Ancient armies face-off

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by Lentzner:

...Napolean's army would be crushed by a Union Civil War army, ...

 

Give 'em balls instead of Minie bullets and Napoleon wins again.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

Give 'em balls instead of Minie bullets and Napoleon wins again.

 

Minie bullets alone wouldn't matter that much so long as the ACW boys had rifled muskets, percussion caps, revolvers, and ACW artillery. Throw in a few Sharps rifles and some Spencers...

 

Even if we stick the ACW boys with smootbores, Yankee "buck and ball" would shred (literally) la Grande Armee.

 

Signalling was a bit better in ACW days, as was engineering.

 

Napoleon's superior maneuvering skills wouldn't help him much if his armies got trashed every time they met the ACW men.

[Xonitex]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Minie bullets alone wouldn't matter that much so long as the ACW boys had rifled muskets, percussion caps, revolvers, and ACW artillery. Throw in a few Sharps rifles and some Spencers...       

 

One of the main reasons why the minie ball was so effective was that it enabled a much faster reload rate over previous rifles. Muskets were used over rifles due to reloading problems when excrement would foul up in the rifling of the barrel; this would require subsequent rounds to be vigorously rammed into the muzzle for the next shot (gases from combustion would push out the minie ball's conically-hollowed rear to fit it into the bore of the rifling, which allowed the caliber of the bullet to be smaller than the bore diameter of the barrel).

 

But the Yankees or the Rebels would still have won...

 

Repeating rifles would have been utterly devestating, had they managed to produce a mass quantity to sufficiently equip the bulk of their infantry.

[Lentzner]

Originally posted by Xonitex:

snip

when excrement would foul up in the rifling of the barrel;

snip

 

You should be more careful where you point that thing...

 

 

Matt

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

Lentzner I agree with you about the Cavalry and missile weapons being a problem for the Romans, but I still believe they could go toe to toe with most Medieval infantry.

 

The infantry they would be facing would most likely men medieval men-at-arms with chainmail at best, with very poor training and discipline compared to the Romans.

 

While the Roman armour and steel would be of a poorer quality the stabbing motion of the Gladius would still be quite effective against chainmail, particulary with numerous gaps in ones armour as men-at-arms would have.

 

I agree though, the Romans would be more like a light infantry force in the Medieval ages and against an fair number of mounted or dismounted Knights they would be toast.

 

How could light infantry be toast against dismounted Knights? The Knights' heavy armou would be at a serious disadvantage and their combat sustainability will be in short duration against the light infantry's longer duration. Mounted Knights, yes, they're very formidable against the light infantry.

[Durandal]

Imho Romans easily.

The Spartans Hoplites are good and courageous, but they have almost no light troops but somes slaves and no cavalry, and hoplites alone should be in troubles, even the best.

I don't remember the name of the battle but they have been defeated at least once by a small army of skirmishers.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

An interesting question would be how a Roman army would fare against a medieval army, say the English or French in the 1200s+ ?

 

The Roman numbers would obviously be huge in comparason, but would they have an answer to a charge of Knights? Longbows?

 

I imagine once engaged in a melee the better trained and organised Roman forces tear apart the medieval spear/pike/swordsmen, but getting there might be a problem.

 

 

 

I give the roman army 0 chance to win.

they have nothing to stop a charge by knights.

Knight horses are elephants than mustangs.

Polearms should wipe them.

and their shields and armors are useless against crossbows and longbows.

for a million of reasons they can't win.

btw French can gather a much bigger army.

they have a chance against militians and paysans.

[DougRichards]

Originally posted by Durandal:

Imho Romans easily.

The Spartans Hoplites are good and courageous, but they have almost no light troops but somes slaves and no cavalry, and hoplites alone should be in troubles, even the best.

I don't remember the name of the battle but they have been defeated at least once by a small army of skirmishers.

