| Author |
Message |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
 Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2015 4:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Those plates of Mohács 1526 do intriguingly show plate-armored Hungarian cavalry engaging with Ottoman medium and light cavalry. Are there any accounts of this encounter? While the posted images generally look realistic, the couple examples of sabers cleaving plate armor seem exaggerated. As I understand it Ottoman muskets and artillery were key to their victory, though this wouldn't necessarily be emphasized by the folks depicting the battle.
It's also my understanding, based on works such as Godfrey Goodwin's The Janissaries and Geza Perjes's scholarship, that Ottoman armies adopted something along the lines of Sir John Smythe's advice for light cavalry confronting lancers: refuse to fight on the enemy's terms, let them charge into air and wear themselves out, etc. I don't recall any specific primary accounts of these encounters, however.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Thu 24 Sep, 2015 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Armours such as this certainly seem to be the Ottoman response to European plate, but I think that relatively flat cuirass is far from optimal, offers poor deflection surfaces, and the plates, connected by mail, would have a lot more give. It would take a lance strike a lot better than mail, though! There are these, too, with many small lames down the front. ... And once again the photos are reversed in sequence.
 Attachment: 76.6 KB
Attachment: 244.75 KB
[ Download ]
jamesarlen.com
|
|
 |
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2015 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and as regards the illuminations... I especially like the one at the bottom with a fellow in full plate that has been decapitated.  I think the accuracy with which the equipment is portrayed is clue enough as to their accuracy over all.
jamesarlen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2015 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not like the Europeans don't show it too.
Attachment: 118.4 KB
SBB Ms. germ. fol. 1416, fo.327r
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samuel Bena
Location: Slovakia Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2015 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sancar O. wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Are there any direct accords of European cavalry equipped with lance rests encountering Ottoman or other similar cavalry wearing mail-and-plate or mail alone and wielding lances without rests? Bertrandon de la Broquière seemed to think Turkish cavalry - which he described as armored in mail - would be at a disadvantage against Western European heavy cavalry if the Europeans stayed in good order. |
One of many examples of such a scenario is Battle of Mohacs(1526) where Ottoman army annihilated a whole army of full plate armoured Hungarian knights by using a combination of very fluid cavalry tactics by akinci;(light cavalry) and sipahi(medium cavalry) cavalry, a well disciplined regular infantry that uses muskets(janisseries) and state-of-the art artillery.
|
I don't think Mohacs is a good example. The assertion that Ottoman army annihilated a whole army of full plate armored Hungarian knights is imo a gross overstatement. The bulk of the Hungarian horsemen at the battle were technologically comparable to their Ottoman opponents. There were elite units of men at arms present, but these were in minority and according to period observers were qualitatively not on par with Western men-at-arms.
For the Hungarian army composition see the article by Hungarian scholar Janos B Szabo
https://www.academia.edu/4142306/LE_CAMP_DE_LOUIS_II_ROI_DE_HONGRIE_LARM%C3%89E_DU_ROYAUME_HONGROIS_EN_1526_THE_ARMY_OF_HUNGARIAN_KINGDOM_BEFORE_THE_BATTLE_OF_MOH%C3%81CS_IN_1526_
Best,
Sam
|
|
 |
|
|
Sancar O.
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2015 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even though artillery and musket brigades of Ottoman army in 1526 was clearly superior to Europeans; actually fluid battle formations and rapid movement of the Ottoman light and medium cavalry was the real decisive factor in the victory. Here are two battle plans that shows the strategy used by Ottoman army in the battle:
This tactic is a variation of a battla stategy used by Turks and other Central Asian nomadic cavalry armies, known as "the wolf trap", "goose's wings", "The crescent tactic" or the "Turanian tactic":
Turks used this tactic succesfully against heavily armoured lancer cavalry formations of Europe from Manzikert(1071) all the way to gates of Vienna.
About the paintings: both painters Nakkaş Osman and Nakkaş Hasan, and the writer of the book "Süleymanname" Matrakçı Nasuh were trainde as soldiers in the Enderun school (Nasuh was the most famous swordsman of his time, and the swordmaster in the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrak%C3%A7%C4%B1_Nasuh). They were present at the battlefield, and even fought in the battle themselves.They knew the equipment and weapons used in battle and saw those skirmishes. Those pictures can be viewed as witness accounts of the battle.
