Ancient armies face-off

[Lev]

Originally posted by Durandal:

with "if" you can put the town of Paris into a bottle.

If you have more than one roman army i will have more than one medieval army,

 

The if was in relation to Castillion, the reason it all went completely pear-shaped is that Talbot's was the only army on his side. After the one battle they had free reign in the area.

Historically a roman army that was defeated or caught in a tight spot was very likely to be reinforced by new troops sent into the theatre, or else new troops would show up the next year to do it all over.

 

i wonder why you need to give them that kind of advantages. with several medieval armies i can wipe out a single roman army etc.. I didn't intend to give the romans extra advantadges (although I do think they'd be more able to raise more/fresh troops), just a miscommunication from sloppy writing on my part :

Besides one or two armies is essentialy meaningless anyhow, as armies don't have a fixed size

 

[Edited by Lev (02 Dec 2004).]

[Durandal]

Enough with Romans!

I played miniature wargames for 10 years, i never played a Roman army but i crushed them all the time, no defeat against romans. the best against Roman Marius during France championship 1/2 final with my Tibetans.

I know this is only miniature wargames but i hate the romans armies!!!!

 

ENOUGH WITH ROMANS OR I'LL UNLEASH MY TIBETANS CATAPHRACTS!!!

[swerve]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Really? ISTR the heyday of the crossbow being well after the Crusdaes. And the winch-wound crossbows that had the big pavisses for protection were C13 and later.

 

And if it came down to generalship, the Mongols had them beat hands down. One does not overrun the world with inferior generalship. As mentioned before, look up Moti Heath to observe the result of a European military machine meeting a Mongol one.

 

 

Also Leignitz (Legnica) & other 13th century battles in Poland, Hungary & Russia. Outcomes almost universally in favour of the Mongols, despite usually being outnumbered. Superior command & control, discipline & generalship.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Durandal:

ENOUGH WITH ROMANS OR I'LL UNLEASH MY TIBETANS CATAPHRACTS!!!

 

I think Durandal is suffering from "Alesia-syndrome"

 

Just relax, take 2 sips of red wine and think of Gergovia !!

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[JohnB]

Originally posted by Yama:

What is "typical" Crusader army anyway? As it stands, Mongols DID meet Crusader armies (including Georgian, Teutonic and Polish) and those meetings went very badly for the Crusaders.

 

Phil Barker's DBM Army Lists Volume 4 'Later Crusader'

[JohnB]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Really? ISTR the heyday of the crossbow being well after the Crusdaes. And the winch-wound crossbows that had the big pavisses for protection were C13 and later.

 

And if it came down to generalship, the Mongols had them beat hands down. One does not overrun the world with inferior generalship. As mentioned before, look up Moti Heath to observe the result of a European military machine meeting a Mongol one.

 

 

I was thinking Richard Coeur de Lion in the Third Crusade. In one (or more, I dunno) battles he organised his army into a square with knights on the inside, infantry outside organised as spearman front rank, crossbowmen or ordinary bowmen second and third ranks. He scored a number of victories over Saladin whose own armies fought in a not dissimilar style to the Mongols.

It almost goes without saying that to stand a chance against the Mongol hordes you would need a rather more than competent general and they were something of a rarity in medieval armies...

 

Friar Carpini who lived amongst the Mongols as a missionary recommended a 'Scorched Earth' policy as the best way to defeat them. A army of 150,000 horses cannot maintain itself indefinitely.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

I think Durandal is suffering from "Alesia-syndrome"   

 

Just relax, take 2 sips of red wine and think of Gergovia !!   

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

 

 

Can i take Coca cola?

And never write/say Alesia again!!!!

you are allowed to say Gergovie

 

edit : this is the end of the day i am tiiiiiiiiiiiiiired

i don't even saw you Gergovia

WELLSAY SARDAUKAR!!!

 

 

 

[Edited by Durandal (03 Dec 2004).]

[Lev]

Originally posted by Durandal:

Enough with Romans!

I played miniature wargames for 10 years, i never played a Roman army but i crushed them all the time, no defeat against romans.

 

Were the romans allowed to dig? A few trenches can be a big help to a cavalry-deficient army. Speaking of which, I know entrenchemnts were used in the 16th century, but were they used in medieval times? (outside the obvious use in sieges).