 

Twas the battle of Lechaeum, where a 600 Spartan hopilites were bested by a number of peltasts under Iphicrates, leading to a lightening of hopilites equipment, with a longer spear to make up for less armour, but a strengthening of the peltasts, leading the way to the armies of Phillip and Alexander.

[Durandal]

Against romans let me take the Swiss

[Durandal]

Originally posted by DougRichards:

Twas the battle of Lechaeum, where a 600 Spartan hopilites were bested by a number of peltasts under Iphicrates, leading to a lightening of hopilites equipment, with a longer spear to make up for less armour, but a strengthening of the peltasts, leading the way to the armies of Phillip and Alexander.

 

Maybe but i think its earlier if i remember well i read it in the peloponnesian war book. I can't find it anymore

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Minie bullets alone wouldn't matter that much so long as the ACW boys had rifled muskets, percussion caps, revolvers, and ACW artillery. Throw in a few Sharps rifles and some Spencers...       

 

Even if we stick the ACW boys with smootbores, Yankee "buck and ball" would shred (literally) la Grande Armee.

 

Signalling was a bit better in ACW days, as was engineering.

 

Napoleon's superior maneuvering skills wouldn't help him much if his armies got trashed every time they met the ACW men.

 

The Minie bullet was the technology that made the muskets "rifled". Those were no breechloaders, so only Minie-type or simplified expansion bullets allow the combination of high ROF and high effective range with such muskets.

 

Signalling was only better by telegraph, and as engineering not yet decisive.

 

The artillery of the ACW was either comparable or also dependent on expanding projectiles.

 

The revolvers were few and had no metal cartridges, effectively reducing the No. of shots in one fight to five or six - if it's not raining.

 

I repeat my opinion - the only decisive advantage of the ACW armies over the Napoleonian armies was the technology of the expanding bullets for rifled barrels and muzzle-loaders.

The napoleonian armies had better officers and better cavalry for mounted combat.

[Guest Murph]

I'll take the Byzantines of 1025 AD over all comers, provided I have a decent commander.

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by Murph:

I'll take the Byzantines of 1025 AD over all comers, provided I have a decent commander.

 

That's just a couple of decades before their army was too weak to prevent that Byzantium was pillaged by the crusaders...

[Xonitex]

The napoleonian armies had better officers and better cavalry for mounted combat.[/i]

 

How well would Napoleon's cavalry have fared against massed, accurate rifle fire? Were cavalry charges still viable during the ACW?

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by Xonitex:

How well would Napoleon's cavalry have fared against massed, accurate rifle fire?  Were cavalry charges still viable during the ACW?

 

 

Without Minie's invention, no accurate fire. And massed was the french fire as well.

 

Cavalry charges were in both timeframes only viable if the infantry was surprised - the square formation was invincible for the cavalry if in sufficient strength both physically and psychically.

[swerve]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

That's just a couple of decades before their army was too weak to prevent that Byzantium was pillaged by the crusaders...

 

179 years before Constantinople was pillaged by crusaders. 4th Crusade, 1204.

 

The Empire was broken by Alp Arslan in Eastern Anatolia on an August Friday in 1071, at Manzikert, with the ruin being completed by the subsequent civil war. In 1025 it looked in pretty good shape. However, the army was subsequently allowed to run down. Such idiocies as the killing of the successful general George Maniaces by Constantine IXth, for fear that his success made him a threat to the throne, didn't help. When Romanus Diogenes marched east in 1071 his army was at least 50% newly-hired mercenaries, & his defeat was partly due to betrayal by one of the accompanying Byzantine aristocrats & his private army. 50 years earlier, there was a professional standing army, mainly recruited from the Greek-speaking population of Anatolia. If he'd had that army, history could have been very different.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

the square formation was invincible for the cavalry if in sufficient strength both physically and psychically.

 

Invincible, not really but hard to break yes, well Spanish Squares were easily routed.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by swerve:

179 years before Constantinople was pillaged by crusaders. 4th Crusade, 1204.

