11-03-2008, 07:02 PM
Surena (the Suren) is a name and a title. The head of the Suren clan and/or a general. Whoever he was, he was put to death soon after his victory at Carrhae by the king he served.
The best tool for the job dominates the battlefield, and that depends on terrain, culture, and leadership.
In the east it was mostly horse archers and heavy cavalry, in the west it was infantry and heavy cavalry. Western armies of mostly infantry did well in the east under the right leaders (Alexander). Eastern armies of mostly horse archers did well in the west under the right leadership too (Attila). Both modified their armies and tactics to penetrate deep into the territory of the other.
For a similar massacre (for similar reasons) of a western army by eastern horse archers, look at the Horns of Hattin/Battle of Hattin in 1187 during the crusades.
Horse archers were very important in the east, and foot archers were in the west when the bows got good enough (see Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt) until something better came along (firerams). Archers might have been more popular in the west much earlier if their bows had been better. Until the English longbow of the 1300s, the range and power of western "self" (one piece of wood) bows was very inferior to the composite (horn/wood/sinew) bows of the east.
Crossbowmen are easier/quicker to train to a useful level w powerful enough weapons, but the rate of fire is slower and they are clumsy on horseback.
The best tool for the job dominates the battlefield, and that depends on terrain, culture, and leadership.
In the east it was mostly horse archers and heavy cavalry, in the west it was infantry and heavy cavalry. Western armies of mostly infantry did well in the east under the right leaders (Alexander). Eastern armies of mostly horse archers did well in the west under the right leadership too (Attila). Both modified their armies and tactics to penetrate deep into the territory of the other.
For a similar massacre (for similar reasons) of a western army by eastern horse archers, look at the Horns of Hattin/Battle of Hattin in 1187 during the crusades.
Horse archers were very important in the east, and foot archers were in the west when the bows got good enough (see Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt) until something better came along (firerams). Archers might have been more popular in the west much earlier if their bows had been better. Until the English longbow of the 1300s, the range and power of western "self" (one piece of wood) bows was very inferior to the composite (horn/wood/sinew) bows of the east.
Crossbowmen are easier/quicker to train to a useful level w powerful enough weapons, but the rate of fire is slower and they are clumsy on horseback.
Michael Orick >>>>-----
In archery we have three goals; to shoot accurately, to shoot powerfully, to shoot rapidly.
- De Re Strategica of Syrianus Magister
In archery we have three goals; to shoot accurately, to shoot powerfully, to shoot rapidly.
- De Re Strategica of Syrianus Magister