There are a number of detailed accounts; as well as miniatures of single combat between Hungarian knights and Ottoman "akıncı" light cavalry in Suleymanname, most famous being the one between Deli Sinan bey(the figure with the fox fur hat with eagle wings and the leopard skin coat) and the Hungarian knight Eugene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sancar O.
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2015 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Samuel Bena wrote: |
I don't think Mohacs is a good example. The assertion that Ottoman army annihilated a whole army of full plate armored Hungarian knights is imo a gross overstatement.... |
With all though respect, the battle itself only lasted 3-5 hours and 14.000 Hungarian soldeirs were killed, along with more than 1.000 nobles and the Hungarian king Lajos II himself. Though Hungarians fought very bravely and fiercely, (which is also emphasized by contemporary Ottoman historians) the end result was a total massacre for the Hungarian side. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samuel Bena
Location: Slovakia Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2015 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sancar O. wrote: |
With all though respect, the battle itself only lasted 3-5 hours and 14.000 Hungarian soldeirs were killed, along with more than 1.000 nobles and the Hungarian king Lajos II himself. Though Hungarians fought very bravely and fiercely, (which is also emphasized by contemporary Ottoman historians) the end result was a total massacre for the Hungarian side. |
To avoid misunderstanding I was commenting and disagreeing with the observation you made regarding the composition of the Hungarian army
Based on the contemporary research it is highly improbable that the Hungarians furnished "a whole army of full plate armored Hungarian knights" at Mohacs. Anyway thanks for your additional comments.
Best,
Sam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2015 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | It's not like the Europeans don't show it too. |
'Tis but a scratch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Kelly
|
| Posted: Sat 26 Sep, 2015 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Vincent F. wrote: | Hi everybody, reading some article about medieval warfare i found out that in a battle the military technology used by the armies involved in it was far less important than the tactical ability of the commander.
Is it true?
I'm intersted especially in differences between different kind of armor used in war, is it possible that an army of soldiers equipped with only chainmail (like european soldiers during XI and XII century) against an army equipped with plate armor could win a battle with a proportional number of soldier on each side (i assume that chainmail itself is a worse armor than the plate one)? |
Let's put it this way, I would put the Roman army led by Caesar up against any Medieval army... Equipment matters. Generalship matters. But the dicipline the Legions were famous for would make them a problem for any military force before the gunpowder age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Henrikson
Location: Alaska Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Oct, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I was wondering about this comparison recently. All I've learned about genuine, high-quality period mail tells me that it's a lot tougher than many believe it to be. Sword strikes and thrusts are mostly useless. Finer-tipped swords with stiff spines can't really make much headway against quality riveted links. They bunch up around the tip. It strikes me that the main reason for harness was really to help deflect the force of weapons that kept getting more powerful. From longbows and crossbows to pole arms. Chain won't help against murder blows, but plate can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Oct, 2015 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Michael Kelly wrote: | | Vincent F. wrote: | Hi everybody, reading some article about medieval warfare i found out that in a battle the military technology used by the armies involved in it was far less important than the tactical ability of the commander.
Is it true?
