Login

StrategyM · 02-13-2003, 12:30 AM

Dear JeffFig, 
 
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. 
 
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 long before 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. 
 
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. 
 
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 in coordination with the archery fire (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. 
 
I find your use of Carrhae as an example rather pointless, since: 
1. It was not a pitched battle. 
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. 
 
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). 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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 decimated by archery fire in any way. 
 
The only battle were one might 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 pursuit - 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. 
 
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 Order and Morale (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. 
 
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 Disorder 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. 
 
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. 
 
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). Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 2/13/03 1:31:44 am

02-14-2003, 12:15 AM

Dear Strategy 
 
Believe it or not we agree more than we disagree. The terms decimation and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpitched battleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ are subjective and that subjectivity seems to be the main difference between our views. 
 
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpitched battlesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ as you apparently define it. 
 
Ironically you say often Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthere is no historicalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ 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. 
 
The third definition of decimation Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcause significantÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ 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: 
 
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). 
 
In my view the casualties caused the Genoese and their repulse, constitutes Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa recorded instance of that. Later you state the same thing using the term Ã¢â‚¬Ëœheavy infantry.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ 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. 
 
At Carrhae, though the death of Publius was certainly the cause of CrassusÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ 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 ArmyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 
 
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. 
 
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 Ã¢â‚¬ËœdecisiveÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ in historical battles. 
 
Remove archery from any of those battles, even Agincourt and the probable outcomes are vastly different. 
 
 
As for your cavalry statement: 
 
Ã¢â‚¬Å“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).Ã¢â‚¬Â

StrategyM · 02-14-2003, 01:11 PM

JeffFig - Your views certainly do not irk me, even where I believe they are wrong. And (as you may have guessed) I tend to be a sarcastic person, and this sometimes spills over into my internet discussions. Sarcasm, unfortunately, never translates very well in writing, since even emoticons won't allow you to see my expression (and that is usually a smile - life is too short to be angry). 
 
So my apologies if any of my comments have offended you in any way. I do tend to enjoy these kind of discussions especially when (as you have done) relevant historical examples are being brought up and some pressure is put on me to justify my statements; otherwise I wouldn't spend as much time on them as I do. (Well: if one would rather that I was working on Imperium... ). 
 
Just for the record, I'll just go back to the original comment that did irk me: 
Quote:<hr>I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry.<hr> 
 
My point, of course, is that this statement is completely and utterly incorrect. 
 
In the Ancient period, there is not a single recorded instance of a battle in which archery alone inflicted significant casaulties on infantry. Carrhae - which we have already discussed - is not such a battle. As Plutarch makes abundantly clear, the majority of the Roman losses were suffered in the close-combat were Crassus Junior died, in the confusion resulting from the first Roman retreat (were 4000 stragglers were killed), and in the dissolution of the final retreat. 
 
In the Medieval period, we of course have the English longbowman who is popularly considered to be the archetype of "devastating archery". 
 
Here, unfortunately, I get caught in the language, and trying to say a lot of things at the same time in a single sentence. What I should have stated had I been a bit more precise is: 
 
On the offense: I know of no recorded instance in history where archery fire alone has succeeded in decimating and breaking close-order melee infantry. 
 
Point: None of the episodes you have stated are such cases. Historical evidence disagrees strongly with your suggestion that archery fire could have done so. Two points; one even up to the early 19th century, it still took the threat of melee to rout close-order infantry, two: even the Mongols, the penultimate horse-archer army, relied on close-combat to rout their foes. 
 
In archery vs archery duels, of course, there is usually a "winner" at some point; the Genoese vs Longbowmen battle is of course one such example (and there are naturally many similar examples). However, this example does not prove that archery fire could break melee infantry offensively - which was the point I was trying to make. 
 
On the defense: I know of no recorded instance where an archery unit unsupported by significant heavy infantry contigents has succeeded in repulsing an enemy charge 
 
Again, this didn't happen at any of the "Longbow" battles, as far as we can tell from our sparse sources. In fact, the only instances I can think of where archery fire (though always supported by heavy infantry) repulsed an enemy charge without contact are from the Roman period. 
 
On decimation: There is no good evidence to support that archery fire inflicts heavy (i.e., decimation scale) casaulties. 
 
