02-13-2003, 12:30 AM
Dear JeffFig,<br>
<br>
By your own definition of decimation, you have already proved the extreme dubiousity of your claim, since in NONE of the examples that you mention are there any records to prove that archery fire caused 10% casaulties on the enemy.<br>
<br>
No, it does not seem incredible that such low casaulties could suppress, neutralize or destroy an enemy; if you study ancient and medieval warfare just a little bit, you would realize that most ancient and medieval armies in fact routed <strong>long before</strong> ever suffering 10% casaulties. In fact, most ancient battles seem to have been decided when either side had suffered some 5-7% casaulties (and sometimes even less). The huge mass of casaulties occured when one side routed - not doing the battle itself.<br>
<br>
At Crecy, the Genoese seem to have suffered more from their own side than they suffered from the English. And - like in every other battle of the HYW - the main brunt of the casaulties does not appear to have come from the archery but from the ensuing close combat where the confusion and disorder caused by the archery fire made the French men-at-arms easy targets for the disciplined English men-at-arms and the archers who would take their long knives, axes, etc., and attack in hand-to-hand. The same story goes for Poiters and Agincourt - in EACH CASE it required hand-to-hand fighting for the English to defeat the French.<br>
<br>
Falkirk repeats the same story - archery can disorder; it takes hand-to-hand combat to rout. I find your contention that the English could have won Falkirk without their heavy cavalry highly amusing. Let's not forget, while we're at it, that it was the English cavalry that routed the Scottish archers allowing the Welsh archers to close with the Schiltrons and that it took repeated charges of cavalry <strong>in coordination with the archery fire</strong> (nothing new btw - this was a traditional Norman tactic since before William the Conquoror - it was also used at Hastings) to break the Scottish Schiltrons.<br>
<br>
I find your use of Carrhae as an example rather pointless, since:<br>
1. It was not a pitched battle.<br>
2. The huge brunt of the Roman casaulties happened after the Roman army had lost its leader to treachery who had himself been demoralized by the loss of his son. Neither of those losses had much to do with archery; Crassus fell to treachery while his son fell in hand to hand combat.<br>
<br>
The Housecarles and Fyrd at Hastings were disorganized; does that give the cavalry enough advantage for you? As had been proven in the many hours of battle previously - and also after the "feigned" flights - the cavalry on its own had no advantage over the Housecarles (the Fyrd, of course, was hardly of equal quality to the Norman cavalry).<br>
<br>
Interesting that you should bring up Cannae as the big cavalry victory; particularly interesting since a lot of evidence suggests that the crucial component in the victory of Cannae was not the cavalry, but rather the Libyan-African heavy infantry component. Where you get the strange idea that the Romans could have withdrawn their army in good order from that battlefield, I fail to understand.<br>
<br>
Alexander's army fought against primarily mounted and lightly armed enemy cavalry. As the Greeks had proven time and time again against the Persians, an "all" hoplite army was more than capable of defeating the Persians.<br>
<br>
But to return to your interesting contention that Archery has ever routed a heavy infantry force: your use of Carrhae as an example is incorrect. You seem caught up in the myth of the English Longbow, but if you study any of Crecy, Poiters, and Agincourt you will observe that in none of them do the French rout until they have been beaten (and in each battle after desperate fighting) decisively by the English men-at-arms. In none of these battles is there any evidence to suggest that the French were <strong>decimated</strong> by archery fire in any way.<br>
<br>
The only battle were one <strong>might</strong> successfully argue that a "heavy" infantry force was decimated by archery fire would be Falkirk (though the evidence is rather lacking and considering the general statistic that 80% of the casaulties in AncMed battles happened during the <strong>pursuit</strong> - I seriously doubt it); but where you get the idea that the archers alone could have defeated the scottish schiltrons - especially considering what the Bruce did to the english a few years later at Bannockburn - beats me.<br>
<br>
Now note that I have at no place claimed that combined arms isn't important; it certainly is - however it is far less important to Ancient and Medieval warfare than <strong>Order</strong> and <strong>Morale</strong> (always a very volatile quantity) and the effective use of stratagems (usually to boost morale) - as you will quickly realize if you study the ancient tactical manuals and the battle accounts written by those who fought back then.<br>
<br>
Note that I have also not claimed that the Longbow was not an important component in the "Longbow" victories; it certainly not. But it was not an important component due to its fictional ability to "decimate" anything; it was important due to its ability to <strong>Disorder</strong> its target, which in turn allowed the superbly disciplined English men-at-arms (and at Falkirk and Hastings, the cavalry) to exploit the confusion to win the battle.<br>
<br>
Hmm - Lawful Neutral, eh? Nah - I always play Neutral Good. But I do so enjoy challenging it when people cite historical myth by rote. It tends to get entertaining, albeit lengthy. <br>
<br>
Perhaps I just need to learn to let myself get irked by this kind of thing... I should after all be working on Imperium, not writing a book on why archery is vastly over-rated in every computer game ever created (and every popular history program ever done). <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 2/13/03 1:31:44 am<br></i>
