| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Wed 20 Jun, 2012 6:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | When was sending light infantry against archers ever a successful tactic? Unarmored or lightly armored troops without bows or crossbows of their own tended to perform miserably against archers in British Isles, while heavily armored infantry often closed despite the hail of arrows. |
First I think we have to define what is light and heavy infantry.
In the tactical definition, light infantry is that which will fight in a looser or open formation, while heavy infantry is close formation. Light infantry could be mail shirt wearing javelineers - heavy could be Hoplites with no armour other than a helm and a large shield.
Armour is a seperate issue. More often heavy infantry wears heavier armour - but this is not always the case.
I look at light/heavy infantry based on their tactical function - not their armour or lack of.
For example, from what we know Alexander's Hypaspists guarded the flanks of the pikemen. We know they were considered an elite unit, though we know little of their armnament. But these were possibly light infantry, or capable of functioning as such. They were likley not pike armed.
The type of bowman matter as well - are they skirmishers, also in a loose formation? Or Massed bowmen?
A loose formation, while you cannot bear as many men in melee is actually good against missile fire, as the lack of density reduces casualties, particularily at range when clout type shooting is used.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun, 2012 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yuri Serebemnick wrote: | | New situation: All the animals are "intelligent" and will never serve humans. How does that change things? |
Sounds like a problem. Convince them otherwise? Failing that, enslavement or annihilation. Wouldn't want them going feral now.
Assuming we are talking "intelligent" as in centaurs and stuff rather then dolphins....
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yuri Serebemnick
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun, 2012 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Gordon Campbell wrote: | | Yuri Serebemnick wrote: | | New situation: All the animals are "intelligent" and will never serve humans. How does that change things? |
Sounds like a problem. Convince them otherwise? Failing that, enslavement or annihilation. Wouldn't want them going feral now.
Assuming we are talking "intelligent" as in centaurs and stuff rather then dolphins.... |
Intelligent like ourselves but not with the need to make kingdoms and such. More like they know how humans are, they simply live like they normally do, but are not ignorants of human behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun, 2012 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yuri Serebemnick wrote: | | Sam Gordon Campbell wrote: | | Yuri Serebemnick wrote: | | New situation: All the animals are "intelligent" and will never serve humans. How does that change things? |
Sounds like a problem. Convince them otherwise? Failing that, enslavement or annihilation. Wouldn't want them going feral now.
Assuming we are talking "intelligent" as in centaurs and stuff rather then dolphins.... |
Intelligent like ourselves but not with the need to make kingdoms and such. More like they know how humans are, they simply live like they normally do, but are not ignorants of human behavior. |
Well basically 4 legged " humans " with no hands and no technology and without a political organized structure(s).
Also, all animals   : Well maybe the horses and cows and dog, cat, birds etc .... being at least as smart as 10 year old humans and probably capable of at least understanding human languages if not speak/communicate back to us at a basic level of yes, no " I don't want to ". ( Have their own language(s), sounds or signing that we can understand even if they can't speak in a human voice ).
I'm assuming that the smaller and more primitive animals wouldn't be that smart. 
Sort of unfortunate and cruel if the cows you are going to be eating understand their fate controlling them would be a lot more difficult or preventing them from escaping. ( Well they do say that pigs are smart enough to be scared when they get to the slaughter house ! I have some sympathy for them but I still eat ham and am not a vegetarian ).
So is this new " situation " meant to still be analyzed in how it would change warfare or the even wider implications of animals organizing active resistance and be very hostile to humans ..... or at least unarmed humans. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Kolick
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun, 2012 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
by intelegent i hope you meen we just cant get them to help in warfare because it would be almost imposible to feed a large army because you have no access to a reliable source of meat. that aside ships whould become an even more important and it would also limit the range of a campaign an army could only go mabye a few days away from there ships or be cut off from their only reliabe source of suplies so regardless of what types of troups you use the best army in this case would be the one with the strongest navy and a good infantry a great example of this is the greco-persian wars where persia was unable to maintain the invation because there navy was unable to supply them while the greek hoplites lead by the spartains destroyed the persians at plataea
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | When was sending light infantry against archers ever a successful tactic? Unarmored or lightly armored troops without bows or crossbows of their own tended to perform miserably against archers in British Isles, while heavily armored infantry often closed despite the hail of arrows. |
First I think we have to define what is light and heavy infantry.
In the tactical definition, light infantry is that which will fight in a looser or open formation, while heavy infantry is close formation. Light infantry could be mail shirt wearing javelineers - heavy could be Hoplites with no armour other than a helm and a large shield.
Armour is a seperate issue. More often heavy infantry wears heavier armour - but this is not always the case.
I look at light/heavy infantry based on their tactical function - not their armour or lack of.
