Opinion Discussion of Archaic Warfare

[Jean Otus]

It's my opinion that this sort of discussion, which has its roots in those old playground disputes. Clearly there's no definitive answer when things become this hypothetical. Everyone has their own opinion of what makes the best warrior. In my opinion it's incredibly fast calvary armed with compound bows and slashing weapons. Rebut, discuss, Tag who you're addressing. Thanks!

 

[archur]

Guys with really, really, really long spears. You see, the people in the back take their spears, and shake it over the heads of the people up front, and block incoming arrows. (Actual thing.) Then, the people up front can ram anyone that gets close, doing the same to anyone that gets too close. Sure, calvary is fast, but can you get close to pikes?

 

[Abendrot]

Guys with really, really, really long spears. You see, the people in the back take their spears, and shake it over the heads of the people up front, and block incoming arrows. (Actual thing.) Then, the people up front can ram anyone that gets close, doing the same to anyone that gets too close. Sure, calvary is fast, but can you get close to pikes?

The phalanx still has exposed flanks on the sides, and the best way to exploit those is to be more mobile than the phalanx. Of course, soldiers were trained to turn the formation quite quickly, but they can't deal with being surrounded on multiple sides, particularly by cavalry. The phalanx isn't like a hedgehog. It's designed to face in one direction all the time.


Also, horse archers are incredibly difficult to catch. A phalanx is carrying long spears, shields, and some armor. How do you get them to catch up to horse archers that retreat every time you advance? That is a massive advantage.

 

[archur]

The phalanx still has exposed flanks on the sides, and the best way to exploit those is to be more mobile than the phalanx. Of course, soldiers were trained to turn the formation quite quickly, but they can't deal with being surrounded on multiple sides, particularly by cavalry. The phalanx isn't like a hedgehog. It's designed to face in one direction all the time.


Also, horse archers are incredibly difficult to catch. A phalanx is carrying long spears, shields, and some armor. How do you get them to catch up to horse archers that retreat every time you advance? That is a massive advantage.

Huh. I just read however that the mongols, A fast mobile horse calvarly with bows, were defeated by egyptian mamluks. I briefly looked over them, but they seemed to be "Egyptian Knights." In most senses of the word, with the horses, heavy armor, swords, lances. They also had flintlocks. I may be wrong in assumption, but I do believe then a knight would beat a group of fast archers, as history has proven before.


I may be wrong. But how does an archer beat a knight, when everywhere you hit simply is deflected by the armor quality? Arrows are harder to use against a wall.


Also, a wall definitely beats archers. LOOK AT AMERICA, THERE IS NO MONGOLS. LOOK AT CHHHHIIIINNAAAA.

 

[Abendrot]

Huh. I just read however that the mongols, A fast mobile horse calvarly with bows, were defeated by egyptian mamluks. I briefly looked over them, but they seemed to be "Egyptian Knights." In most senses of the word, with the horses, heavy armor, swords, lances. They also had flintlocks. I may be wrong in assumption, but I do believe then a knight would be a group of fast archers, as history has proven before.

The Mongols and the Mamluks were similar people using similar tactics. The Mamluks were originally slave warriors recruited from the Central Asian steppes, who employed very much the same horse archer tactics that the Mongols did. They also had the advantage of professional military training, organisation, and favorable terrain.


As for the knights in Europe, they got trounced pretty easily at Legnica. From what I can tell, the Mongols' arrows must have been at least fairly effective against knight's armor.

 

[Eye of Nowhere]

Ah, the age old debate of who is better. Well, nobody is better.  Tactics and formations rely quite heavily on factors such as terrain.  Good luck to the mongolian cavalry in dense forests and particularly uneven terrain. Good luck to heavily armoured knights and horses in a swamp. In short, the best warrior is the kind that can adapt to the situation at hand and exploitation of the enemy's weakness. 


For all the historical tactics, one should keep in mind that they stem for the largest part on the situation in the army's homeland. Mongolia is a steppe with massive open spaces. Horseback tactics are perfect there.  You can ride in large sweeping movements unrestricted. Try that in the French Alps and you're riding off a cliff in no time. More close quarters combat tactics and usage of height advantage are more commonplace there. 

 

[Icerex]

Ah, the age old debate of who is better. Well, nobody is better.  Tactics and formations rely quite heavily on factors such as terrain.  Good luck to the mongolian cavalry in dense forests and particularly uneven terrain. Good luck to heavily armoured knights and horses in a swamp. In short, the best warrior is the kind that can adapt to the situation at hand and exploitation of the enemy's weakness. 


For all the historical tactics, one should keep in mind that they stem for the largest part on the situation in the army's homeland. Mongolia is a steppe with massive open spaces. Horseback tactics are perfect there.  You can ride in large sweeping movements unrestricted. Try that in the French Alps and you're riding off a cliff in no time. More close quarters combat tactics and usage of height advantage are more commonplace there. 

This. There really is no 'best' type of unit formation or armament. Tactics and arms change over time, whether that be from new technology, or in response to a new threat. Take for example; the Roman Empires gradual drift from massive legions of heavily armed infantry to the more flexible composition of light infantry backed up by elite cataphracts and heavy cavalry. If you really want to see what unit is the 'best' look no further then history itself. For a time it was the Roman legion, a formidable force on any battlefield, and one that conquered most of the known world at the time. Then it was the Mongol horse archer; fast, brutal and effective, they carved a path of destruction through most they choose to appose them. Then it was the combined arms of the Byzantine armies, with an extensive roster of various troop types, ranging from capable horse archers to the elite infantry of the Varangian guard. The feudal system of the Middle ages with heavily-armored knights, the English with their devastating longbowmen, crossbows, blocks of spearmen and men-at-arms, it all changes. Then you have the combined tactics of the large squares of pikemen with either ranks of crossbows or early-muskets backing them up.


