02-20-2003, 06:23 PM
JeffFig - Unfortunately my ADSL provider has been having some troubles, so I've been off-line for a couple of days. So just a few short (yeah - right) comments.<br>
<br>
The Strategic - Operational stuff: I usually classify operational as being in the sphere of strategy (strategy = moving troops to the spot), while tactics are confined to the battlefield (tactics = using the troops on the spot).<br>
<br>
About Carrhae I think you misunderstand my statement (or maybe I was unclear again?) - my point was that most of the casaulties suffered in the battle (not including the rout) by the Romans is likely to have been the losses suffered by Crassus Junior's force and not from archery. So I think we're basically in agreement.<br>
<br>
I disagree with you about the capabilities of infantry for creating a decisive rout, as well as its ability to decisively outflank (and encircle an enemy). There are lots of examples of decisive routs caused by infantry - of the top of my head I can name Ilippa (only rain preventing the Romans from exploiting the victory) and Poiters (or was it Crecy? - can't recall). I'm very sure I can find many other examples, if you press me to.<br>
<br>
Cavalry only turn an ordered retreat into a rout if the ordered retreat isn't really that well ordered (i.e., has no cavalry cover of its own).<br>
<br>
I think you're mixing up two things in this discussion. My point is that cavalry, in itself, is unimportant for causing a rout (infantry can do that just as well). Of course, cavalry excels at <strong>exploiting</strong> the rout once it has been created, and here it is much more efficient than infantry (though lightly armed infantry is also quite effective here - cf. the common use of combined cavalry and light infantry forces for pursuit).<br>
<br>
When I talk of "on the battlefield" itself, I am discussing primarily the role of cavalry vis a vis infantry from the point when the two armies "open the battle" to the "fuzzy" point when one side or the other routs or retreats. At this point, most flank marching (which I'd classify as strategy) has already been done, scouting was over, and the pursuit or covering the retreat are all things that fall after the battle.<br>
<br>
My claim/position is that during the battle itself, anything that cavalry can do, well-trained infantry can do just as well. To your comment that most battlefield commanders strived very hard to ensure cavalry was on the battlefield, I'd claim that many of the military systems of the iron age - most notably the Republican Roman legions and the Ancient Greek hoplite system - did quite well while largely ignoring cavalry. There is a marked tendency in the Republican/Hellenistic period toward more and more infantry heavy armies.<br>
<br>
IMO, the fact that cavalry is usually considered to be better than infantry is not because of any intrinsic advantage that they have, but rather the tendency that cavalry were often the "military elite" of the people (i.e., those expected to do the fighting and able to get the best equipment). In societies were the infantry had comparable training/morale/equipment to the cavalry; e.g., early Rome and Greece, the tendency toward infantry-dominated armies is very marked.<br>
<br>
On a final note: very few statements are both true and absolute; and especially when it comes to history. So please take any "absolute" statement I make with that in mind; this is an internet discussion, after all. I don't have time to weed out all ambiguous statements the way I'd do it if I were writing a research paper.<br>
<br>
Hmm - Roman Battles? I think it is a very long time since I last posted on that thread...<br>
<br>
Well, I better call it a day for now. In case I haven't mentioned this before, it's been very interesting hearing your views (incl. you all). Will probably not be back here very often for a while; have a very busy 6 week period coming up, but you're always welcome to visit the Imperium forum and leave a note, if you need to get in contact with me. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i></i>
<br>
The Strategic - Operational stuff: I usually classify operational as being in the sphere of strategy (strategy = moving troops to the spot), while tactics are confined to the battlefield (tactics = using the troops on the spot).<br>
<br>
About Carrhae I think you misunderstand my statement (or maybe I was unclear again?) - my point was that most of the casaulties suffered in the battle (not including the rout) by the Romans is likely to have been the losses suffered by Crassus Junior's force and not from archery. So I think we're basically in agreement.<br>
<br>
I disagree with you about the capabilities of infantry for creating a decisive rout, as well as its ability to decisively outflank (and encircle an enemy). There are lots of examples of decisive routs caused by infantry - of the top of my head I can name Ilippa (only rain preventing the Romans from exploiting the victory) and Poiters (or was it Crecy? - can't recall). I'm very sure I can find many other examples, if you press me to.<br>
<br>
Cavalry only turn an ordered retreat into a rout if the ordered retreat isn't really that well ordered (i.e., has no cavalry cover of its own).<br>
<br>
I think you're mixing up two things in this discussion. My point is that cavalry, in itself, is unimportant for causing a rout (infantry can do that just as well). Of course, cavalry excels at <strong>exploiting</strong> the rout once it has been created, and here it is much more efficient than infantry (though lightly armed infantry is also quite effective here - cf. the common use of combined cavalry and light infantry forces for pursuit).<br>
<br>
When I talk of "on the battlefield" itself, I am discussing primarily the role of cavalry vis a vis infantry from the point when the two armies "open the battle" to the "fuzzy" point when one side or the other routs or retreats. At this point, most flank marching (which I'd classify as strategy) has already been done, scouting was over, and the pursuit or covering the retreat are all things that fall after the battle.<br>
<br>
My claim/position is that during the battle itself, anything that cavalry can do, well-trained infantry can do just as well. To your comment that most battlefield commanders strived very hard to ensure cavalry was on the battlefield, I'd claim that many of the military systems of the iron age - most notably the Republican Roman legions and the Ancient Greek hoplite system - did quite well while largely ignoring cavalry. There is a marked tendency in the Republican/Hellenistic period toward more and more infantry heavy armies.<br>
<br>
IMO, the fact that cavalry is usually considered to be better than infantry is not because of any intrinsic advantage that they have, but rather the tendency that cavalry were often the "military elite" of the people (i.e., those expected to do the fighting and able to get the best equipment). In societies were the infantry had comparable training/morale/equipment to the cavalry; e.g., early Rome and Greece, the tendency toward infantry-dominated armies is very marked.<br>
<br>
On a final note: very few statements are both true and absolute; and especially when it comes to history. So please take any "absolute" statement I make with that in mind; this is an internet discussion, after all. I don't have time to weed out all ambiguous statements the way I'd do it if I were writing a research paper.<br>
<br>
Hmm - Roman Battles? I think it is a very long time since I last posted on that thread...<br>
<br>
Well, I better call it a day for now. In case I haven't mentioned this before, it's been very interesting hearing your views (incl. you all). Will probably not be back here very often for a while; have a very busy 6 week period coming up, but you're always welcome to visit the Imperium forum and leave a note, if you need to get in contact with me. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i></i>