<br>
By your own definition of decimation, you have already proved the extreme dubiousity of your claim, since in NONE of the examples that you mention are there any records to prove that archery fire caused 10% casaulties on the enemy.<br>
<br>
No, it does not seem incredible that such low casaulties could suppress, neutralize or destroy an enemy; if you study ancient and medieval warfare just a little bit, you would realize that most ancient and medieval armies in fact routed <strong>long before</strong> ever suffering 10% casaulties. In fact, most ancient battles seem to have been decided when either side had suffered some 5-7% casaulties (and sometimes even less). The huge mass of casaulties occured when one side routed - not doing the battle itself.<br>
<br>
At Crecy, the Genoese seem to have suffered more from their own side than they suffered from the English. And - like in every other battle of the HYW - the main brunt of the casaulties does not appear to have come from the archery but from the ensuing close combat where the confusion and disorder caused by the archery fire made the French men-at-arms easy targets for the disciplined English men-at-arms and the archers who would take their long knives, axes, etc., and attack in hand-to-hand. The same story goes for Poiters and Agincourt - in EACH CASE it required hand-to-hand fighting for the English to defeat the French.<br>
<br>
Falkirk repeats the same story - archery can disorder; it takes hand-to-hand combat to rout. I find your contention that the English could have won Falkirk without their heavy cavalry highly amusing. Let's not forget, while we're at it, that it was the English cavalry that routed the Scottish archers allowing the Welsh archers to close with the Schiltrons and that it took repeated charges of cavalry <strong>in coordination with the archery fire</strong> (nothing new btw - this was a traditional Norman tactic since before William the Conquoror - it was also used at Hastings) to break the Scottish Schiltrons.<br>
<br>
I find your use of Carrhae as an example rather pointless, since:<br>
1. It was not a pitched battle.<br>
2. The huge brunt of the Roman casaulties happened after the Roman army had lost its leader to treachery who had himself been demoralized by the loss of his son. Neither of those losses had much to do with archery; Crassus fell to treachery while his son fell in hand to hand combat.<br>
<br>
The Housecarles and Fyrd at Hastings were disorganized; does that give the cavalry enough advantage for you? As had been proven in the many hours of battle previously - and also after the "feigned" flights - the cavalry on its own had no advantage over the Housecarles (the Fyrd, of course, was hardly of equal quality to the Norman cavalry).<br>
<br>
Interesting that you should bring up Cannae as the big cavalry victory; particularly interesting since a lot of evidence suggests that the crucial component in the victory of Cannae was not the cavalry, but rather the Libyan-African heavy infantry component. Where you get the strange idea that the Romans could have withdrawn their army in good order from that battlefield, I fail to understand.<br>
<br>
Alexander's army fought against primarily mounted and lightly armed enemy cavalry. As the Greeks had proven time and time again against the Persians, an "all" hoplite army was more than capable of defeating the Persians.<br>
<br>
But to return to your interesting contention that Archery has ever routed a heavy infantry force: your use of Carrhae as an example is incorrect. You seem caught up in the myth of the English Longbow, but if you study any of Crecy, Poiters, and Agincourt you will observe that in none of them do the French rout until they have been beaten (and in each battle after desperate fighting) decisively by the English men-at-arms. In none of these battles is there any evidence to suggest that the French were <strong>decimated</strong> by archery fire in any way.<br>
<br>
The only battle were one <strong>might</strong> successfully argue that a "heavy" infantry force was decimated by archery fire would be Falkirk (though the evidence is rather lacking and considering the general statistic that 80% of the casaulties in AncMed battles happened during the <strong>pursuit</strong> - I seriously doubt it); but where you get the idea that the archers alone could have defeated the scottish schiltrons - especially considering what the Bruce did to the english a few years later at Bannockburn - beats me.<br>
<br>
Now note that I have at no place claimed that combined arms isn't important; it certainly is - however it is far less important to Ancient and Medieval warfare than <strong>Order</strong> and <strong>Morale</strong> (always a very volatile quantity) and the effective use of stratagems (usually to boost morale) - as you will quickly realize if you study the ancient tactical manuals and the battle accounts written by those who fought back then.<br>
<br>
Note that I have also not claimed that the Longbow was not an important component in the "Longbow" victories; it certainly not. But it was not an important component due to its fictional ability to "decimate" anything; it was important due to its ability to <strong>Disorder</strong> its target, which in turn allowed the superbly disciplined English men-at-arms (and at Falkirk and Hastings, the cavalry) to exploit the confusion to win the battle.<br>
<br>
Hmm - Lawful Neutral, eh? Nah - I always play Neutral Good. But I do so enjoy challenging it when people cite historical myth by rote. It tends to get entertaining, albeit lengthy. <br>
<br>
Perhaps I just need to learn to let myself get irked by this kind of thing... I should after all be working on Imperium, not writing a book on why archery is vastly over-rated in every computer game ever created (and every popular history program ever done). <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 2/13/03 1:31:44 am<br></i>