I'm intersted especially in differences between different kind of armor used in war, is it possible that an army of soldiers equipped with only chainmail (like european soldiers during XI and XII century) against an army equipped with plate armor could win a battle with a proportional number of soldier on each side (i assume that chainmail itself is a worse armor than the plate one)? |
Let's put it this way, I would put the Roman army led by Caesar up against any Medieval army... Equipment matters. Generalship matters. But the dicipline the Legions were famous for would make them a problem for any military force before the gunpowder age. |
But the lack of discpline and genralship of Medieval armies have greatly exaggerated. Also, if we look at Roman military hisotry, such as the Battle of Carrhae, battle of Teutonberg forest, and Battle of Adrianople that Roman legionaries in general didn't really handle Heavy and light cavalry well. http://deremilitari.org/2013/06/the-myths-of-medieval-warfare/ Also, firearms were experimented during the Medieval period. I think the only definitive thing that a person could say about Medieval Armies compared to the Armies of Ancient Rome is that the Empire had a much easier raising, equiping and fielding larger numbers of men and could wear down opponent if they failed to out wit them.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Oct, 2015 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Henrikson wrote: | | I was wondering about this comparison recently. All I've learned about genuine, high-quality period mail tells me that it's a lot tougher than many believe it to be. Sword strikes and thrusts are mostly useless. Finer-tipped swords with stiff spines can't really make much headway against quality riveted links. They bunch up around the tip. It strikes me that the main reason for harness was really to help deflect the force of weapons that kept getting more powerful. From longbows and crossbows to pole arms. Chain won't help against murder blows, but plate can. |
The high quaity of Ottoman mail is not often revealed by the available images. Recently I have been working on a new Pinterest page which will contain all available Indo-Persian armors with images from the Met Museum collection. Here is a good example of the excellent type of armor that was hidden beneath the robes worn by Ottoman warriors. Alternating rows of heavy riveted and solid mail with thick steel plates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Kelly
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Oct, 2015 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Michael Kelly wrote: | | Vincent F. wrote: | Hi everybody, reading some article about medieval warfare i found out that in a battle the military technology used by the armies involved in it was far less important than the tactical ability of the commander.
Is it true?
I'm intersted especially in differences between different kind of armor used in war, is it possible that an army of soldiers equipped with only chainmail (like european soldiers during XI and XII century) against an army equipped with plate armor could win a battle with a proportional number of soldier on each side (i assume that chainmail itself is a worse armor than the plate one)? |
Let's put it this way, I would put the Roman army led by Caesar up against any Medieval army... Equipment matters. Generalship matters. But the dicipline the Legions were famous for would make them a problem for any military force before the gunpowder age. |
But the lack of discpline and genralship of Medieval armies have greatly exaggerated. Also, if we look at Roman military hisotry, such as the Battle of Carrhae, battle of Teutonberg forest, and Battle of Adrianople that Roman legionaries in general didn't really handle Heavy and light cavalry well. http://deremilitari.org/2013/06/the-myths-of-medieval-warfare/ Also, firearms were experimented during the Medieval period. I think the only definitive thing that a person could say about Medieval Armies compared to the Armies of Ancient Rome is that the Empire had a much easier raising, equiping and fielding larger numbers of men and could wear down opponent if they failed to out wit them. |
My statement wasn't meant as an indictment of Medieval discipline or military leadership. I am far from an expert on Medieval military history, and would never presume to sat that the period lacked military leadership. I think Henry II of England and Charles Martel are ample proof of that. However I do have a strong background in Roman history and stand by my statement. The weapon and armor technology wasn't so different as to have made a huge difference, and no matter how disciplined a levied army, or paid mercenaries may be, I find it hard to believe they would have anywhere near the discipline the Legions were famous for. Couple that with the average Medieval army being around 10,000 men compared to Rome regularly fielding 40,000+ man armies and I think my statement holds true.
As for the individual battles you mentioned...
At Cannae the Romans were defeated by Hannibal who I consider the greatest field commander in history, no shame there. Anybody would have lost to him that day.
At Adrianople the Legions were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 and were led by the Emperor Valens who was hardly competent as a commander let alone a genius who could overcome such odds. Despite this the Romans still did quite well in the early stages of the battle.
Teutoburg was a defeat that never should have been. Publius Varus was defeated by a combination of treachery and unforgivable complacency. Still the battle is hardly an example of the weakness of Roman discipline.
Now that said, Rome did lose a great many battles. Some to better commanders, some to incompetency, but only at the very end did lack of discipline plays a role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Oct, 2015 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Michael Kelly wrote: | My statement wasn't meant as an indictment of Medieval discipline or military leadership. I am far from an expert on Medieval military history, and would never presume to sat that the period lacked military leadership. I think Henry II of England and Charles Martel are ample proof of that. However I do have a strong background in Roman history and stand by my statement. The weapon and armor technology wasn't so different as to have made a huge difference, and no matter how disciplined a levied army, or paid mercenaries may be, I find it hard to believe they would have anywhere near the discipline the Legions were famous for. Couple that with the average Medieval army being around 10,000 men compared to Rome regularly fielding 40,000+ man armies and I think my statement holds true.
