisted onto his horse's back fully armored (no mean feat if anyone thinks this is trivial), and he leads from the front, having three horses killed beneath him at Hastings. He is alleged to have personally killed Gyrth, one of King Harold's brothers, and was in the thick of it splitting skulls with his men, showing himself to be taking the same risks they did, which mattered a lot back then. He was known as a man who rewarded those who followed him, and was able to draw a large following based on his reputation. My heart races at the thought of following such a leader, and I don't doubt that most of his warriors felt that way too. I had an ancestor there among the Bretons myself. So I'm told, anyway.
Now for the Romans. There is no General put forward, but let's name a few candidates. Julius Caesar? Absolutely. A good commander, but mostly against undisciplined barbarians. Valens? God Forbid. Marius? A good blood-and- guts General. I like him. Flaminius? Competent but too rash. Fabius "The Delayer"? Not real flashy, but he would be sure to keep his troops safe on the hill away from the cavalry, so I consider him a safe choice at least. Marcellus? A brave but impetuous and cruel General who died needlessly. Scipio Africanus? Sure. He was innovative, and his men (some of them leftovers form Cannae that he sort of adopted) were his devoted dogs.
If the Romans held their position, with a good General behind them, they could probably at least expect a draw, or a victory if Duke William really screwed up. But if they made a mistake that Duke William could exploit, they would probably be in trouble. Just my opinion. You pays your money and you takes your choice.[/quote]
Titus? Arrian? Castus? Belisarius? (He shot an armored Goth through the chest with a bow He would be ridicoulusly strong just to draw the bow) Why is everyone ingnoring the roman advantages I pointed out? Also when you lead from the front it makes it hard to give orders and you can't see whats going on around you which is the Roman generals except on occasion and with the exception of a few didn't do that also a roman would have to undergo a brutal training program fuedal levies are one thing but a professional killer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic