Ancient armies face-off

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

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.

 

 

Cover your horse's eyes before contact, so they wont be scared and so they will charge at full speed against anything.

We can try something, I am on the Percheron both armored, YOU are on foot with a chain mail, a roman shield, your very short sword and 2 pilums. you can't dodge me because if i don't crush you i'll crush your friends and so you have to stop me.

Do you really want to try?

[Durandal]

Dispete the fact peoples are always mentioning early legionnaires, the roman armor is not a good armor if you are comparing it to medieval armors. Only the chest and head are protected, arms and legs are left un protected.

 

 

move along romans you are outdated.

 

http://www.traditionet.fr/histviv/hvcom/ii...lustrations.htm

 

What they are going to see...

[Durandal]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

We could easily say that roman legionaries with auxiliaries in the form of lance fighters (on foot and horsemen) and longbowmen could even take on 16th century armies.

 

i missed that one.

Not really, 16th knights are heavily armored, both knights and horses with modern armors (not as heavy as before)and anyway longbows are outdated against modern artillery.

Guess why they have disapeared.

Infantry is much more profesional and heavily armored.

your army will be very easily routed. http://www.uniformology.com/page15b.html

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by vardulli:

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.

 

 

I agree with you. Some researchers/historians have been misled by the fact that decorations/painting pn those statues (for example) has deteriorated, causing some to misinterprete chainmail for leather...since pattern was usually painted on statue, not carved.

 

Before Augustus (like in Caesar's legions) chainmail was the main protection (as found in excavations). And indeed after that the extremely effextive lorica segmentata became the main armour.

 

Re: Durandal

 

Well, I'd rather try to stop charge of the knights with legionary infantry than with for example 11th-12th century infantry . One has to remember it's not so easy to ride down defending infantry. One good example is Battle of Hastings 1066...that was very hard-fought one, despite being knights against infantry. Norman knights were only able to dislodge Saxon army from it's defensive position with help of archers, which IMHO demostrate quite well the difficulties mounted knightsa have against *disciplined* infantry.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Guest Sargent]

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.

Bovine excrement. How many have you shot? Accuracy is quite possible with round ball. Range will fall off slightly due to the inferior aerodynamics of ball compared to bullet.

And while the rifled musket was not a breechloader, there were plenty of breechloaders available during the ACW, especially for the cavalry.

 

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

Battlefield signalling by flags using Morse code was used in the ACW. Napoleon relied on messengers, once he was out of range of the semaphore towers. Morse code hadn't been invented.

 

Field engineering was much improved in the ACW. In Napoleon's day the shovels were still wood. Metal blades on the shovels made entrenching much faster and possible in harder ground. You try digging in hard ground with a wooden-bladed shovel.

Fixed fortifications hadn't changed too much, although the guns and carriages were much improved. And ACW armies built bridges at tremendous rates.

 

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

Man, you are working that bull to death. Feed him good, you'll run out of BS. ACW artillery, while still muzzleloading for the vast part, was immensely superior to Napoleonic artillery. Carriages were lighter and stronger which made for increased mobility.

The sights, while rudimentary, were better than no sights at all. Shells were more precisely fuzed. Normal cannon routinely fired shell in the ACW, only howitzers used shell in Napoleonic days (I think the Russian had some primitive incendiaries that fired out of cannon, but they weren't common).

Heavy guns were common in the ACW, vastly bigger than anything used in Napoleonic days, although these were used in ships and fortifications, not so much in the field.

 

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.

Somehow I don't think over 400,000 revolvers qualifies as "few" and that's just the two most common .44 calibers in the Union Army.

Five or six shots in infinitely superior to one or none, and it's not that hard to reload. Paper cartridges were issued for loading and they are rainproof if a little care is taken.

 

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.

And I repeat my opinion. Bovine excrement. Napoleonic (not "Napoleonian" ) cavalry was used for mounted combat because they had no effective weapons for dismounted combat. ACW cavalry fought mainly as mounted infantry because they had vastly better firepower. And they were just as effective at scouting.

 

 

[Edited by Sargent (23 Nov 2004).]

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

I agree with you. Some researchers/historians have been misled by the fact that decorations/painting pn those statues (for example) has deteriorated, causing some to misinterprete chainmail for leather...since pattern was usually painted on statue, not carved.