What evidence we have for is of course anecdotal, and you have listed several. In each case, however, there is also a part of the anecdotal evidence that could suggest that the casaulties were inflicted in hand-to-hand combat. In addition to this, we do have strong evidence from the statistics recorded for historical battles of the pre-Napoleonic period to suggest that missile fire was by and large ineffective as a means of inflicting disabling casaulties (i.e., those that put a man out of action) and the strongest evidence to support this is that ancient & medieval battles - prior to the rout of either side - only very rarely involved decimation scale casaulties. 
 
As I stated: This does not mean that archery was not decisive in battles. It does however imply that archery is viewed incorrectly by most people (and modelled incorrectly in most games). Case in point, many (most?) people believe that all of the above three situations that are not only possible, but likely to happen. 
 
I'm not sure I see the point of your "remove archery from those battles statement". Remove the cavalry from Falkirk, and the outcome would have been different. Remove the English men-at-arms from Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt, etc., and the outcome would have been different. And so...? 
 
The Cavalry discussion 
 
On cavalry, I think you mistake my position. It is very true that at the strategic level, the advantage of cavalry is negligible - I do not think I have claimed otherwise. IMO, it is on the operational level (and small-scale operational), that I believe cavalry has its advantage - primarily because its mobility allows a cavalry force to strike at supply lines and harass an enemy infantry force much more effectively than an equivalent infantry force. It is also at this scale that one can perform the grand-tactical maneuvers that can bring victory in a battle. 
 
On the tactical scale, however, what is the advantage of cavalry over infantry? 
 
You suggest that it's mobility allows it to strike much more swiftly than infantry; I would contend that for battlefield mobility discipline and training is much more important than whether a unit is mounted or not. In fact, I would suggest (in the expectation that you will probably find one or two examples ) that there is no "cavalry" victory due to mobility that one can find, where a well-trained infantry force could not have done the same. 
 
Cannae is a subject of discussion in itself; there are people who have studied the battle much more than I have who would disagree strongly with your suggestion that the cavalry charge was the decisive factor (it was a contributing factor, certainly, but decisive... the Africans have that honor, I believe.). 
 
Quote:<hr>In absence of a threat to their rear and without being routed the Romans would have been defeated due to being outflanked but very probably would have made it back to their fortified encampment along a clear line of retreat.<hr> 
 
Considering that retreating from a defeat is - bar none - the most difficult military operation of all, I seriously doubt it. One of the advantages of cavalry over infantry is of course in the pursuit. 
 
At Adrianople, we have a case of the operational mobility of cavalry being decisive. Had a unit of equivalent infantry turned up on the Roman flanks instead of a unit of cavalry, the result would most likely have remained unchanged. 
 
You use the example of Hastings as one where cavalry had an advantage of infantry. I would suggest that with the fyrd being disordered and on open ground, infantry would have served just as well at defeating the Saxons as the cavalry did. The whole feigned flight and then turn on the enemy thing is as old as Chaeroneia at least (where the Macedonian phalanx performed exactly the same maneuvre as the Normans at Hastings). Again, we find that disciplined infantry is capable of essentially the same battlefield maneuver as cavalry. 
 
For shock value; I am not convinced that this is really true. It takes disciplined/good morale infantry to stand up to a cavalry charge, but it simmilarly takes disciplined/good morale infantry to stand up properly to an infantry charge. 
 
IMO, the mobility that allows cavalry to be decisive is only as good as their training and the capability of their leaders; and as many battles have shown (Ilippa and Pharsalus are good examples; Poiters is another), disciplined heavy infantry is just as efficient in this role. In fact, the training of the cavalry is much more important than their mobility - consider how (in)effective the numerically superior - but untrained -Celtic cavalry was in their many recorded battles. 
 
Of the tactical advantages of Cavalry on the battlefield have over infantry, I can see only one significant: the fact that Cavalry can run away from infantry and that the opposite is not the case. This of course means that infantry need only be defeated once by cavalry, whereas infantry can not really defeat cavalry. To balance this, though, it is (IMO) almost impossible for cavalry alone to defeat an equal quality infantry force. 
 
Going back to archery: 
 
Quote:<hr>In summary my contention is that archer disordering enemy infantry and reducing their morale IS Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdecimating enemy infantry.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢<hr> 
 
Ah - but now you are changing your position significantly. I do not agree with your use of the word "decimation" for what you state, but I am fully in agreement with the idea that the purpose of archery is to disorder enemy infantry and reduce their morale. Where I think we do disagree is the point to which archery fire could reduce morale; namely, I do not believe that archery fire was capable of routing an enemy force on its own. 
 
