PDA

View Full Version : What was used when? Confusion on historical warfare.



Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 07:54 AM
I'm getting a headache trying to figure out the evolution of warfare. Why do you ask? Well because the Internet is full of contradictory sources on anything, expecially when said anything is history.
What follows is a collection of info I've found by consulting several different sites and I'm about to kill myself trying to figure out who was right and who was wrong.

Pre-medieval warfare: formations of shields plus whatever weapons. The Romans used short swords even if apparently spears beat swords every time, but it's ok because the Romans conquered Europe anyway so gg. Archers did their thing but apparently bows in the ancient ages were useless and couldn't pierce anything because a light wooden shield protected against arrows like an umbrella protects from rain. Why where archers even there. Romans had crossbows but for whatever reason they weren't a game changer like they would be later. The phalanx went out of style and I have no idea why.

Medieval warfare: hell if I know. Swords were expensive, so nobody used them, except knights, who were not nearly as uncommon as one might think because entire armies made of them were the norm. But they didn't use swords. In fact, swords were never used in actual battle, ever, and were just a symbol of status you moron. Also, archers were important. They could pierce armor like it wasn't even there, only later we see that full plate was developed to stop bullets. Around this time shield formations weren't used anymore because archers could pierce shields like paper even if they didn't at the time of the Roman Empire. Cavarly won every time because everyone forgotten how to use 3 meter long spears that would have probably been pretty effective and were used centuries earlier.

Reinassance: pike formations everywhere. Why the hell did the phalanx go out of style when it was basically the same thing as a pike formation?! But no, apparently now pike formations beat EVERYTHING. They were so compact that they could stop arrows (???) and shields weren't needed, because now armors were advanced enough to provide protection against musket bullets. Which is why 2 handed swords, which were commonplace just like full plate, are everywhere. But pikes and muskets still win, so what role did 2 handed swords have? Right, bulletproof armor. Why didn't pikemen had that?
Also, heavy cavalry belongs to this time period, apparently, and NOT to the medieval time, even though muskets and pikemen made it obsolete. I guess it was just too cool to pass.

18th century warfare: armor was useless for some reason so everyone said "**** it" and just marched unarmored in a compact formation that made them perfect targets for cannons and rifles, because I guess nobody had a better idea. Like using the same bulletproof armor that they had a century earlier? Or not staying in a compact formation that is an incredibly easy target? Nope. Compact formation of cannon fodder it is. Cavalry was back only they used pistols and carabines, which by all accounts didn't hit anything but the hit and run attacks were very pretty so they kept them around. But lancers were still there. No idea how, given that pikes seemed to work wonders against them. But nobody had them anymore, because bayonettes were better even though a rifle is a lot shorter than a pike.

19th century warfare: nobody cares. There were rifles and ****, also cavalry with rifles even though it provided no practical advantages by all accounts. But revolvers were cool. Zulus with spears and shields made of leather kicked the asses of riflemen, just so I can get a headache thinking about it.

WW1: finally things start making sense. Everybody used dated tactics against automatic firearms and got slaughtered, so they dug trenches and stood there while being bombed by artillery. They got tired of it 3 years later and everybody went home.

WW2: we all know about that.

Nothing makes sense.
Why did the phalanx as used by Alexander the Great, which was a wall of soldiers using incredibly long spears, go out of style in favour of soldiers with shortswords by the time of the Roman Empire? Speaking of swords, how come they were the basic weapon for infantry during the Roman Empire but suddenly when Medieval times begin nobody uses them and were so rare and priceless that only nobles could affort them?
Was cavalry ever useful? Becuase everyone says that spears and pikes slaughtered them, but apparently they dominated the battlefield anyway.
How come pikemen and musketmen weren't slaughtered by archers, which by all accounts could shoot faster and further away? Why did they even made the transition from bows and crossbows to firearms before the rifle was developed? Cannons I understand, sure, but early firearms sucked. Why use them instead of crossbows, which were as easy if not easier to use and were more powerful and reliable?
What role did 2 handed swords have? How come suddendly full plate armor and swords twice as big as before are not ultra-expensive and rare? If pike and musket formations were invincible, what could a 2 handed sword accomplish that the aforementioned formation couldn't do better?
Why did troops in the 18th century stood in compact formation? Why didn't they used any kind of armor when full plate was everywhere just earlier and was apparently good enough to stop bullets?