As for the individual battles you mentioned...
At Cannae the Romans were defeated by Hannibal who I consider the greatest field commander in history, no shame there. Anybody would have lost to him that day.
At Adrianople the Legions were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 and were led by the Emperor Valens who was hardly competent as a commander let alone a genius who could overcome such odds. Despite this the Romans still did quite well in the early stages of the battle.
Teutoburg was a defeat that never should have been. Publius Varus was defeated by a combination of treachery and unforgivable complacency. Still the battle is hardly an example of the weakness of Roman discipline.
Now that said, Rome did lose a great many battles. Some to better commanders, some to incompetency, but only at the very end did lack of discipline plays a role. |
I think mindset and way of warfare would be the largest difference when comparing two of those armies. When looking at classical Rome we could say the drilled legionary infantry soldier formed the core element of the army. While the Romans conducted a fair number of impressive sieges it was hardly their modus operandi. This is highly contrasting with high and late medieval warfare, you list Henry II as a good military leader but realize he fought 0 field battles. His son Richard Lionheart scores only marginally higher with around 2 to 3 battles in his entire career. In roman times everything above the Rhine frontier was forest or rural land with perhaps a few urban centers, Gaul was conquered with a minimum amount of sieges. At the closing years of the late medieval period writers remark France and the Rhine region were the most heavily fortified areas of Europe.
Now on to something else entirely -
What is your definition of discipline? Marching in goosestep, neatly organizing a military camp or not fleeing/routing in combat? If it's the first two then I might have to agree with you, we know roman military manuals were read during the middle ages but we have scant evidence of how extensive these were applied. That said we do not have a lot of evidence for drilling of Carthaginian troops or viking sources which is not to say they were undisciplined.
If it's the latter than I am not entirely sure how we should compare it across history.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Oct, 2015 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of the whole Roman-discipline narrative after having read J. E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts. Lendon argues that successful Roman armies weren't necessarily better disciplined than their opponents, but that they balanced discipline with fearless aggression and tenacity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Kelly
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Oct, 2015 1:35 am Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Michael Kelly wrote: | My statement wasn't meant as an indictment of Medieval discipline or military leadership. I am far from an expert on Medieval military history, and would never presume to sat that the period lacked military leadership. I think Henry II of England and Charles Martel are ample proof of that. However I do have a strong background in Roman history and stand by my statement. The weapon and armor technology wasn't so different as to have made a huge difference, and no matter how disciplined a levied army, or paid mercenaries may be, I find it hard to believe they would have anywhere near the discipline the Legions were famous for. Couple that with the average Medieval army being around 10,000 men compared to Rome regularly fielding 40,000+ man armies and I think my statement holds true.
As for the individual battles you mentioned...
At Cannae the Romans were defeated by Hannibal who I consider the greatest field commander in history, no shame there. Anybody would have lost to him that day.
At Adrianople the Legions were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 and were led by the Emperor Valens who was hardly competent as a commander let alone a genius who could overcome such odds. Despite this the Romans still did quite well in the early stages of the battle.
Teutoburg was a defeat that never should have been. Publius Varus was defeated by a combination of treachery and unforgivable complacency. Still the battle is hardly an example of the weakness of Roman discipline.
Now that said, Rome did lose a great many battles. Some to better commanders, some to incompetency, but only at the very end did lack of discipline plays a role. |
I think mindset and way of warfare would be the largest difference when comparing two of those armies. When looking at classical Rome we could say the drilled legionary infantry soldier formed the core element of the army. While the Romans conducted a fair number of impressive sieges it was hardly their modus operandi. This is highly contrasting with high and late medieval warfare, you list Henry II as a good military leader but realize he fought 0 field battles. His son Richard Lionheart scores only marginally higher with around 2 to 3 battles in his entire career. In roman times everything above the Rhine frontier was forest or rural land with perhaps a few urban centers, Gaul was conquered with a minimum amount of sieges. At the closing years of the late medieval period writers remark France and the Rhine region were the most heavily fortified areas of Europe.