 

Before Augustus (like in Caesar's legions) chainmail was the main protection (as found in excavations). And indeed after that the extremely effextive lorica segmentata became the main armour.

 

Re: Durandal

 

Well, I'd rather try to stop charge of the knights with legionary infantry than with for example 11th-12th century infantry . One has to remember it's not so easy to ride down defending infantry. One good example is Battle of Hastings 1066...that was very hard-fought one, despite being knights against infantry. Norman knights were only able to dislodge Saxon army from it's defensive position with help of archers, which IMHO demostrate quite well the difficulties mounted knightsa have against *disciplined* infantry.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

 

Keep lowering the dates and you will really end with Roman Legionnaires

Poitier 737 and Hasting are very specific battles because the infantry NOT ROMANS!!! are using a very good anti cavalry formation, a real shieldwall on top of a hill with both flanks secured.

Btw 1066 knights are much lighter

But as you see they are not always using dumb tactics to lure their enemies

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Durandal:

Keep lowering the dates and you will really end with Roman Legionnaires

Poitier 737 and Hasting are very specific battles because the infantry NOT ROMANS!!! are using a very good anti cavalry formation, a real shieldwall on top of a hill with both flanks secured.

Btw 1066 knights are much lighter

But as you see they are not always using dumb tactics to lure their enemies

 

 

What makes you think Romans didn't know about anti-cavalry formations ?

 

Even in Carrhae Perthian cataphracts couldn't get into legions as long as they hold their formations. They were destroyed only after their officers were murdered and they dispersed when retreating.

 

IMHO, anti-cavalry warfare in ancient/medieval times is more of training and discipline than equipment. As we have saying in FDF, "Successful operation requires 3 things in this order: Will, Skill and required Means"

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

What makes you think Romans didn't know about anti-cavalry formations ?

 

Even in Carrhae Perthian cataphracts couldn't get into legions as long as they hold their formations. They were destroyed only after their officers were murdered and they dispersed when retreating.

 

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

 

Hahaha not the best exemple

30000+ Romans + 1000 Horsmen (gallics) against 10000 Horse archers and ONLY 1000 cataphracts and the romans are wiped out, with 20000 casualties.

So please don't expect only 1000 cataphracts to rout 30000 Romans

[DaveDash]

To be fair Durandal, it was the combination of 10,000 horse archers and Cataphracts that gave the Romans the biggest problem in Carrhae rather than the Cataphracts themselves.

 

I have read texts that the Romans were extremely disciplined in the face of a cavalry charge, causing it to lose its main advantage. Of course wether that discipline would hold up against a charge of medieval knights is a different matter, but as long as Roman officers remained they could probably hold morale.

 

Even a charge of Knights is going to have difficulty against 8 rank deep highly disciplined infantry formations, but it would be absolutely devistating hitting them in the sides/rears, and because of crappy Roman Cavalry, they could not really prevent this from happening (terrain non-withstanding).

 

 

[Edited by DaveDash (23 Nov 2004).]

[Conall]

Originally posted by Durandal:

Hahaha not the best exemple

30000+ Romans + 1000 Horsmen (gallics) against 10000 Horse archers and ONLY 1000 cataphracts and the romans are wiped out, with 20000 casualties.

So please don't expect only 1000 cataphracts to rout 30000 Romans

 

 

OK, how about reading Arrian's Order of battle against the Alans, which details how to defeat heavily armoured, lance wielding cavalry? Flavius Arrianus Xenophon - known as Arrian, in English histories, while governor of Cappadocia successfully defeated a major invasion of the province by the Alans and Sarmatians employing two legions (XV Apollinaris and XII Fulminata). Alternatively you could look at Julian's defeat of the Alamanni at the battle of Argentoratum (near Strasbourg)in AD 357, where the Roman infantry comprehensively defeated the Alamanni noble cavalry and their Sarmatian allies.

 

Best regards

 

Tom

[Argus]

Quote:

And I repeat my opinion. Bovine excrement. Napoleonic (not "Napoleonian" ) cavalry was used for mounted combat because they had no effective weapons for dismounted combat. ACW cavalry fought mainly as mounted infantry because they had vastly better firepower. And they were just as effective at scouting.