The more I look for answers the more contradictions I find. Please help.

Fenix_of_Doom
2014-09-09, 09:02 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that empires actually fell and that knowledge about warfare can be lost, that might explain some of the changes. I'm not really an expert, but I've watched some videos from a guy named Lindybeige (https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige) he seems to know what he's talking about, I recommend watching them.

BRC
2014-09-09, 09:30 AM
I have neither the time nor the knowledge to go through and refute you point by point, so I'll just cherry-pick some stuff.

The Phalanx was a useful strategy, it's decline came with the rise of Rome, which initially used a phalanx, but eventually developed a more flexible three-line strategy (Source is wikipedia). The Phalanx was inflexible and immobile, easily outflanked by more maneuverable enemies.
Poking around Wikipedia says it never really went out of style, the Roman Legions would have a phalanx of elite Triarii (Veteran Legionaries) as their third, and last line of battle.

Also, Full Plate was never Commonplace. It was always very rare and very expensive. Anytime you find yourself asking "Why didn't they use full plate", it was because it's REALLY EXPENSIVE. Foot Soldiers will never wear it.
IIRC, the rise of Muskets over Archers was because it was easier to equip a large army with Muskets. Sure, arrows were cheaper, but you had to train your archers well in order to make them useful. With Muskets, once you had twenty soldiers trained to load, point their guns in the general direction of the enemy, and pull the trigger when you shout FIRE! You send a wall of lead shot at the enemy. Sure, an Archer COULD be more effective, but that would require training an entire army of elite archers.
Archers could shoot faster, and they could shoot further away, but their chances of actually hitting anything required more training.

Also, remember that new tactics arise to defeat the CURRENT tactics.
Pike Formations were used to defeat Cavalry. They may have lost against a roman legion, but they were meant to fight cavalry. Pikes formations were basically Phalanxes, only without shields because they needed two hands to hold pikes long enough to outreach a lancer on horseback.
Later, when everybody switched from pikes to Muskets, Lancers became useful again.

19th century Rifle Cavalry, in the civil war anyway, generally didn't fire their rifles on horseback. They used their horses to quickly maneuver around the battlefield, dismounted, and started shooting. The advantage was in their ability to move around the battlefield quickly.

The Zulus vs Rifles thing was one battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana). The British were outnumbered over ten to one and caught off-guard, they didn't bother setting up their camp defensively because they were overconfident.


Also, Armies are frequently reflections of the societies they come from. Just look at the Mongols, the most effective army in history. The reason everybody wasn't using horse-archer cavalry was because not everybody had a culture where everybody learned how to ride a horse and shoot a bow.

Eisenheim
2014-09-09, 09:35 AM
Why did the phalanx as used by Alexander the Great, which was a wall of soldiers using incredibly long spears, go out of style in favour of soldiers with shortswords by the time of the Roman Empire? Speaking of swords, how come they were the basic weapon for infantry during the Roman Empire but suddenly when Medieval times begin nobody uses them and were so rare and priceless that only nobles could affort them?
Was cavalry ever useful? Becuase everyone says that spears and pikes slaughtered them, but apparently they dominated the battlefield anyway.
How come pikemen and musketmen weren't slaughtered by archers, which by all accounts could shoot faster and further away? Why did they even made the transition from bows and crossbows to firearms before the rifle was developed? Cannons I understand, sure, but early firearms sucked. Why use them instead of crossbows, which were as easy if not easier to use and were more powerful and reliable?
What role did 2 handed swords have? How come suddendly full plate armor and swords twice as big as before are not ultra-expensive and rare? If pike and musket formations were invincible, what could a 2 handed sword accomplish that the aforementioned formation couldn't do better?
Why did troops in the 18th century stood in compact formation? Why didn't they used any kind of armor when full plate was everywhere just earlier and was apparently good enough to stop bullets?

The more I look for answers the more contradictions I find. Please help.

1. Roman Maniples and later Cohorts replaced the phalanx because they were more flexible. Phalanxes are basically useless on rough terrain and cannot survive being outflanked because the men are packed too tightly and their weapons too unwieldy to let them maneuver. Roman formations solve those problems to a fair degree.

