Real life weaponry.

[Thoran]

Certainly today ranged weapons are really the only mode of engagement. The melee died with... hmm... the end of WWI I would think, when bayonet charges ended.

BUT, back in the days before firearms the archer was important but I would think only as a component of a sound strategy... I don't think it was more important than say cavalry, or the foot soldier (who bore MOST of the burden of combat). The pre-cannon equivelants of artillary could be another important component (ballista, trebuchet, etc...) depending on the circumstances of the engagement.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Some of the most effctive troops of the day were light calvary horse archers. They also used battle tactics which complimented their strengths. Hit and run, ambush, false retreats, etc. These techniques required speed, which light cav. has aplenty. Heavy melee fighters and calvary never got a chance to engage them before they were pincusioned! They did require lots of horses (sometimes 3 or 4 mounts apeice) and arrows though.

[Thoran]

Sir Kenyth I'm taking a wild guess that the basis of your statement is the stunning success the Mongul light cavalry experienced when they pretty much stomped their way accross the known world.

If not I'm hoping you will elaborate.

If so then I would submit for consideration that I believe the success of the Monguls was not based on tactics or speed... but rather on the use of overwhealming force.

Most of the battles the Horde faced were at numerical superiority of many times. Their strategy was simple... keep moving and attacking. The inability of the peoples they faced to unite is what insured their victory. Europe was soo fractured and provincial at that point that nobody would lift a finger to help out anyone else... so one by one they were defeated.

A handful of heavy cavalry would be able to do nothing against many hundreds of light. I think if there was a strong central Government in Europe the result might very well have been different.

I like to play "what-if" scenarios with friends... so what if the Romans hadn't self destructed and were still able to field large well disciplined armies - armed with modern(for the time) weapons against the Horde. An interesting scenario I think.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Barry the Sprout]

I should also point out that pole-arms are extremely effective against cavalry as you will be hard pressed to find a horse that will gladly run towards sharpened sticks. Most will either turn away or buck the rider off before they get there. And once a person is off the horse they are as good as dead if they are wearing much armour, its a real bugger to walk around in that kind of stuff.

[Sir Kenyth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
Sir Kenyth I'm taking a wild guess that the basis of your statement is the stunning success the Mongul light cavalry experienced when they pretty much stomped their way accross the known world.

If not I'm hoping you will elaborate.

If so then I would submit for consideration that I believe the success of the Monguls was not based on tactics or speed... but rather on the use of overwhealming force.

Most of the battles the Horde faced were at numerical superiority of many times. Their strategy was simple... keep moving and attacking. The inability of the peoples they faced to unite is what insured their victory. Europe was soo fractured and provincial at that point that nobody would lift a finger to help out anyone else... so one by one they were defeated.

A handful of heavy cavalry would be able to do nothing against many hundreds of light. I think if there was a strong central Government in Europe the result might very well have been different.

I like to play "what-if" scenarios with friends... so what if the Romans hadn't self destructed and were still able to field large well disciplined armies - armed with modern(for the time) weapons against the Horde. An interesting scenario I think.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

---

You are of course correct. The condition of Europe at the time was ill suited to fend off an organized invading force. From what I've read though, the tactics displayed by the Europeans were less than spectacular. They simply rode into battle expecting the enemy to meet them. Instead, they pulled back, drawing the cav. into a horseshoe shaped trap of archers on high ground. From there they pincusioned them. The foot troops, without their lords, routed and were easy pickings. This is just one viewpoint I read. I'm sure there are others and little way to prove which is more accurate. I didn't realize that the Mongols numbers were so much greater. I did know that they were primarily horse archers armed with composite short bows and using tactics the Europeans thought as dishonorable.

[Sir Kenyth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I should also point out that pole-arms are extremely effective against cavalry as you will be hard pressed to find a horse that will gladly run towards sharpened sticks. Most will either turn away or buck the rider off before they get there. And once a person is off the horse they are as good as dead if they are wearing much armour, its a real bugger to walk around in that kind of stuff.

---

Steel plate armors were not as heavy as one might expect. Certainly no heavier than maille. A maille shirt and coif for a large man like me only weighs a little over forty pounds. A full suit of plate armor for me would likely weigh between 65-70 pounds of evenly distributed weight. Re-enactors are able to do cartwheels and back-flip while armored in museum replicas.

[Thoran]

There was a variety of Plate Designs... it would be interesting to see a historical breakdown that included weight and relative mobility estimates.
The Full Plate Armor worn by Mounted Knights was pretty weighty stuff, requiring a Heavy War Horse to carry the rider, and a sort of crane to get the Knight Mounted.