Look at the winners in history, and there you will find the 'best' type of unit. Until another comes along and takes that title for themselves.         

 

[The Gunrunner]

It's my opinion that this sort of discussion, which has its roots in those old playground disputes. Clearly there's no definitive answer when things become this hypothetical. Everyone has their own opinion of what makes the best warrior. In my opinion it's incredibly fast calvary armed with compound bows and slashing weapons. Rebut, discuss, Tag who you're addressing. Thanks!

Ooo, a personal favourite of mine. Looking into the history of how warfare evolved for different cultures is quite interesting. Though I must argue something of a devil's advocate, as my position is that no tactic/doctrine/formation was entirely superior.


For example, your archer cavalry. There's a flaw with that type of cavalry in that they are very specialized; they are harassers. They go in, fire, and bugger off. So when they need to not 'bugger off,' they're not really as useful as they usually would be. That is, when they need to take a position. 'But they can go in, fire, then leave'? Well, not quite. As a stationary defending force, you would likely have stationary archers. Probably on foot. Imagine firing while on the back of a friend, then imagine firing on your own two feet. Which weapon are you able to use? What is the range of that weapon? Stationary archers can use bigger bows than those who need to stay mobile, and as a defensive force they're already prepped to fire by the time you get in. They out-range you in that case.


That's not to say archer cav aren't good dudes, they just don't win every situation. They're specialized, and are beaten by another type of unit. I hope my explanation as to why I feel that way is clear enough.


Here's a video that might explain it a bit better:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4b5IclFJ8Q


Additionally... bows actually weren't that effective. Sadly, many people misunderstand just how effective armours actually were. I don't have specific videos on that, but here are some channels that test and talk about it (along with other things): Metatron, Shadiversity, Skallagrim, and Thegn Thrand. Even cloth armour can be effective enough to stop arrows... and... you know... shields (cloth armour won't always stop arrows, but it's not going to just keel away like some pansy.) As for chainmail? Yeah, good luck, buddy. Then PLATE? GOOD BLOODY LUCK THERE, DUDE! To give an idea to the latter, I'd like you to consider the following:


The mighty warhammer, with a spike capable of penetrating plate with a good swing. The raw force of such a pike able to turn a proud knight into a tin can filled with spilled blood and broken bones. Yes? Well, no, not exactly. You even see this in demonstrations - Those pikes get stuck in the armour, and even when they penetrate it's not deep enough to kill someone. The only part that wouldn't give (the chest) puffs forward a bit, and underneath there is at least gambeson. A little poke through the metal isn't going to kill someone. At most, it would hurt a bit before they backhand you like a naughty child. That's why it has a hammer: You smack around their head, putting strain on the neck until it breaks. That, or delivering raw trauma right to the skull. The pike itself? That wasn't for plate, that was for chainmail.


So consider that: A full swing from a warhammer isn't enough to penetrate plate, so why would a bow?That's not to say bows never penetrated plate or chainmail - They did, but it depends on the bow and number. The battle of Agincourt is proof of that, but in that case it was such an overwhelming drowning of arrows that they were likely getting into the gaps. Even then, no guarantee of penetration, but with so many arrows you'll eventually have at least one get through. They might also fall from their horses, run over by cavalry comrades or crushed by their own mount. 


There's a lot of 'give and take' with weapons, and I think the same goes for warfare doctrines. If your thing is 'quick and mobile,' you can't go for heavy armour. If you go for heavy armour and tanky formations, you can't be quick and mobile. The 'superior' doctrine is more-so a relevant thing depending on the terrain, the tech of the time, and your enemy.


An example of the first: The greeks specialized in heavy infantry and the tanky phalanx formation, because their land has a lot of impassable terrain - You're kind of forced into each other, and can't be super mobile. The formation worked, but not always; the Romans took up the same thing early into their existence (long, long before they became an empire,) but had to change when they moved up north to the more hilly terrain. Their way around this was this weird... overlapping of the formation. Think of an accordian, and it's a little like that. 


Here's a video on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iz1_UwD2Fw


As for the second, related to the 'tech' thing: Horses today are nothing like they are in modern day. In fact, they were so short in the medieval times that a knight's feet could often almost touch the ground. It was uncommon for horses to be strong enough to carry a man with full armour (whether plate or chain,) and before this time the idea was just laughable for many areas. There were horses, sure, but they hadn't gone through the selective breeding to be as strong as they needed to be. This is why, I think, ancient nations used chariots. It's essentially a dog sled with ponies and a dude in the back with javalins or a bow.


To the third, I don't really have a specific example. It's really just a general rule for how warfare works - You adapt to your obstacles, or you cease to be powerful. The romans did that with the above video, many other nations did it during the rise of blackpowder weaponry, etc. It's a kind of 'natural selection' for warfare.


All-in-all, it's actually a VERY lengthy discussion. It really depends on the various situations you may be in during a war - Forest? Siege? Hills? Open area? Mountainous to creating choke-points? THEN you have to consider the technology. It's a topic that threatens to cause one to ramble on and on to explain every overlapping influence into what would affect the situation, units, nation, and tech. Ain't an easy topic.

 

[adrian_]

Very large tower shields mixed with short range spears and light leather armor, absolutely perfect for keeping close quarters, but still keeping an upper hand.