2. The rareness of swords is somewhat exaggerated. The scarcity is due to the disappearance of the professional Roman army and its replacement with peasant levies. Its not worth equipping an untrained peasant with a sword that takes a lot of training to use properly, so only nobles, who are professional fighters, have them.

3. Cavalry, using the new technology of stirrups, which allowed heavily armored riders to charge straight into enemy formations with spears, was what let 'barbarians' like the goths defeat the roman legions and lead to the fall of Rome. It took several hundred years before equipment and tactics developed to the point where heavy cavalry did not dominate the battlefield, largely because, while a static pike square could take a charge, it could not move and still do so.

4.In order of expense and level of training required to use effectively longbow > crossbow > musket. Corssbows more powerful than even early muskets where also absurdly big, heavy and slow firing.

5. Two handed swords served two purposes in late medieval/renaissance warfare. As used by the scots, they could be use like pikes, using that leather wrap around the base of the blade you see on claymores to grip or they could let a man on foot cut through a horse to get the knight on top, this was before muskets were largely used. As used by landsknechts and other European mercenaries, they were used to break up pike and powder formations. Swordsmen would dodge between the set pikes or cut them apart to get at the men in the formation.

6. 18th century troops stood in packed formation because it was the only way to guarantee an effective volley from inaccurate muskets. They did not wear armor because it was far too expensive, not really reliable against bullets and they were in no way trained to do so. Some nobles and cavalry did continue to where rigid breastplates into the 18th century.

MrConsideration
2014-09-09, 10:16 AM
The question should be 'what was used when and where?'. Arms are radically different around the world. Most D&D campaigns implement this to a degree ("In the East swords are curly, in the North they use axes') but the real variety doesn't come across. Some really interesting examples are available here: http://www.royalarmouries.org/collections

Certain cultures, social structures and geographical locations incentivise different kinds of warfare, and certain fashions like the Spanish Tercio in Europe spread based on a sort of military fashion. It's not just a simple 'arms get better over time' - for example, take Agincourt (1415) in the Hundred Years War(s). Here, a predominantly contract-based peasant army defeated French Knights because of the fact tactics had advanced to make a simple heavy cavalry charge no longer a good strategy - pikes, billhooks and longbows allowed a cheaper army to counteract the extremely expensive knight-in-plate-mail norm with less training or financial investment. But if you were to use pikes and billhooks against a predominantly infantry-based shield wall, they'd be totally useless. Weapons aren't a d8 in real life, they generally serve some specific function.

The French cavalry charge had suffered a huge defeat against Ottoman light cavalry and cavalry archers at Nicopolis in 1396, too, which should have demonstrated that it wasn't applicable to every situation. It didn't, because French culture was so bound up in the cult of the chevalier, and literature focused on their military importance, even if real-life warfare tended to reveal they were a white elephant with a specific and limited battle-field function by that time. Contrast modern examples of American heavy armour tactics in Vietnam, or the extensive use of cavalry in WWI. Reforming a military tends to mean antagonizing entrenched interests, and can be very expensive, and is often very risky - especially if a class of people like knights, samurai, timariots, professional soldiers, kshatriya draw their prestige from certain schools of warfare, or if certain kinds of warfare are considered immoral (the crossbow), damaging to the social fabric due to their ease of use (guns) or somehow undignified.

Pikes are really unwieldy to carry, and can be flanked, or shot at from afar, to nullify their advantage.

Early firearms had the advantage of being terrifying. In a world where most battles are decided by who runs away first, this is a pretty huge factor.

As regards the Zulu Wars and rifles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift

If you weren't wealthy or a professional soldier, in most medieval cultures you needed to supply your own weapons and armour, so they'd be cheap and pretty crap. An adventurer doesn't normally fight in any sort of organised army, so he has to be suited for individual combat, which is very different.

Yora
2014-09-09, 10:23 AM
I don't usually pick quotes appart into segments, but here it seems appropriatr

The Romans used short swords even if apparently spears beat swords every time, but it's ok because the Romans conquered Europe anyway so gg.
Spear beats sword most of the time. In a fight one on one. Romans were using large shields in tight formations, which allowed them to form very strong walls that provided them excelent protection. On the last few meters before a formation of legionaries came into reach of the enemies weapons, they would throw light throwing spears that would get stuck in the enemies shields. Then they draw their swords and start stabbing through the gaps between their shields, while the enemies where still trying to get the spears out of their shields so they could reform their own shield wall. But with the roman shields already pressing against them, they were too tightly packed to get their spears into position while the romans happily stabbed away with their short swords from behind their shields.
Almost everyone used shields. That the roman legions found a way to use swords in phalanxes was kind of their super weapon that conquered their world.