 

The Empire was broken by Alp Arslan in Eastern Anatolia on an August Friday in 1071, at Manzikert, with the ruin being completed by the subsequent civil war. In 1025 it looked in pretty good shape. However, the army was subsequently allowed to run down. Such idiocies as the killing of the successful general George Maniaces by Constantine IXth, for fear that his success made him a threat to the throne, didn't help. When Romanus Diogenes marched east in 1071 his army was at least 50% newly-hired mercenaries, & his defeat was partly due to betrayal by one of the accompanying Byzantine aristocrats & his private army. 50 years earlier, there was a professional standing army, mainly recruited from the Greek-speaking population of Anatolia. If he'd had that army, history could have been very different.

 

Don't mess with my ancestors!

Roussel de Bailleul

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

The Minie bullet was the technology that made the muskets "rifled". Those were no breechloaders, so only Minie-type or simplified expansion bullets allow the combination of high ROF and high effective range with such muskets.

 

Percussion caps would have increased the effective rate of fire for a battalion by at least 50%, due to drastically reduced misfire rates. Also, a US army would have more rifles and tend to use them more effectively than any Napoleonic army, even a British one.

 

Signalling was only better by telegraph, and as engineering not yet decisive.

 

The operational significance of the telegraph and railroads should not be underestimated. I will agree that the engineering was probably no more sophisticated technologically, but there was a much more widespread knowledge of the principles among US armies of the mid 19th Century, along with more willingness to use that knowledge in the field. Think of the fleches at Borodino, joined by well laid out trench systems, in half or more of the battles, with army possessing the superior infantry and artillery technology holding these positions every time.

 

The artillery of the ACW was either comparable or also dependent on expanding projectiles.

 

Simply not the case. The vast majority of artillery projectiles produced, for both rifled and smoothbore types, was solid shot. And since you're making your case on the minie ball, half of the available artillery for the US side will be rifled -- even if you insisted on no expanding base technology, studded projectiles were available, as well as polygonal rifling and projectiles -- and 90% all guns will be either 12 lb. smoothbores or 10 lb. rifles, friction match ignition. The Napoleonic army will have mostly 6-8 lb. field pieces with powder train ignition. Aditionally, since they would be fighting an eney with few, any, rifles (and certainly not the most efficient ones, thanks to the absence of expanging base bullets), the heavier and more efficient US artillery should be even more effective.

 

The revolvers were few and had no metal cartridges, effectively reducing the No. of shots in one fight to five or six - if it's not raining.

 

Though not perfect, cap and ball revolvers were reliable enough in the rain, and every cavalry soldier had at least one by the middle of the war. (Since you don't appear to be limiting yourself to 1792 armies when you speak of Napoleonic, there's no reason I should limit myself to 1861 style forces.) Even with only one revolver, the difference in firepower would still be a factor of three (or more, given the fact that percussion arms were more reliable than flintlocks), and the willingness to use it would be decisive in most cavalry clashes.

 

I repeat my opinion - the only decisive advantage of the ACW armies over the Napoleonian armies was the technology of the expanding bullets for rifled barrels and muzzle-loaders.

The napoleonian armies had better officers and better cavalry for mounted combat.

 

As I have oultined above, not true. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Napoleonic armies had better officers -- they were all amateurs by the US or state military academy standard, except for the ones trained in the better artillery and engineering schools, and even those officers were much more narrowly educated than an average academy graduate. US Civil War cavalry was probably not as well trained for shock action as Napoleonic cavalry, but it was probably superior operationally, and could have held its own tactically thanks to superior firepower.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

I agree though, the Romans would be more like a light infantry force in the Medieval ages and against an fair number of mounted or dismounted Knights they would be toast.

 

Romans were *heavy infantry* force, even for medieval standards. man to man they were at least as well armoured than best medieval infantry, mostly surpassing them. I think that even medieval knights would have trouble penetrating legionary ranks due to legion's armoured mass and discipline. Knights, while superior to medieval undiciplined infantry, had trouble against disciplined and massed troops. Knights were more individual fighters and not usually organized unit.