For example, from what we know Alexander's Hypaspists guarded the flanks of the pikemen. We know they were considered an elite unit, though we know little of their armnament. But these were possibly light infantry, or capable of functioning as such. They were likley not pike armed.
The type of bowman matter as well - are they skirmishers, also in a loose formation? Or Massed bowmen?
A loose formation, while you cannot bear as many men in melee is actually good against missile fire, as the lack of density reduces casualties, particularily at range when clout type shooting is used. |
also in the gunpowder era a major reason for keeping musketeers in compact formations was partly to stop cavalry. and also as a means of training troops quickly to just be really quick reloaders.
and one issue for he deployment of skirmishers was cavalry since heir range and accuracy could count for naught due to being caught in the open. and unlike heavy infantry in formation you cant just keep out of range of cavalry since their speed will cause you to be ridden down
it was also the entire reason for square formations
it should also be noted that alot of developments in tactical formations came about due to the fact that cavalry were a big problem, that light formaions cant stand agains a mounted lance charge and the fact hat cavalry can rapidly hook around your rear, although light infantry can do the same.
and one thing to note is that pike armed light infanry doesnt mean no polearms, byzantine menavlion bearers used thickly hafted hewing spears with foot long blades, these were a heavier skirmishers, (byzantine formaions had both light peltest skirmishers and heavier skirmishing menavlion bearers)
you coulkd make comparisons with the hypaspists
i also think mesoamerican/ incan/ east coast american indian like the iroquois federation, all three fought against walled settlements, and none using mourned troops as far as i know, the east coast soldiers were very good raiders in paticular wheras the azecs had a very good modelled system,
also case in point, the incas and aztecs showed only basic or no draught animals showcses how much wok ou can get done.
i.e maccu piccu and the aztec pyramids, not to mention the entire aztec capital.
|
|
 |
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Jun, 2012 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
When it comes to charging a group of archers, speed is very important. Horses can gallop at about 50 miles per hour, where a real fast (practically naked) person can run 20 mph. My rough calculation gives the archer 2.5 times more time to shoot arrows at a foot soldier.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Jun, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fastest horses, quarter horses, can run up to 42 mph. Most combat horses would probably be moving at 30's, not 50
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Jun, 2012 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
but a horse can carry a man wih lots of armour, so that when that man dismounts either by choice or by force, hes not tired out by having to run 100 metres in order to charge archers...
while we know plate or maile armour isnt overtly encumbering until the later eras, running at full speed in it will tire you out more than a man without heavy armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Jun, 2012 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
most sources only list top speeds, and to be honest I didn't look that hard. I think though it is obvious that infantry make much poorer shock troops than cavalry. That's why I think it would perhaps be better to advance slowly in an well protected formation. Especially, taking into account what William said; charging infantry will be more tired when reaching the enemy line. Typically heavy cavalry will have the advantage in the melee(over archers), but I don't think this would extend to infantry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Jun, 2012 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
If horses run at top speed a cavalry unit has no formation. That is most unsuitable if you face infantry, a cavalry charge usually homes at a canter. Humans can run at high speed while keeping more formation - humans are smarter, leading to special light infantry types like the Bersaglieri to compensate for cavalry. Jean is right about body types of humans with suitable roles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bersaglieri
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Jun, 2012 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | When it comes to charging a group of archers, speed is very important. Horses can gallop at about 50 miles per hour, where a real fast (practically naked) person can run 20 mph. My rough calculation gives the archer 2.5 times more time to shoot arrows at a foot soldier. |
| Quote: | | The fastest horses, quarter horses, can run up to 42 mph. Most combat horses would probably be moving at 30's, not 50 |
And movies notwithstanding, we don't really know what happen at the exact point of impactbetween cavalry and infantry. Some have even suggested that lance armed cavarly merely advanced at a walk to an infantry formation, and pressed their opponents, like a combination of infantry pikemen and the police use of cavalry in a riot squad.
The density of formation and training in moving in such a formation has much to due with how fast a unit moves on a battle field, not it's top speed.
From waht I have read, the concensus seems to be heavy cavalry advanced at not much faster than a walk, a trot at best until maybe 50-100 yards from the opposing formation, where they may break into a canter at best, very doubtfully a gallop. Routing speed is another matter 
You don't want to break up your formation prior to impact, it lessens the effect of the impact. And the longer you move at a rapid pace, the more broken up the formation gets.
With infantry, a loose formation can move faster and for longer periods of time, as the formation is not tight to begin with.
The last thing you want to do when fight enemy cavalry in particular is be loose or out of formation when contact occurs - like the Saxons that pursued from the shield wall at Hastings.
So light infantry functioning as true light infantry will move faster, and be looser in formation.