Archers did their thing but apparently bows in the ancient ages were useless and couldn't pierce anything because a light wooden shield protected against arrows like an umbrella protects from rain.
That's a claim I havn't heard before. Shields could shield you quite well from arrows from above, but not form a perfect cover and some would always get through. It also means you have to hold the shield in a certain direction which leaves you vulnerable on other sides and you couldn't see what's going on. Shields probably helped a lot against arrows, but couldn't neutralize them completely. They could still cause disorder, which is exactly what you need to crack a phalanx with your own.


The phalanx went out of style and I have no idea why.
Economy and terrain. We have shield walls among the germans and celts in post-roman times, but these were not the same as the phalanxes from antiquity. For a phalanx, you need professional soldiers with good equipment, which requires a state army funded and equiped by a central government, which was practically nonexistent in the early middle ages. Also, to fight in formations, you need large open fields, which north of the alps were very rare. There just wasn't room for coordinated formations to move, which is why the Romans never really could expand into Germany.


Medieval warfare: hell if I know. Swords were expensive, so nobody used them, except knights, who were not nearly as uncommon as one might think because entire armies made of them were the norm.
Swords are really, really good weapons. If you fight against someone who is not heavily armored. To fight unarmored peasants or to defend yourself against robbers, they were great weapons. But it was really hard to cause serious injury against an enemy with heavy armor. Some weapons were better at punching through it, like spears, or hit so hard it would still break bones, like maces.
Knights where the military elite, who were supported by much larger numbers of peasants. But with their armor, horses, and training, a single knight was worth more than a good number of peasants. But often they would not be mixed, and instead the knights formed their own group to make heavy cavalry charges against groups of peasants, trying to puch holes into their formations. They were only a relatively small number of the entire army, but tended to have the most impact on the battles.


Also, archers were important. They could pierce armor like it wasn't even there, only later we see that full plate was developed to stop bullets. Around this time shield formations weren't used anymore because archers could pierce shields like paper even if they didn't at the time of the Roman Empire.
Armor did a great job against arrows. If you could have it. Knights did, but most other people in the battle did not. Also, protecting the knights horses was much more difficult. Also, protection was not 100%, so there was always risk an arrow still hit in a place where it really hurt.
Shields were always very good against arrows, but again, no 100% protection and someone would always still get hit.


Cavarly won every time because everyone forgotten how to use 3 meter long spears that would have probably been pretty effective and were used centuries earlier.
Spears were still used to protect against cavalry, and that made the job really hard for the knights. In movies cavalry often just crashes straight into infantry formations, which in reality would just get everyone killed. What they did instead was to charge the shield walls with lances and at the very last moment turn their horse around so they can get one single stab against the infantry. Then they would retreat and reform for the next charge. Instead of stabbing with lances, throwing spears was also an option. Some people in the shield wall would get hit and possibly killed by spears and lances going over or slipping through the shields, but that alone would not get the knights an opening large enough to get through. What it really took was to scare the infantry enough to cause the shield wall to collapse. And once the wall of shield and spears was open, the armored knight could really start with a slaughter. Swords came very handy at this point.
At the Battle of Hastings, th norman knights were charging and retreating against the anglosaxon shield wall all day. In the end, they only managed to get through when they pretended to flee the battle and the infantry started running after them, causing the shield wall to disappear. Then they turned around and started hacking them down before they could form a new shield wall.


Reinassance: pike formations everywhere. Why the hell did the phalanx go out of style when it was basically the same thing as a pike formation?! But no, apparently now pike formations beat EVERYTHING. They were so compact that they could stop arrows (???) and shields weren't needed, because now armors were advanced enough to provide protection against musket bullets. Which is why 2 handed swords, which were commonplace just like full plate, are everywhere. But pikes and muskets still win, so what role did 2 handed swords have? Right, bulletproof armor. Why didn't pikemen had that?
Phalanxes come back because the new economy made them possible again. After the middle ages, you now get real states again that can train and support professional armies, instead of constantly shifting alliances of feudal warlords from the middle ages.
i am not familiar with renaissance armor, though.


