+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Recreational Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Romans vs. Normans--Help! (/showthread.php?tid=14204)
Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Matthew Amt - 12-14-2008
Avete!
Against my better judgement, and contrary to my usual practice, I let myself get sucked into a thread on MyArmoury.com discussing a hypothetical "Alternate Battle of Hastings". In this scenario, the force holding the hill is Roman, not Saxon.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=14443
As you can see, I let it go a while before jumping in. And I seemed to be making progress, but there are a few people who are convinced that Norman cavalry would steamroll any Roman cavalry and then chop the legions up at leisure. Besides the minor fact that the Normans were darn near defeated by the Saxons who didn't have ANY cavalry, they're just ignoring the other advantages the Romans would have.
But my problem is that I don't know cavalry or horses!! I could use help from a horse expert, someone who has ridden with Roman saddles and can explain better how stirrups just aren't so much of a nuclear weapon to make Normans invincible against auxiliary cavalry. At least, I don't *think* the Roman cavalry would be so hugely ineffective, but like I said, that's not my strong point.
Anyone else want to have a go? Mind you, MyArmoury is generally a pretty intellectual place, so it's odd that right alongside this thread there is also "Medieval knights vs. samurai" and "Spartans vs. samurai". Both gone to 5 pages so far, and lots of good information, but still...
Maybe I just have a problem with people who read through all my points and then say, "Nah, the Normans would kick Roman butt!" Sigh...
Thanks!
Matthew
PS: Hey, maybe if we convinced them that Normans were actually using Late Roman/Byzantine equipment and tactics--okay, now I'm confused...
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Steakslim - 12-14-2008
Perhaps you should point out that the roman infantry could kick cataphract butt with pilums and with very little support form any other units, and catphracts are much heavier than the lightly armored normans and they have bows. A legion has some onagers and sixty ballistae I'd like to see the normans stand up to that :twisted: You can also point out that the roman saddle allows you to lean from side and stay on and and you can use all the other weapons the roman cavalry had and keep your seat and of course the norman knights never got through the saxon shield wall only after the saxons broke formation did they manage to get through not to mention the fact that the normans would be charging uphill whereas the Alae will be charging down hill
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Steakslim - 12-14-2008
BTW The alae is just as well armored (If not better) than the normans and the norman stirupps are just metal hoops with leather strips attaching them to the saddle and the normans have their legs straight down they aren't even keeping their heels down they are unorganized and they are probably the only troops with good armor and weapons
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Gaius_Calvus - 12-15-2008
Matt,
Some great points to dispute this are in John Keegan's "The Face of Battle."
The essential point to make is that cavalry will not charge home against infantry in good order -- horses are not stupid. This was exactly the problem the Normans (whom I love, but don't believe they could beat the Romans) had with the Saxons at Hastings -- the Saxons retained their order.
The Normans only started winning (and I'm sure you already know this) when they started feigning flight (to draw the Saxons off-line so they could be cut down) to cause the Saxon ranks to lose their rigid order. Combined with the wounding of Harold, that was it. They did not win through cavalry charges.
Again, check out Keegan's book, and use his information against these morons.
Regards,
Edge
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Steakslim - 12-15-2008
Quote:Matt,
Cavalry will not charge home against infantry in good order -- horses are not stupid.
Edge
You can train a horse to do anything
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Gaius_Calvus - 12-15-2008
Sorry, Thomas, I disagree.
I have cited a reference in Keegan.
If this were the case, can you please tell me how many times cavalry was able to break squares in the Napoleonic period?
Have you read Keegan's book? Have you read any of the primary sources Keegan cites?
Regards,
Edge
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - M. Demetrius - 12-15-2008
There is a long and informative thread on RAT about horses and training and battle and pointy defense implements. Might be good to check that out. (BTW, horses can't be trained to fly over the spear line)
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Narukami - 12-15-2008
Quote:Matt,
Some great points to dispute this are in John Keegan's "The Face of Battle."
Regards,
Edge
Quite right!
As I remember the book, Keegan's main point was that most casualties were taken when a unit's discipline broke.
In the case of the Saxons their discipline broke when they left their positions and met the Normans on open ground where the cavalry had the advantage.
In battle after battle the Roman legions were outnumbered, sometimes by several orders of magnitude, and yet their superior discipline and training allowed them to prevail. I doubt William's Norman knights would have beaten a legion whose discipline and moral were intact.
Keegan's is one of the very best studies on men in battle and should be considered an essential text.
:wink:
Narukami
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Steakslim - 12-15-2008
Well if your talking medieval cavlary or rennisance, besides I grew up around horses I've even been charged by one, the hussars charged pikes head on and won with few casualties. Bohemian knights had to charge a stone wall on horseback and break a lance the finnish cavalry under Gustavus Adolphus used the horses to charge infantry, knights had to charge things like quintains not the mention the fact that types of chanfron cover the horses eyesm, and warhorses can be trained to close their eyes, also in a formation only the first rank will see the pikes and if they have other horses behind them the will keep moving or get trampled BTW there was a thread were some reenactors got the horses to do what the rider wanted. Has Keegan ever ridden a horse and trained them?
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Proximus - 12-15-2008
You can train a horse to do anything you want. I think it is correct ; horses, well trained, are not victims of their fear or can deal with it.
But you cannot train a horse to be stronger than he is. Charging a well dressed line of shield and spear is not verry clever, though if you train your horse well, he will do it.
Once.
Concerning Hastings, I think it is always difficult to review History. The two armies where not amateurs, but romans where not either.
I think one question to ask is would the romans run after the false flighting army or will they stand ?
More depending the general than the army, if you want my opinion.
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Steakslim - 12-15-2008
Quote:You can train a horse to do anything you want. I think it is correct ; horses, well trained, are not victims of their fear or can deal with it.