Pike armed infantry are always "heavy", meaning a tight formation and slow moving. If they lose formation they have all sorts of problems, and losing formation after pursuing the enemy, sometimes over rougher ground was what usually defeated Hellenic Pikemen when fighting romans - they would rarely lose the initial clash, but struggled when losing formation when pursuing.
But you can have a loose formation of infantry wearing say mail shirts - and they could move faster than unarmoured pikemen.
Large shields also seem a hindrance to movement speed, and the faster moving units tend to have smaller shields. Makes sense I guess, not that the shield is to heavy to move fast, but it can be encumering if moving at a rapid pace (interfering with the legs). I gues you could raise it over head and move much more freely, but then you are negating the defensive abilities of the shield vs missile fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Jun, 2012 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | From waht I have read, the concensus seems to be heavy cavalry advanced at not much faster than a walk, a trot at best until maybe 50-100 yards from the opposing formation, where they may break into a canter at best, very doubtfully a gallop. |
If I recall correctly, Sir John Smythe recommended a burst of speed at the last moment for men-at-arms resisting others of their kind, possibility reaching a gallop.
| Quote: | | So light infantry functioning as true light infantry will move faster, and be looser in formation. |
Given various period sources that stress the speed a cavalry charge ranging from Europe to Asia, I'm skeptical that infantry could effectively charge faster.
| Quote: | | Pike armed infantry are always "heavy", meaning a tight formation and slow moving. |
Yet the Swiss maintained a reputation for swiftness, combining good order with a rapid advance.
I'm a bit unclear on the subject of light infantry and loose for troops without ranged weapons. When did this sort of thing happen in the European context? The only example that comes to mind are the soldiers with targets or polearms mixed among the shot on the sixteenth century battlefield. They appear to have engaged opposing shot and similarly armed defenders in open order. The artistic depictions of this style of combat indeed appear chaotic.
However, for deciding battles, tight formations seem to prevail regardless of the presence of horses. Bernal Diaz repeatedly described fighting shoulder to shoulder beside other Spaniards armed with sword and target in the so-called New World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Jun, 2012 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That also being said if your i armour and advancing on an enemy archer, it seems that keeping a slow methodical pace worked anyway.
as far as i know it happened at agincourt, they didnt run a the english and contrary to the opinion of many MANY history books, the roman era barbarian 'celts' didnt simply charge wildly at the first enemy they saw, instead apparenly advancing in tight shield walls.
also the hoplites a marahon attacked the persian lines at a steady jogging pace
since you still need to close with the archers as fast as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Jun, 2012 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. To get back on topic, what is the best way for infantry to deal with archers? and what would shock troops on foot look like?
I imagine that if one were to take the classical formation of heavy infantry in the middle and cavalry on the wings, and replace the cavalry with foot troops, those troops would be lightly armored with a small shield and one handed weapons, and perhaps javelins or one handed missiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Kolick
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Jun, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
i keep seeing this going back to lightly armord fast moving shock troops to deal with archers and would viking bersekers meet this description? the sorces ive read and heard of realy dont mention any form of armor than bear or wolf pelts and they where definitly shock troops
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Jun, 2012 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | To get back on topic, what is the best way for infantry to deal with archers? |
Armor and shields, with the shields optional in the case of decent plate armor.
| Quote: | | and what would shock troops on foot look like? |
Defined broadly, pikemen, halberdiers, and/or targetiers strike me as the most likely. As mentioned, I consider the 15th-century British Isles as reasonable guide because of that period's emphasis on dismounted troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Jun, 2012 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. To get back on topic, what is the best way for infantry to deal with archers? and what would shock troops on foot look like?
I imagine that if one were to take the classical formation of heavy infantry in the middle and cavalry on the wings, and replace the cavalry with foot troops, those troops would be lightly armored with a small shield and one handed weapons, and perhaps javelins or one handed missiles. |
Shock:
http://clio.missouristate.edu/chuchiak/Aztec%20Warriors.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...plites.jpg
http://britishbattles.homestead.com/files/asi...fantry.gif
On the flanks you have the unarmoured guys who try at utmost to avoid close combat and have some ranged weapons in order to feel useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yuri Serebemnick
|
| Posted: Mon 25 Jun, 2012 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Very good ideas here, gentlemen, keep then coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 25 Jun, 2012 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote:
| Quote: | | So light infantry functioning as true light infantry will move faster, and be looser in formation. |
Benjamin Abbot wrote:
| Quote: | | Given various period sources that stress the speed a cavalry charge ranging from Europe to Asia, I'm skeptical that infantry could effectively charge faster. |
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.
| Quote: | | i keep seeing this going back to lightly armord fast moving shock troops to deal with archers and would viking bersekers meet this description? the sorces ive read and heard of realy dont mention any form of armor than bear or wolf pelts and they where definitly shock troops |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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