18th century warfare: armor was useless for some reason so everyone said "**** it" and just marched unarmored in a compact formation that made them perfect targets for cannons and rifles, because I guess nobody had a better idea. Like using the same bulletproof armor that they had a century earlier? Or not staying in a compact formation that is an incredibly easy target? Nope. Compact formation of cannon fodder it is.
Muskets were really slow and inaccurate, which made it neccessary to use lots of them and shot in big volleys to hit anything at all. But they were also quite powerful, so that I believe there just was no way to make armor that would protect against them. Standing in tight formation certainly wasn't so great for the soldiers,but probably the only way the commanders could still maintain some control and organization.


Cavalry was back only they used pistols and carabines, which by all accounts didn't hit anything but the hit and run attacks were very pretty so they kept them around. But lancers were still there. No idea how, given that pikes seemed to work wonders against them. But nobody had them anymore, because bayonettes were better even though a rifle is a lot shorter than a pike.
The real advantage that cavalry had always had is mobility. Shoting from the saddle certaintly was problematic, which is why we see the appearance of he dragoon or monted infantry. These units would use their horses to get around the enemy, then dismount and fight as infantry, and get back on their horses to move on. If you could get close to an enemy who was not facing in your direction, they would have real trouble reloading their muskets after their first shot. And while they were reloading you could do terrible damage with pistols at short range and then hacking away with swords.
As a response to that, we later get the bayonet, which allows infantry with muskets to fight back against cavalry that reaches them during reloading.


Zulus with spears and shields made of leather kicked the asses of riflemen, just so I can get a headache thinking about it.
The Zulu did get some victories against the British. But they did so with huge advantages in numbers and the casualties they suffered where massive. Not particularly familiar with these wars, but I believe they primarily charged the British at such numbers that they couldn't shot the Zulu as fast as new warriors came behind the dead.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 10:28 AM
Ok, about the phalanx and roman infantry... Why did romans switch from really long spears to short swords? Was it really just so they could run around better and "outflank" a formation of spears? Because that sounds sketchy at best... Or are you saying they employed both in equal numbers? Because itt seems like the legionaries were mostly equipped with short swords and javelins, or at least, that's the most common portrayal both in fiction and in documentaries.
I don't understand what usefulness a formation of short swords would present over a formation of long spears. Reach, as far as I can tell, is one of the more important elements of a good melee weapon, expecially when used by a formation. And I have troubles believing that moving around while carrying a long spear was such a big deal. Pikemen later didn't seem to have any troubles. And about the only situation I can imagine in which carrying a really long spear would be troublesome is if you are fighting in a forest and you get stuck on branches and such. Otherwise, it would be more tiring, I give you that, but I can't see the disadvantage.

And if later on full plate wasn't common... Who were all those 2 handed swordsmen wearing it? Were they all nobles or rich? Why did they got to use it while pikemen, as far as I can tell, never did, even if they were the key troop to the most popular tactics of that age?

More questions on the way...

Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 10:31 AM
Pikes are really unwieldy to carry, and can be flanked, or shot at from afar, to nullify their advantage.


Could you clarify on this point?

Spiryt
2014-09-09, 10:32 AM
I think that the main problem here is with generalizations coming from general 'Youtube science' and what else.

"Swords were useless etc."

Reality is not that simple and easy to generalize.

There's a thread just for those purposes, you may want to try it,



Also, Full Plate was never Commonplace. It was always very rare and very expensive. Anytime you find yourself asking "Why didn't they use full plate", it was because it's REALLY EXPENSIVE. Foot Soldiers will never wear it.
.


Footsoldiers would absolutely wear full plate, whenever they could afford it.

At the beginning of Renaissance in particular, 'full plate armor' could be very affordable even for not very wealthy soldiers in Western Europe.

Professional, front line infantry in particular would wear it.

http://enroutepictures2.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/bitwa-pod-orsza8.jpg

In fact plate was indeed very commonplace in Europe in 16th century.

It wasn't very commonplace 'elsewhere' simply because there was no plate armor.

What we call '(full) plate armor' really came into life somewhere before 1350 in Central Europe.

