02-14-2003, 12:15 AM
Dear Strategy<br>
<br>
Believe it or not we agree more than we disagree. The terms decimation and ‘pitched battle’ are subjective and that subjectivity seems to be the main difference between our views.<br>
<br>
I’m not sure what you mean by pitched battle. From the context of your statements it appears (I may be wrong) that you believe a pitched battle is one that is not mainly missile exchange or skirmishing. Of course most modern battles then would not be ‘pitched battles’ as you apparently define it.<br>
<br>
Ironically you say often ‘there is no historical’ evidence for the views opposed to yours. It should also be said that in the absence of reliable statistics from ANY battle of the Iron Age it is equally true that there is no evidence for your views either. Anecdotal evidence of course is available for either side.<br>
<br>
The third definition of decimation ‘cause significant’ casualties is met in all the cases I quoted. It is this which I claim is the key to the battles I referred to. In Crecy the Genoese crossbowman came forward as a body. In a missile troop vs missile troop encounter the Genoese were worsted, broke and retreated in disorderly fashion. The fact that they were further decimated by the oncoming French is terrible but it remains that the Genoese as a body of infantry were repulsed due to the significant casualties caused them This in reference to your statement:<br>
<br>
There does not, as far as I know (and I'm getting this distinct sense of deja-vu at hearing this claim made yet again), exist even a SINGLE recorded instance of a pitched battle where archery alone has succeeded in decimating infantry).<br>
<br>
In my view the casualties caused the Genoese and their repulse, constitutes ‘a recorded instance of that. Later you state the same thing using the term ‘heavy infantry.’ I also agree that Falkirk comes closest to this. It is true that the English knights did use gaps in the Scottish schiltrons (caused by archery) to break up those dense formations but it is also true that the archery of the longbowmen would have done the job. Even without the knights whereas the reverse (knights without archers) would NOT have caused that result.<br>
<br>
At Carrhae, though the death of Publius was certainly the cause of Crassus’ loss of morale, it was the constant arrow storm as well as the inability to hit back that was the cause of the decline in the Army’s morale. The Parthians lured Publius and his 1300 horsemen, 8 cohorts (probably nor more than 2400-2500infantry by this time) and light armed infantry<br>
<br>
I thinks a better term to use is to ask was archery decisive? That as a military doctrinal term with a known definition should cause less confusion in a debate. It can also be proved or checked to a certain degree.<br>
<br>
In each battle, using a detailed simulator (not the off the shelf and certainly not the board game type) taking weapons, armor, morale, training etc into account, with probable outcomes based on average results of historical battles, it can be determined which factor is the most ‘decisive’ in historical battles.<br>
<br>
Remove archery from any of those battles, even Agincourt and the probable outcomes are vastly different.<br>
<br>
<br>
As for your cavalry statement:<br>
<br>
“Cavalry have advantages over infantry, but not on the field of battle itself - the advantage of cavalry lies in its strategic mobility which allows it to strike at the supply system to great effect. On a one-to-one basis, Cavalry haven't got a hope against equally well-armed infantry (of course the infantry can't defeat the cavalry either since they can't catch them - but that is another problem).â€Â
<br>
Believe it or not we agree more than we disagree. The terms decimation and ‘pitched battle’ are subjective and that subjectivity seems to be the main difference between our views.<br>
<br>
I’m not sure what you mean by pitched battle. From the context of your statements it appears (I may be wrong) that you believe a pitched battle is one that is not mainly missile exchange or skirmishing. Of course most modern battles then would not be ‘pitched battles’ as you apparently define it.<br>
<br>
Ironically you say often ‘there is no historical’ evidence for the views opposed to yours. It should also be said that in the absence of reliable statistics from ANY battle of the Iron Age it is equally true that there is no evidence for your views either. Anecdotal evidence of course is available for either side.<br>
<br>
The third definition of decimation ‘cause significant’ casualties is met in all the cases I quoted. It is this which I claim is the key to the battles I referred to. In Crecy the Genoese crossbowman came forward as a body. In a missile troop vs missile troop encounter the Genoese were worsted, broke and retreated in disorderly fashion. The fact that they were further decimated by the oncoming French is terrible but it remains that the Genoese as a body of infantry were repulsed due to the significant casualties caused them This in reference to your statement:<br>
<br>
There does not, as far as I know (and I'm getting this distinct sense of deja-vu at hearing this claim made yet again), exist even a SINGLE recorded instance of a pitched battle where archery alone has succeeded in decimating infantry).<br>
<br>
In my view the casualties caused the Genoese and their repulse, constitutes ‘a recorded instance of that. Later you state the same thing using the term ‘heavy infantry.’ I also agree that Falkirk comes closest to this. It is true that the English knights did use gaps in the Scottish schiltrons (caused by archery) to break up those dense formations but it is also true that the archery of the longbowmen would have done the job. Even without the knights whereas the reverse (knights without archers) would NOT have caused that result.<br>
<br>
At Carrhae, though the death of Publius was certainly the cause of Crassus’ loss of morale, it was the constant arrow storm as well as the inability to hit back that was the cause of the decline in the Army’s morale. The Parthians lured Publius and his 1300 horsemen, 8 cohorts (probably nor more than 2400-2500infantry by this time) and light armed infantry<br>
<br>
I thinks a better term to use is to ask was archery decisive? That as a military doctrinal term with a known definition should cause less confusion in a debate. It can also be proved or checked to a certain degree.<br>
<br>
In each battle, using a detailed simulator (not the off the shelf and certainly not the board game type) taking weapons, armor, morale, training etc into account, with probable outcomes based on average results of historical battles, it can be determined which factor is the most ‘decisive’ in historical battles.<br>
<br>
Remove archery from any of those battles, even Agincourt and the probable outcomes are vastly different.<br>
<br>
<br>
As for your cavalry statement:<br>
<br>
“Cavalry have advantages over infantry, but not on the field of battle itself - the advantage of cavalry lies in its strategic mobility which allows it to strike at the supply system to great effect. On a one-to-one basis, Cavalry haven't got a hope against equally well-armed infantry (of course the infantry can't defeat the cavalry either since they can't catch them - but that is another problem).â€Â