Quote:<hr>because heavy infantry, particularly Roman heavy infantry, do not normally rout from attack of enemy heavy infantry.<hr> 
 
This statement I found a bit funny. Do you want me to start citing examples to prove that this is the case? We can start with any number of hoplite battles... 
 
In any case, we have gone wildly off-topic, and of course considering so many different topics that it will take us many, many hours to even reach resolution on one of them. 
 
Someone asked what I believed were the determinants in Ancient/Medieval combat: my answer would be Leadership, Discipline and Morale. Regardless of the infantry/mounted/missile configuration, those armies that had the advantage in those three factors are the same armies that usually won battles in history. 
 
Interestingly, there is a survey: "On the Production of Victory: Empirical Determinants of Battlefield Success in Modern War" by Rotte and Schmidt, which reaches exactly the same conclusion based on an empirical evaluation of battles fought from 1600-1973. While their study should be taken with a certain grain of salt, this is particularly interesting since this is a period of huge revolutions in military technology, much more significant than e.g., the difference between a longbow and a crossbow at Crecy or the difference between horse archers and legionaries. In spite of this, they find the main determinants to be those three: Leadership, Discipline (which allows surprise) and Morale. 
 
Well - enough ramblings for now. Must get back to work. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 2/14/03 2:38:03 pm

02-15-2003, 05:55 AM

Mariko?? ;O 
i think you would be shocked to know how many players you would remember playing online today!! amp is even scarier...and elm is even uglier...and magyar is still the kahn even soly is seen online now 
*hugs mariko* 
u should stop by the foyer one night and say hi! ... u can get there through gamespy arcade without the game 
 
now to a little comment on archery 
 
i wont quote battles... but i will say that archery has more of an effect on an opposing army than just the casulities inflicted.... archery can control an area surrounding a unit by sheer presense...without combat....no major infantry force was compleaty wasted beacause no general of a major infantry force told his troops to just stand there untill you die. 
 
is it such a surprise that combined arms is the best form of fighting when combined arms gives a talented general the most tools to unlock the openents puzzle?

StrategyM · 02-15-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:<hr>i wont quote battles... but i will say that archery has more of an effect on an opposing army than just the casulities inflicted.... archery can control an area surrounding a unit by sheer presense...without combat....no major infantry force was compleaty wasted beacause no general of a major infantry force told his troops to just stand there untill you die.<hr> 
 
Well.... this is in fact also incorrect. 
 
Example: Napoleonic commander's would often leave their troops exposed to hour-long bombardment by enemy artillery. It was thought worse for the morale of a unit (or perhaps just unsporting? ) to order it to take cover, than to allow it to suffer casaulties. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]

***Praefectusclassis*** · 02-15-2003, 02:33 PM

Uhm, I think Wellington regularly had his troops on a reverse slope, sitting or lying them down against the fire. Greets 
 
Jasper

02-15-2003, 04:27 PM

I'll try for a change to keep this short 
 
I think on Archery we are maninly in agreement, it is merely the degree or importance of it to which we disagree. I haven't changed my views on it I merely think archer was decisive in the outcomes of certain battles. In a battle like Falkirk or Carrhae, though it could have been won by archery alone once the means of the Scots or Romans to effectively return fire was eliminated or neutralized, the mounted warriors of the English and Parthians would not have stood by and anot participated. 
 
As for cavalry your initial statement that got my attention was: 
 
"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)." 
 
you clearly state strategic and not operational legel advantage here. You further stated that heavy infantry could not defeat cavalry or vice versa. In most cases I agree however my studies of war indicate there is no such thing as always and never in battle. Therefore my contention that under certain conditions cavalry does have a battlefield advantage (and of course vice versa). 
 
You stated at Carrhae that most of the Roman casualties were in Publius' engagement. this is not correct. Plutarch plainly states that 30,000 of Crassus' army was lost (out of approximately 36,000 not conting the fickle Arab allies). As Publius' force consisted of 8 cohorts (perhaps4,000 probably much less due to previous casualties and the attrition along the march--which ancient historians never seem to mention), 500 archers and 1300 cavalry, the majority could not have been from that engagement. I think both of us would agree that the majority of casualties were probably lost during the retreat/rout. Plutarch also describes only the Gallic and other Roman cavalry of Publius being defeated in the melee. He says they fell back on the infantry and arrayed themselves on a small hill where they suffered an ineffective end, dwindling to the archery until they were too few to resist the final Parthian charge. 
 