But you cannot train a horse to be stronger than he is.
Then use a big horse. There was a battle where the horses, despite being shot multiple times in the head, legs, chest, and neck with machine guns not to mention the barbed wire they kept charging and only when they reached the enemy lines did they collapse, it depends on the horses heart and you can charge spears and pikes if the horse is barded or if the riders are armed with Kopias
Horse charge - Caius Fabius - 12-15-2008
Actually the horse can be trained to charge a line of men armed with noisy, pointy things, and unlike certain national propeganda, mounted cavalry did break formed squares during the Napoleonic era much more often than recorded. There is a book by a horsemaster of Napoleon's army where he tells of how to teach horses not to fear formed infantry, by having them charge against formed infantry yelling and firing blanks, who then open ranks and let the horses through, to their special treats of food. He lamented the injuries to the men who weren't fast enough to get out of the way. The trick only works once in combat, but the horse charges home, and one ot two dead horses hitting a formed square were reported to be enough to break them, even at Waterloo.
Napoleonic examples include Borodino, Jena, Della Dogana Inn, Codroipo, I can dig out other examples... I think it is more important to measure the morale of the riders, and the training of the horses. The horses move in a herd, and if properly trained will jump over a cliff, through fire, or charge a formed body of men. The training takes years, which is why you find the cavalry at the end of a long war usually performs worse than the cavalry formations at the beginning.
The myth that modern non-riders have created by writing how horses are too smart to charge home, is being taken up by many historians today, most of whom may never have hitched a mule, saddled a horse or spent 3 - 4 years training a horse to respond to the commands of an experienced rider. Perhaps they might do well to go back and read the writings of real people who actually did this in the past?
To learn more about training cavalry horses read:"The Note-Books of Captain Coigent" by Jean-Roch Coigent, or"The Memoirs of Denis Davidov" by Lt General Davidov. (More references available if I go out and dig through my boxes of books)
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Proximus - 12-15-2008
Well, I am still reading the thread on Myarmoury... There is a problem : They said Normand cavalry is comparable to sarmatian cavalry and Parthian cavalry !
"Though Sarmatian and Parthian where more armored , they had lighter cavalry too"
Nonsense !
The sarmatians were nomad people, horse riding and horse hunting. I do not learn you anything new here. The heavy cavalry were horse archer ! The lighter cavalry were... horse archer too ! When yout of arrows (or when they wanted too) the heavy cavalry just charges with two handed kontos.
And with a high quality lamellar horn, bones, steel or leather armor, sometime extended to the horse !
Parthian had the same way to fight with some differences dues to their settlement. The horses where more often protected with lamellar (cataphracts...) but the core of thoses armies are...
Horse archer.
Keeping distances with roman archers, keeping showering them with their arrows.
Does anyone have any clue about evidence of normand horse archer ? They used spears and javelin, witch mean to be at reach of pillum.
Normands and ancient eastern nomads are realy not the same.
And eventualy... Eastern nomads did not uses stirups
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Gaius_Calvus - 12-15-2008
Caius,
You state: " I think it is more important to measure the morale of the riders, and the training of the horses." What about the morale of the infantry and their training? I for one do not dispute the efficacy of cavalry vs infantry when the infantry is untrained, with low morale, and loses their cohesion. Further, I hardly think that a book by a horsemaster in Napoleon's Army qualifies as an unbiased source. He obviously didn't make it to Waterloo (oh, yeah, we're forgetting the death ride of the Grand Armee's cavalry there, are we not?)
You state that more squares were broken in the Napoleonic period than were recorded. Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. If this was not recorded, where (not to mention how) did you learn of it? :roll:
You state that the training of cavalry to perform the improbable feats you mention takes years -- would you care to mention how long the average cavalry horse of the Napoleonic era lasted in a particular campaign? What was the purpose of remounts? Could you expand on this phenomenon of cavalry horses? My reading of Chandler and others in the Napoleonic wars does not support the idea that cavalry horses enjoyed a lot of longevity.
Squares can certainly be broken, but in the vast majority of cases this was a result of the action of combined arms, not of cavalry charging unsupported. The way to break a square was to combine the effects of infantry and/or artillery with that of cavalry. Infantry battalions, faced with the threat of cavalry, form square, which is a horrible tactical formation when also facing artillery and or infantry, since square places them in the position of a) having their ranks blown open by artillery and/or b) at a distinct firepower disadvantage against an infantry unit able to deploy into line. Yes, squares were broken in the Napoleonic era by cavalry, but almost always by the use of combined arms.
You mention four specific examples: Borodino, Jena, Della Dogana Inn, Codroipo. Out of how many examples of infantry battalions forming square and winning vs losing? The Wars of the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars lasted from ~1792 - 1815. 23 years. In that time, how many successful vs unsuccessful actions of unsupported cavalry vs infantry in square? Do you believe the statistics will be in your favor?
You cite a "myth" created by non-riders. Obviously, you have not read Keegan, who cites a myriad of serving cavalry officers in his work. Did he invent the same sources you used when you cite the breaking of squares more often than was recorded (I am still trying to understand that one). Since you are obviously a rider, can you tell us how many horses you have trained to specifically charge into a line of disciplined, spear or bayonet wielding infantry?
I think that before you accuse "non-riders" of believing in myths, you need to go back and uncover some of these unpublished reports you cite and do a little more research.
Regards,
Edge
Re: Romans vs. Normans--Help! - Steakslim - 12-15-2008
Salve Gaius
Napoleonic cavalry is much different than medieval or rennisance cavalry you take only one type of cavlary from one era and use that to say that all cavalry couldn't wouldn't charge infantry, also Keegan observed the cavalry of his time not of the Middle Ages and the Rennisance