 

Sarge are you honestly knocking the Padget carbine? I mean come on, the next thing you'll be suggestion Nocks Volley gun was excessive or by 1800 Dragoons weren't mounted infantry anymore.

 

Seriously I think you've got the cart slightly before the horse there. Napoleonic cavalry were armed as they were because they had little intention of fighting dismounted, that was the job of those grubby infantrymen. ACW cavalry fought dismounted because: a) They could, They wanted too c) They were used as mounted infantry right from the start because (this is from vague memory) in the early war period their (the new army) training wasn't though good enough for the traditional methods. By the time anyone bought up the question of training and arme blanche again everyone was happy with the way things were going so it was moot.

 

Oh yes I seem to remember the most common field piece on either side of the ACW were called something familiar... what was it? Oh yes Napoleon!!!

 

shane

 

PS How about Romans at Waterloo (on either side)?

 

 

 

 

[Edited by Argus (23 Nov 2004).]

[vardulli]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

To be fair Durandal, it was the combination of 10,000 horse archers and Cataphracts that gave the Romans the biggest problem in Carrhae rather than the Cataphracts themselves.

 

I have read texts that the Romans were extremely disciplined in the face of a cavalry charge, causing it to lose its main advantage. Of course wether that discipline would hold up against a charge of medieval knights is a different matter, but as long as Roman officers remained they could probably hold morale.

 

Even a charge of Knights is going to have difficulty against 8 rank deep highly disciplined infantry formations, but it would be absolutely devistating hitting them in the sides/rears, and because of crappy Roman Cavalry, they could not really prevent this from happening (terrain non-withstanding).

 

 

<font size=1>[Edited by DaveDash (23 Nov 2004).]

 

by the empire the cavalry had improved- including as I mentioned earlier cataphracts and horse achers-- how would a medieval unit stood up to Roman horse archers?

[vardulli]

would it be more useful to select a typical medieval and Roman army of say 20000 troops?

 

 

and examine the compostion of the troop types and they weigh up the advantages/disadvantages of each

 

 

?

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by vardulli:

by then empire the cavalry had improved- including as I mentioned earlier cataphracts and horse achers-- how would a medieval unit stood up to Roman horse archers?

 

Horse archers were not an unkonwn in Medieval Europe. The higher status Yomanry would be minor landowners and would have possed a horse, this allowed them to keep tactical mobility with the mounted knights.

 

Edward III's army at the time of Crecy had 2500 mounted archers, in the actual battle of Crecy they dismounted and fought on foot but they were used earlier in the campaign to secure various bridge heads accross rivers.

[vardulli]

Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Horse archers were not an unkonwn in Medieval Europe. The higher status Yomanry would be minor landowners and would have possed a horse, this allowed them to keep tactical mobility with the mounted knights.

 

Edward III's army at the time of Crecy had 2500 mounted archers, in the actual battle of Crecy they dismounted and fought on foot but they were used earlier in the campaign to secure various bridge heads accross rivers.

 

but did they shoot from horseback or dismount to operate as foot archers?

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Argus:

 

Sarge are you honestly knocking the Padget carbine? I mean come on, the next thing you'll be suggestion Nocks Volley gun was excessive or by 1800 Dragoons weren't mounted infantry anymore.

Of course I'm knocking the Padgett carbine. A short-barrelled flintlock muzzle-loading smoothbore is nowhere near as effective as a breech-loading rifled Sharps (or analogue). AFAIK, about all the cavalry carbine was used for was guard mount on vedette service.

 

Seriously I think you've got the cart slightly before the horse there. Napoleonic cavalry were armed as they were because they had little intention of fighting dismounted, that was the job of those grubby infantrymen. ACW cavalry fought dismounted because: a) They could, They wanted too c) They were used as mounted infantry right from the start because (this is from vague memory) in the early war period their (the new army) training wasn't though good enough for the traditional methods. By the time anyone bought up the question of training and arme blanche again everyone was happy with the way things were going so it was moot.

Or they had discovered what worked in the conditions of the times.

 

Oh yes I seem to remember the most common field piece on either side of the ACW were called something familiar... what was it? Oh yes Napoleon!!!

 

Yes, named for Emperor Napoleon II, who had promoted it in the 1850s.

 

shane

 

PS How about Romans at Waterloo (on either side)?