As for Carrhae, Hannibal's infantry were too few to have encircled the Roman infantry alone. Infantry were also too slow to move to conduct that, thus the cavalry's battlefield mobility advantage. Roman fortified encampments in proximity of the battlefield often served as a rallying point for a defeated force (which had the resulte of saving the Romans from the mass of casualties suffered in the normal rout. 
 
At Adrianople the outcome of an infantry flank attack is much different from a cavalry attack smashing against. it. An infantry assault is more like the oceans incoming tide while a cavalry attack more like a rapid wave. Though an infantry flank attack has a good chance of defeating the Romans there is almost no chance of them being decisively defeated. the Romans with equal mobility can fall back. 
 
As for cavalry and routing my point was that heavy infantry up to modern times do not often cause a well ordered retreating enemy to rout. Time and again cavalry attacking an army attempting an orderly retreat turned it into a rout resulting inthe ehavier casualties. 
 
The other objection I have with the 'no batrlefield advantage' besides its absoluteness is the fact that throughout the Iron Age era commanders worked hard to ensure cavalry was on the battlefield to do preciseily the things it was better at than the infantry. Threaten enemy flanks, protecting your own, providing batlefield reconnaissance, providing battlefield mobility, the decisive charge, the covering charge, the pursuit or covering the retreat etc. If there was no advantage of cavalry commanders would not have bothered with it. They would have replaced a 500 strong cavalry unit and its horses with the 1000 man infantry force whose cost in supplies and equipment was almost the same. 
 
I do agree that in most cases well ordered, well trained and desciplined infantry will not be broken by cavalry. Infantry of that caliber is not always available, nor are they invulnerable in all conditions. Cavalry does have a battlefield advantage over infantry in some circumstances just as infantry does over cavalry in others. It is not at absolute. 
 
Oh well, not as short as i wanted. hey fascinating thread you are posting on in the military history section on Roman Battles. I'm monitering with great interest.

StrategyM · 02-20-2003, 05:36 PM

Jasper - the British were the only one's who used reverse slopes, and often they could not get their allies to understand the need. E.g., at Waterloo, the Dutch-Belgians misunderstood Wellington's order to deploy "in the normal fashion" and deployed forward of the hill crest, resulting in an entire brigade being basically shot to pieces. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]

StrategyM · 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. 
 
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). 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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). 
 
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 exploiting 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). 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
Hmm - Roman Battles? I think it is a very long time since I last posted on that thread... 
 
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. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]

03-01-2003, 01:01 PM

I may be wrong but you've never played Shogun either. Or did it once. For you would have known that archers don't beat spearmen. The perfect model of a cat is another cat, better be the same cat. The same goes for war games. What do you call a realistic battle?

StrategyM · 03-01-2003, 02:20 PM

Yawn. Yes you are wrong. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 3/1/03 3:21:30 pm

03-02-2003, 08:40 AM

Dear StrategyM 
 
Quote: 
Ã¢â‚¬Å“most flank marching (which I'd classify as strategy)Ã¢â‚¬Â

03-03-2003, 02:15 AM

"Parthians proved to the Romans that cavalry armies are good thing (these lessons cost Romans hundreds of thousands their soldiersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ lives). Tendency of the later Roman and Byzantine period is towards more and better cavalry." 
 
If I am not mistaken, the parthians, of which you seem so fond, lost an equal number of troops, and also had their capital sacked. So much for their "vaunted" cavalry. I don't suppose being mounted is such a hot idea while figthing CQB in a city does it? 
 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Optio 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"

03-03-2003, 06:54 PM

oh sure, bring *that* up why don't you! 
 
So you lose a city to sacking and pillage while your cavalry goes round and round the burning city...what happens when you try to *leave* that city? 
 
Britannicus

03-03-2003, 10:19 PM

Why leave? It's nice and comfy there 
Magnus/Matt 
Optio 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Rome..Total Realism Question and one for Total War version	arklore70	1	1,781	02-15-2006, 12:06 PM Last Post: Optio equitum