My position on the Monguls is that with equal numbers and good tactics they could have been defeated. They didn't have any diversity in their ranks... find the recipe to defeat light cavalry and they have no other units to fall back on... not a lot of flexibility there. Of course the Europeans of that time were simply too fixed in their syalized combat expectations to be able to accomplish anything approaching good tactics. Not just that but they were incapable of enough forsight to know that those Monguls who are today beating up on your enemy next door will tomorrow be beating up on you. (Although perhaps it was just plain old poor communications in some instances)

During the War of the Rose one of the battle sites was chosen because the ground was soggy. Not a big deal for infantry, but try to charge a horse around on it. In many ways the Middle Ages were a step back in terms of development for Western Civilization, which was why I mentioned Rome. Many of the tactics employed by Legions are still widely applied today, and most certainly studied by anyone interested in military strategy and tactics. I think a number of those tactics could have been applied with devastating effectiveness to the Mongul Horde.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Sir Kenyth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
There was a variety of Plate Designs... it would be interesting to see a historical breakdown that included weight and relative mobility estimates.
The Full Plate Armor worn by Mounted Knights was pretty weighty stuff, requiring a Heavy War Horse to carry the rider, and a sort of crane to get the Knight Mounted.

My position on the Monguls is that with equal numbers and good tactics they could have been defeated. They didn't have any diversity in their ranks... find the recipe to defeat light cavalry and they have no other units to fall back on... not a lot of flexibility there. Of course the Europeans of that time were simply too fixed in their syalized combat expectations to be able to accomplish anything approaching good tactics. Not just that but they were incapable of enough forsight to know that those Monguls who are today beating up on your enemy next door will tomorrow be beating up on you. (Although perhaps it was just plain old poor communications in some instances)

During the War of the Rose one of the battle sites was chosen because the ground was soggy. Not a big deal for infantry, but try to charge a horse around on it. In many ways the Middle Ages were a step back in terms of development for Western Civilization, which was why I mentioned Rome. Many of the tactics employed by Legions are still widely applied today, and most certainly studied by anyone interested in military strategy and tactics. I think a number of those tactics could have been applied with devastating effectiveness to the Mongul Horde.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

---

Heavy war horses were always used by those that could afford them just as better armor was. The horse itself is a devastating weapon to foot soldiers! The hooves can kill as many or more than the knight! I'd heard that the cranes were used, but not necessarily needed. A luxury item used in contests. Who can say though. Very few artifacts remain. Cetainly not enough to say that all plate armors made weren't cumbersome. Perhaps the older iron armors were heavier or jousting armor was made heavier to afford greater protection in that particular contest. Then again, it may just be the artists flair for drama exaggerating the knights burden to make it seem more impressive. Writers and artists of the day were known to do such things. The surviving peices do lean toward the fact that plate was not as heavy as generally thought.


What if Rome didn't fall? I've often wondered that. We took a large step back as a world. We lost a great amount of knowledge. Primarily in archetecture. The recipe for concrete was lost a long time before re-discovery.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

[Cloudbringer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:


The turtle! Romans loved a front line with huge tower sheilds and short swords. The second rank was spears/pikes IIRC. Once again this weapon choice was mostly effective in massed formations.

---

Exactly! Wow, my Latin classes in High School pay off again! LOL I actually knew what that was! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmm.. think I will get Nacht over here for this one, good thread guys!


Cloudy

[WOLFGIR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:


The turtle! Romans loved a front line with huge tower sheilds and short swords. The second rank was spears/pikes IIRC. Once again this weapon choice was mostly effective in massed formations.

---

A little more about this turtle..
It was used after they lost a big battle against the Celts sometime 300 BC and when they used small shields that were round in the design. The celts used large wooden shields and stabbing weapons. Swords of steel and spears. After 200 hundered years after Rome was sacked the Roman empire (which by that time was south Italy to some miles north of Rome. The rest of the western europe including sppane to britain was in the hands of the celts) started using the large bodyshields, smaller swords and also made the pilum. A short throwing spear that were designed as a one hit only weapon. After a hit the point were bent and not good to throw back. Still chainmails and leather armour were the battledressing. 100 bc the romans were victoruious wirh their new close quarter fighting against a much greater army of celts and then they wiped out the celts back to britain again.

The Lorica Segmentata, the banded mail, were first used in battle against a people living in Moldavia/hungary and the area around some time 300 AC. The tactics with the close formations, pilum and shortswords and also the ballistae, catapults were effective for a couple of hundred years.