Now on to something else entirely -
What is your definition of discipline? Marching in goosestep, neatly organizing a military camp or not fleeing/routing in combat? If it's the first two then I might have to agree with you, we know roman military manuals were read during the middle ages but we have scant evidence of how extensive these were applied. That said we do not have a lot of evidence for drilling of Carthaginian troops or viking sources which is not to say they were undisciplined.
If it's the latter than I am not entirely sure how we should compare it across history. |
As I said, Medieval history isn't my focus (tho I've recently dipped my toe in) so I may be thinking of someone other than Henry II.
As for your question of my definition of discipline... I consider neither as being the definition of discipline. Certainly not the first example. And not fleeing/routing has more to do with mastering ones fear than anything else. An example of discipline would be holding formation when the enemy routs.
And Carthage didn't drill troops, they hired mercenaries. The exception was probably Hannibal who led a very disciplined army against Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Kelly
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Oct, 2015 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | I'm skeptical of the whole Roman-discipline narrative after having read J. E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts. Lendon argues that successful Roman armies weren't necessarily better disciplined than their opponents, but that they balanced discipline with fearless aggression and tenacity. |
Well considering that most armies of the period were professional militaries, there is probably some truth to that. However the aggression and tenacity probably had more to do with Roman cultural mindset that viewed every war as a war for their survival. It was either win or see Rome destroyed... That's why Rome kept coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Oct, 2015 7:59 am Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Michael Kelly wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Michael Kelly wrote: | My statement wasn't meant as an indictment of Medieval discipline or military leadership. I am far from an expert on Medieval military history, and would never presume to sat that the period lacked military leadership. I think Henry II of England and Charles Martel are ample proof of that. However I do have a strong background in Roman history and stand by my statement. The weapon and armor technology wasn't so different as to have made a huge difference, and no matter how disciplined a levied army, or paid mercenaries may be, I find it hard to believe they would have anywhere near the discipline the Legions were famous for. Couple that with the average Medieval army being around 10,000 men compared to Rome regularly fielding 40,000+ man armies and I think my statement holds true.
As for the individual battles you mentioned...
At Cannae the Romans were defeated by Hannibal who I consider the greatest field commander in history, no shame there. Anybody would have lost to him that day.
At Adrianople the Legions were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 and were led by the Emperor Valens who was hardly competent as a commander let alone a genius who could overcome such odds. Despite this the Romans still did quite well in the early stages of the battle.
Teutoburg was a defeat that never should have been. Publius Varus was defeated by a combination of treachery and unforgivable complacency. Still the battle is hardly an example of the weakness of Roman discipline.
Now that said, Rome did lose a great many battles. Some to better commanders, some to incompetency, but only at the very end did lack of discipline plays a role. |
I think mindset and way of warfare would be the largest difference when comparing two of those armies. When looking at classical Rome we could say the drilled legionary infantry soldier formed the core element of the army. While the Romans conducted a fair number of impressive sieges it was hardly their modus operandi. This is highly contrasting with high and late medieval warfare, you list Henry II as a good military leader but realize he fought 0 field battles. His son Richard Lionheart scores only marginally higher with around 2 to 3 battles in his entire career. In roman times everything above the Rhine frontier was forest or rural land with perhaps a few urban centers, Gaul was conquered with a minimum amount of sieges. At the closing years of the late medieval period writers remark France and the Rhine region were the most heavily fortified areas of Europe.
Now on to something else entirely -
What is your definition of discipline? Marching in goosestep, neatly organizing a military camp or not fleeing/routing in combat? If it's the first two then I might have to agree with you, we know roman military manuals were read during the middle ages but we have scant evidence of how extensive these were applied. That said we do not have a lot of evidence for drilling of Carthaginian troops or viking sources which is not to say they were undisciplined.
If it's the latter than I am not entirely sure how we should compare it across history. |
As I said, Medieval history isn't my focus (tho I've recently dipped my toe in) so I may be thinking of someone other than Henry II.