BRC
2014-09-09, 10:35 AM
Ok, about the phalanx and roman infantry... Why did romans switch from really long spears to short swords? Was it really just so they could run around better and "outflank" a formation of spears? Because that sounds sketchy at best... Or are you saying they employed both in equal numbers? Because itt seems like the legionaries were mostly equipped with short swords and javelins, or at least, that's the most common portrayal both in fiction and in documentaries.
I don't understand what usefulness a formation of short swords would present over a formation of long spears. Reach, as far as I can tell, is one of the more important elements of a good melee weapon, expecially when used by a formation. And I have troubles believing that moving around while carrying a long spear was such a big deal. Pikemen later didn't seem to have any troubles. And about the only situation I can imagine in which carrying a really long spear would be troublesome is if you are fighting in a forest and you get stuck on branches and such. Otherwise, it would be more tiring, I give you that, but I can't see the disadvantage.

The Roman shield formations were able to get past spears.

When they got close, they would throw their javelins, which would stick in the enemy shields. They could then close the distance and use their shields to batter the spears aside and get within the enemy's reach. The Enemy couldn't keep their spears fixed because they had to deal with the heavy weight of the javelin sticking out of their shields (IIRC, Romans used special, heavier, shorter Javelins designed for this exact purpose).
The weakness of a spear is that once you get inside their reach, there isn't much they can do.



And if later on full plate wasn't common... Who were all those 2 handed swordsmen wearing it? Were they all nobles or rich? Why did they got to use it while pikemen, as far as I can tell, never did, even if they were the key troop to the most popular tactics of that age?

More questions on the way...

Where are these Two-handed full plate wearers coming from?
Generally speaking, anybody with a two handed sword was a nobleman, or a professional soldier/mercenary.

Concerning Pikemen. You would have HUNDREDS of pikemen for every swordsman. Full plate is REALLY, REALLY expensive, and requires a LOT of training to use properly.

Pikemen made up the basic infantry, and no army was rich enough to outfit their basic infantry in full plate.


Footsoldiers would absolutely wear full plate, whenever they could afford it.


Poor choice of words on my part.
By "Foot Soldier" I meant "Standard infantry that made up the bulk of the army" not "Soldier on Foot". I'll start using "Basic Infantry" instead.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 10:39 AM
And already I get contradicting statements from two users... I'm starting to think nobody actually knows the facts of warfare that happened hundreds of years ago and now we are all just guessing. Which is really frustrating.

Edit: ok, wait, so now you agree? So swordsmen were an elite of professionals with better-than-average gear, right? That's the idea?

Spiryt
2014-09-09, 10:42 AM
Ok, about the phalanx and roman infantry... Why did romans switch from really long spears to short swords? Was it really just so they could run around better and "outflank" a formation of spears? Because that sounds sketchy at best... Or are you saying they employed both in equal numbers? Because itt seems like the legionaries were mostly equipped with short swords and javelins, or at least, that's the most common portrayal both in fiction and in documentaries.
I don't understand what usefulness a formation of short swords would present over a formation of long spears. Reach, as far as I can tell, is one of the more important elements of a good melee weapon, expecially when used by a formation. And I have troubles believing that moving around while carrying a long spear was such a big deal. Pikemen later didn't seem to have any troubles. And about the only situation I can imagine in which carrying a really long spear would be troublesome is if you are fighting in a forest and you get stuck on branches and such. Otherwise, it would be more tiring, I give you that, but I can't see the disadvantage.



Romans had gradualy switched from mixed formations of spearmen and swordmen to almost purely sword-wielding units trough 300 BC - 100 BC.

Until in the beginning of 1rst century BC reforms of army had officially unified the gear of common legionnaire.

It's hard to speculate how and why exactly, but obviously they found using cohorts of swordsmen easier and more effective against most of their enemies.

Formations of swordmen could be effectively used against pikes apparently, if swordmen were well armored and determined.

Anthonie Duyck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthonie_Duyck) mentions successful experiments in late 16th century.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WPoNE3eiClM/UrwbbByFHnI/AAAAAAAACbA/5oilciibjS4/s1600/163499_572511262780436_1999647397_n.jpg

Formations of such swordsmen never really kicked in likely because they weren't really practical anymore on 'modern' battlefield.

Not to mention that most important weapon of legionnaire in many instances was most probably the pilum not the sword.