And while pilum is not the best anti-cavalry weapon there is, legions usually had number of hasta and other siege spears among them.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

Romans were *heavy infantry* force, even for medieval standards. man to man they were at least as well armoured than best medieval infantry, mostly surpassing them. I think that even medieval knights would have trouble penetrating legionary ranks due to legion's armoured mass and discipline. Knights, while superior to medieval undiciplined infantry, had trouble against disciplined and massed troops. Knights were more individual fighters and not usually organized unit.

And while pilum is not the best anti-cavalry weapon there is, legions usually had number of hasta and other siege spears among them.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

 

No no no no this is an urban legend, The majority of the Romans are wearing no to leather armor.

and no a knight care not of the enemy armor, light or heavy. do you ever saw a knight horse? you need to come in France to the Salon de l'agriculture. you will see some big beasts.

and knights are wearing much better armors with much better weapons and a much greater choice of weapons.

The roman armors are enough against their opponents but in no way they will be effectively protected in a medieval battle.

 

 

 

Give his armors to the horse and horsemen and you have an army of busses coming at you. In no way legionnaires can stop that.

 

 

[Edited by Durandal (22 Nov 2004).]

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Durandal:

Give his armors to the horse and horsemen and you have an army of busses coming at you. In no way legionnaires can stop that.

 

Yep, I know about destriers But I think capability of horsemen to penetrate massed infantry is overestimated, since it's based on Medieval experiences...and during that time there was *no* disciplined infantry (compared to Romans). That changed only with Swiss and German troops during 15th century. English longbowmen are totally different genre..and Scottish pikemen were tactically limited to defense due to lack of training.

 

When it comes to legionary armour, it's matter of debate what kind of armour they wore. Even historians cannot agree with that. But light infantry they were not...those was the job of auxiliaries.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

 

 

[Edited by Sardaukar (22 Nov 2004).]

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

  Yep, I know about destriers    But I think capability of horsemen to penetrate massed infantry is overestimated, since it's based on Medieval experiences...and during that time there was *no* disciplined infantry (compared to Romans). That changed only with Swiss and German troops during 15th century. English longbowmen are totally different genre..and Scottish pikemen were tactically limited to defense due to lack of training.

 

When it comes to legionary armour, it's matter of debate what kind of armour they wore. Even historians cannot agree with that. But light infantry they were not...those was the job of auxiliaries.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Sardaukar (22 Nov 2004).]

 

Infantries are not always classified heavy because they are wearing heavy armors but more because they are fighting in close order.

Phalanx are heavy infantry but like the legionnaires many are wearing no armor or a cloth armor.

About horses imho you are wrong, charging horses are devastating, especially hv knights.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Durandal:

Infantries are not always classified heavy because they are wearing heavy armors but more because they are fighting in close order.

Phalanx are heavy infantry but like the legionnaires many are wearing no armor or a cloth armor.

About horses imho you are wrong, charging horses are devastating, especially hv knights.

 

 

 

That was what I ment with definition "heavy" indeed. It's very difficult to get horses to charge into massed infantry, trained warhorse or not. It was difficult even during Napoleonic times with against bayonet-armed troops (after they had fired their rifles). On the other hand, medieval infantry was little more than rabble in comparison..and was regularly rode through and over.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[vardulli]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

When it comes to legionary armour, it's matter of debate what kind of armour they wore. Even historians cannot agree with that. But light infantry they were not...those was the job of auxiliaries.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Sardaukar (22 Nov 2004).]

 

nope not a matter of debate at all. the idea of leather armour poular with 1960s Hollywood and history books of that period [and earlier] is a misinterpretation of statues and other carvings.

 

Mail was the predominate form of armour for much of the Roman period. By the time of Augustus lorica segmentata was in existance.

Scale was pretty common, with a variety of forms developing over time, including plumata which was small scales mounted on a mail shirt.

 

Auxiliaries performed a wide variety of functions, gradually taking on roles which had been performed by the legions.