As for your question of my definition of discipline... I consider neither as being the definition of discipline. Certainly not the first example. And not fleeing/routing has more to do with mastering ones fear than anything else. An example of discipline would be holding formation when the enemy routs.
And Carthage didn't drill troops, they hired mercenaries. The exception was probably Hannibal who led a very disciplined army against Rome. |
I said Carhaee, where a numerically superior Roman force was surrounded and almost completely annihilated by Persian Heavy cavalry and horse archers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Kelly
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Oct, 2015 9:34 am Post subject: Re: Chainmail vs Plate Armor |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Michael Kelly wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Michael Kelly wrote: | My statement wasn't meant as an indictment of Medieval discipline or military leadership. I am far from an expert on Medieval military history, and would never presume to sat that the period lacked military leadership. I think Henry II of England and Charles Martel are ample proof of that. However I do have a strong background in Roman history and stand by my statement. The weapon and armor technology wasn't so different as to have made a huge difference, and no matter how disciplined a levied army, or paid mercenaries may be, I find it hard to believe they would have anywhere near the discipline the Legions were famous for. Couple that with the average Medieval army being around 10,000 men compared to Rome regularly fielding 40,000+ man armies and I think my statement holds true.
As for the individual battles you mentioned...
At Cannae the Romans were defeated by Hannibal who I consider the greatest field commander in history, no shame there. Anybody would have lost to him that day.
At Adrianople the Legions were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 and were led by the Emperor Valens who was hardly competent as a commander let alone a genius who could overcome such odds. Despite this the Romans still did quite well in the early stages of the battle.
Teutoburg was a defeat that never should have been. Publius Varus was defeated by a combination of treachery and unforgivable complacency. Still the battle is hardly an example of the weakness of Roman discipline.
Now that said, Rome did lose a great many battles. Some to better commanders, some to incompetency, but only at the very end did lack of discipline plays a role. |
I think mindset and way of warfare would be the largest difference when comparing two of those armies. When looking at classical Rome we could say the drilled legionary infantry soldier formed the core element of the army. While the Romans conducted a fair number of impressive sieges it was hardly their modus operandi. This is highly contrasting with high and late medieval warfare, you list Henry II as a good military leader but realize he fought 0 field battles. His son Richard Lionheart scores only marginally higher with around 2 to 3 battles in his entire career. In roman times everything above the Rhine frontier was forest or rural land with perhaps a few urban centers, Gaul was conquered with a minimum amount of sieges. At the closing years of the late medieval period writers remark France and the Rhine region were the most heavily fortified areas of Europe.
Now on to something else entirely -
What is your definition of discipline? Marching in goosestep, neatly organizing a military camp or not fleeing/routing in combat? If it's the first two then I might have to agree with you, we know roman military manuals were read during the middle ages but we have scant evidence of how extensive these were applied. That said we do not have a lot of evidence for drilling of Carthaginian troops or viking sources which is not to say they were undisciplined.
If it's the latter than I am not entirely sure how we should compare it across history. |
As I said, Medieval history isn't my focus (tho I've recently dipped my toe in) so I may be thinking of someone other than Henry II.
As for your question of my definition of discipline... I consider neither as being the definition of discipline. Certainly not the first example. And not fleeing/routing has more to do with mastering ones fear than anything else. An example of discipline would be holding formation when the enemy routs.
And Carthage didn't drill troops, they hired mercenaries. The exception was probably Hannibal who led a very disciplined army against Rome. |
I said Carhaee, where a numerically superior Roman force was surrounded and almost completely annihilated by Persian Heavy cavalry and horse archers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae |
Apologies... There were a lot of misspellings in your post and I assumed that was another, probably because of my fascination with Hannibal.
Anyway, that is an excellent example. The only defense I can offer for Rome's defeat, if I must have one, is that the Persian Empires in all the different forms were always and routinely among the toughest foes the Romans faced. And light cavalry, especially horse archers, have always been notoriously difficult for an infantry based army to defeat. But even among their defeats Carrhae stands out as one of the most crushing Rome ever faced... In that way it can be seen as an outlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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