BRC
2014-09-09, 10:43 AM
And already I get contradicting statements from two users... I'm starting to think nobody actually knows the facts of warfare that happened hundreds of years ago and now we are all just guessing. Which is really frustrating.

A quick wikipediaing has revealed the source of the confusion.

They did start creating mass-produced Munition Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munition_armour) in the late middle ages. Proper Full Plate was reserved for wealthy nobility, and had to be built for the specific individual. Munition Armor seems to have been more standardized, made of lower-quality metal, and covering less of the body.

Late-medieval professional soldiers might be equipped with swords and this armor. Which was "Plate", but not "Full Plate".

Spiryt
2014-09-09, 10:52 AM
And already I get contradicting statements from two users... I'm starting to think nobody actually knows the facts of warfare that happened hundreds of years ago and now we are all just guessing. Which is really frustrating.


Yes, you are right here.

Nobody really knows, and reality is complex and depending on context as always.

I'm afraid that if you're looking for simple, concise facts about 'evolution' and 'what beats what' you won't find any.

Not only because of lack of sources, but because reality doesn't really likes to fit in such neat holes.


Pikemen made up the basic infantry, and no army was rich enough to outfit their basic infantry in full plate.

I think one, in the first place, has to remember that 'army outfitting it's soldiers' on any large scale is VERY recent invention.

Throughout most of history, even in mass, professional armies, or even specifically in them, every man would arm himself for his own money and on his own responsibility in general.

Central factors would supply material, ammo, logistics for artisans to be able to supply army etc. in more organized armies.

But 'dude gets conscripted, get's rifle, bayonet, uniform etc.' would really kicked in Prussia, under Old Fritz, and onwards.


By "Foot Soldier" I meant "Standard infantry that made up the bulk of the army" not "Soldier on Foot". I'll start using "Basic Infantry" instead.

Plenty of instances were 'bulk of an army' would be relatively well armored too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Dornach_1499.jpg

bigger (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Dornach_1499.jpg)

From "Real world weapons etc. thread " indeed. It's instances became quite neat collection of them.

Of course, actual 'full plate' would indeed be rare on large scale. Here most of pikemen have no leg armor.

BRC
2014-09-09, 10:54 AM
Yes, you are right here.

Nobody really knows, and reality is complex and depending on context as always.

I'm afraid that if you're looking for simple, concise facts about 'evolution' and 'what beats what' you won't find any.

Not only because of lack of sources, but because reality doesn't really likes to fit in such neat holes.



I think one, in the first place, has to remember that 'army outfitting it's soldiers' on any large scale is VERY recent invention.

Throughout most of history, even in mass, professional armies, or even specifically in them, every man would arm himself for his own money and on his own responsibility in general.

Central factors would supply material, ammo, logistics for artisans to be able to supply army etc. in more organized armies.

But 'dude gets conscripted, get's rifle, bayonet, uniform etc.' would really kicked in Prussia, under Old Fritz, and onwards.



Plenty of instances were 'bulk of an army' would be relatively well armored too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Dornach_1499.jpg

From "Real world weapons etc. thread " indeed. It's instances became quite neat collection of them.

Of course, actual 'full plate' would indeed be rare on large scale. Here most of pikemen have no leg armor.
Poking around Wikipedia says that plate-wearing men-at-arms could make up up to 60% of an army. I think I just kept confusing "Full Plate" with "Plate".

So yeah, Guess I was wrong. Plate for everybody!


That said, I'm not sure how much I trust old paintings to serve as accurate representations of actual troop compositions.

snowblizz
2014-09-09, 11:04 AM
Why did the phalanx as used by Alexander the Great, which was a wall of soldiers using incredibly long spears, go out of style in favour of soldiers with shortswords by the time of the Roman Empire?
***
Military tactics happened, also it didn't. The Roman style was really only used by Romans. Others used other styles. Besides, the Romans fought against Phalanxes and won. A couple of times, coulda gone either way.


Speaking of swords, how come they were the basic weapon for infantry during the Roman Empire but suddenly when Medieval times begin nobody uses them and were so rare and priceless that only nobles could affort them?
***
Because none of it is actually true.


Was cavalry ever useful? Becuase everyone says that spears and pikes slaughtered them, but apparently they dominated the battlefield anyway.
****
Yes often. Everyone is wrong. The thing is, stuff is complicated, sometimes stuff is A and sometimes B. Problem is "everyone" tends to focus on either A or B.