[Guest Murph]

Well if the Romans can entrench, its a whole 'nother story as they say. I still like the Byzantines over the classical Romans.

 

How about comments on the Parthians?

[DougRichards]

The spartans were man-for-man better warriors, and in a stand-up fight on level terrain they should wipe the floor with the romans (especially if the roman army is a non-permanent force, eg an expeditionary force during the republic).

But if the romans are under a competent general they will accept battle only on broken/uneven terrain, or from entrenchments, and they would be able to break-up the Spartan formations and waste their army. (They might even be able to secure some decent ancillary cavalry and use that to beat the Spartans, and than use their infantry to mop up the remainders).

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Lev (18 Nov 2004).]

39605[/snapback]

 

The Spartans,man for man, were not trained for man on man combat, they fought in a phallanx, a relatively inflexible 'roller', which would have been easy for a Roman maniple to avoid, whilst causing initial casualties by pila and then attacking gaps and flanks.

[DougRichards]

Were the romans allowed to dig? A few trenches can be a big help to a cavalry-deficient army. Speaking of which, I know entrenchemnts were used in the 16th century, but were they used in medieval times? (outside the obvious use in sieges).

39736[/snapback]

 

The shield wall was a type of entrenchment in itself, however, if we are talking about prepared positions, the stakes carried by English longbowmen, and hammered into position in front of the English line, were a type of entrenchment, in that a line of stakes was a viable obstacle to charging cavalry, and took less time to prepare than digging a long trench that was wide enough to stop a horse from jumping over it.

 

Even the Romans, in battle, did not entrench, this was mainly used to procted camps, and obviously in seige works.

[Guest Murph]

True thats why the Romans took apart the Phalanx of the Macedonians, the Marian Legions were just so much more flexible.

 

 

 

The shield wall was a type of entrenchment in itself, however, if we are talking about prepared positions, the stakes carried by English longbowmen, and hammered into position in front of the English line, were a type of entrenchment, in that a line of stakes was a viable obstacle to charging cavalry, and took less time to prepare than digging a long trench that was wide enough to stop a horse from jumping over it.

 

Even the Romans, in battle, did not entrench, this was mainly used to procted camps, and obviously in seige works.

126540[/snapback]

[Sikkiyn]

The Spartans,man for man, were not trained for man on man combat, they fought in a phallanx, a relatively inflexible 'roller', which would have been easy for a Roman maniple to avoid, whilst causing initial casualties by pila and then attacking gaps and flanks.

126538[/snapback]

 

Man for Man the Spartan citizen "i.e. soldier" was more than an equal for his Roman counter-part; this has to do with his upbringing from age(s) 6-7 through 20, and his life of service from 20-60.

 

The Spartan failing was in their outrageous machismo, however everyone took this seriously, and for a very good reason.

 

The Roman army of Cincinatus onwards would have beaten Sparta, however not without a painful cost.

 

My curiousity would be over the Persian response, as their would have been a profit in it somewhere for them.

[swerve]

Man for Man the Spartan citizen "i.e. soldier" was more than an equal for his Roman counter-part; this has to do with his upbringing from age(s) 6-7 through 20, and his life of service from 20-60.

 

The Spartan failing was in their outrageous machismo, however everyone took this seriously, and for a very good reason.

 

The Roman army of Cincinatus onwards would have beaten Sparta, however not without a painful cost.

 

But by the time the Romans arrived in Greece there were so few Spartan citizens (that "outrageous machismo" you rightly identify as their failing resulted in ever-higher standards, & ever-diminishing numbers) that the Romans could just roll over them, with trivial cost. Sparta disappeared from history with about 1000 citizens. The average quality of Spartan troops at the end was atrociously low, because most of them were unwilling, unreliable & virtually untrained conscripted helots.

 

People go on about the Spartans so much, but consider how effective a system is that results in your pool of recruits shrinking every generation, until eventually you run out. Long-term, Sparta committed societal suicide by its exclusivity.

[Sikkiyn]

Swerve, I do agree with both of our assesments; running a similar course to the eventual conclusion, I dare guess that we should not leave out the Perioeci in the Spartan caste, who obviously provided no buffer-favors to the state during their societies end.

 

What had amazed me when I had to study that time period is that the Spartan "democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy" goverment was considered to be highly stable; outside of their ever growing intense internal-paranoia over the Helot's, and their neighbors.