 

Armed and armored as Legionnaires? They'd be slaughtered.

 

 

 

[Edited by Sargent (23 Nov 2004).]

[R011]

How about Romans at Waterloo (on either side)?

 

The other side would deploy out of pila range, but within musket and cannon range, and shoot until they broke. Then cavalry would ride down the fleeing and disorganized remnants. I expect that they'd have a little more trouble with armoured swordsmen than unarmroured musketeers, but not so much that they wouldn't be able to slaughter them. I believe some Asian armies that Western troops deployed against had similar arms and armour to the Romans? Once similarly disorganized (often from the start) they didn't last long either.

 

It won't be as bad if the Roman side simply replaces their line infantry with legionaries and keeps their historical artillery and cavalry, but it's still going to turn out badly for them unless the weather is so bad that their opponents cannot fire. Night action might be their best bet.

[Guest aevans]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Yes, named for Emperor Napoleon II, who had promoted it in the 1850s.

 

I think your post meant to say Napoleon III, didn't it?

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by aevans:

I think your post meant to say Napoleon III, didn't it?

 

 

Doh...

 

Would you believe a sticky key?

[DaveDash]

I think as technology improves the later armies obviously have a huge advantage over the previous.

 

The reason I thought the medieval vs Roman army would be interesting was because my impression of earlyish Medieval armies is that they were mostly pure and utter rabble (with obvious exceptions), compared to mid-Roman armies which were really the first professional highly trained army with incredably advanced doctrine and understanding for the time, clearly much more so than during medieval times.

 

Is technology such a huge force multiplier over the Human factors of organisation/doctrine/training?

 

For a bit more modern history, How would the pre-ODS Iraqi army fare against a similar sized 1939 German WW2 army?

 

[Edited by DaveDash (23 Nov 2004).]

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

For a bit more modern history, How would the pre-ODS Iraqi army fare against a similar sized 1939 German WW2 army?

 

The Germans would not have anything to deal with Iraqi tanks, the Iraqi motorization would be superior, Iraqi artillery would be longer-ranged, and the Iraqi infantry would have AKs while the Germans had bolt-action Mausers.

 

Doctrinally, I believe the Iraqis followed Soviet doctrine, and the Soviets won...

[Koz]

Actually I believe the Iraqis used British doctrine.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Koz:

Actually I believe the Iraqis used British doctrine.

 

 

Well, they won too

[swerve]

Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Horse archers were not an unkonwn in Medieval Europe. The higher status Yomanry would be minor landowners and would have possed a horse, this allowed them to keep tactical mobility with the mounted knights.

 

Edward III's army at the time of Crecy had 2500 mounted archers, in the actual battle of Crecy they dismounted and fought on foot but they were used earlier in the campaign to secure various bridge heads accross rivers.

 

ALL yeomen were landowners (or at least leaseholders): that was what made them yeomen. A yeoman was a free landholding farmer, one step below gentry.

 

Mounted archers were very common in the 14th & 15th centuries. Anyone who could, rode, however he fought, & C14 archers weren't poverty-stricken peasant levies. They seem to have been mostly professional soldiers from middling stock, yeomen or artisans. Had to be strong, therefore well-fed.

 

But they weren't horse archers in the sense that they shot while mounted.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Conall:

OK, how about reading Arrian's Order of battle against the Alans, which details how to defeat heavily armoured, lance wielding cavalry?  Flavius Arrianus Xenophon - known as Arrian, in English histories, while governor of Cappadocia successfully defeated a major invasion of the province by the Alans and Sarmatians employing two legions (XV Apollinaris and XII Fulminata).  Alternatively you could look at Julian's defeat of the Alamanni at the battle of Argentoratum (near Strasbourg)in AD 357, where the Roman infantry comprehensively defeated the Alamanni noble cavalry and their Sarmatian allies.

 

Best regards

 

Tom

 

 

Yes this is a good exemple of how infantry can defeat cavalry If you have a very good general a strong position with a lot of ranged weapons, stakes, and above all allied cavalry...

Do you have the OB for both armies?

I wonder if the Romans alone can defeat the Alans.

 

Anyway in the original exemple this is Knights vs Romans, and a 14/15th century Knight's horse is much bigger and stronger, than nomad's horses.