How come pikemen and musketmen weren't slaughtered by archers, which by all accounts could shoot faster and further away? Why did they even made the transition from bows and crossbows to firearms before the rifle was developed? Cannons I understand, sure, but early firearms sucked. Why use them instead of crossbows, which were as easy if not easier to use and were more powerful and reliable?
****
Again that "all". Pikemen had armour. Yes, really. Bows aren't *that* effective. And as mentioned a lot of it has to do with logistical issues. Again it's a long and complex process which can't easily be boiled down to "X is better because Y".


What role did 2 handed swords have? How come suddendly full plate armor and swords twice as big as before are not ultra-expensive and rare?
****
Because it didn't happen suddenly. And again wrong. Besides two handed swords were mainly used by specialists and they were never as numerous as others.


If pike and musket formations were invincible, what could a 2 handed sword accomplish that the aforementioned formation couldn't do better?
***
Yea... not invincible, and two-handed swords as mentioned had a purpose.


Why did troops in the 18th century stood in compact formation? Why didn't they used any kind of armor when full plate was everywhere just earlier and was apparently good enough to stop bullets?
***
Because a human can only shout so loudly and be heard so far. And a bunch of guys shooting inaccurately at various targets won't accomplish much. While armour isn't how the Victorians thought, it's still tiring to wear. It's also not free. When armies are starting to traverse huge distances they also start dumping armour. Again, all bullets and all weapons aren't made the same. As guns get more effective thicker armour is required for more people, which seems to lead to drop in quality, even heavier armour and eventually they kinda give up on it. Except they don't entirely, eg heavy cavalry.
Again it's a complicated process with a lot of steps and throwbacks. This is sorta the key thing to remember. Military equipment changes over time and places to conform to what is needed at the time against that foe. If conflict is somewhat limited over a longer time, the clashes between equipment and tactics can be greater and feel like sudden shifts.



Also, Full Plate was never Commonplace. It was always very rare and very expensive. Anytime you find yourself asking "Why didn't they use full plate", it was because it's REALLY EXPENSIVE. Foot Soldiers will never wear it.

Good over-all effort, so close but not quite. This is off. Foot soldiers did use full-plate and very often, it being a key constituent of the "English strategy" used in the 100YW (dismounted knights). It was not rare and expensive. The problem of quality plate? It needs to be fitted individually. Who's got the time and bother for that? Professional soldiers. The limitations of armour wasn't cost,but more the other aspects inherent. Like, if you aren't a professional soldier, why'd you need to get one?
What was REALLY EXPENSIVE though, trained warhorses. As in plate armour cost a month's pay, a warhorse years of average pay.


The more I look for answers the more contradictions I find. Please help.
For a good source of answers I'll refer to the Got a Real-World Weapon or Armour Question? threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)

Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 11:11 AM
Yes, you are right here.

Nobody really knows, and reality is complex and depending on context as always.

I'm afraid that if you're looking for simple, concise facts about 'evolution' and 'what beats what' you won't find any.

Not only because of lack of sources, but because reality doesn't really likes to fit in such neat holes.


I still appreciate the help.
Actually, the reason I'm asking is that I got the brilliant idea of analyzing the mishmash of weapons and equipments one finds in a lot of roleplaying games, expecially fantasy. Like, in Pathfinder, there are rapiers, 2 handed swords, shortswords, tower shields, bucklers and even firearms.

So I thought "of course that's because nobody gave a crap about historical accuracy when making the armory for a stupid game, but would there be a reason or a way to have weapons and armors from different eras actually coexist without making eachother obsolete?" And thus my research begun... Which gave me a lot of confusing and contradicting statements.
For example, I would say that a formation of shields would be fairly effective against pikies. But then there is the fact that shields stopped being used before firearms became commonplace, which left me confused. I did more research and apparently longbows were able to pierce shields like they werent' there. Armor too.
And then nothing made sense because it seemed like trying to figure out which tactics and equipment evolved in response to what was a lost cause. Especially when it comes to determining the capabilities of some weapons, like the longbow, you find incredibly contradicting statements. Like the aforementioned shield piercing capabilities, but apparently armor was fine because they kept on using it.
And that's not even going into the fact that apparently Mongols of all people had arrowproof and bulletproof armor made of silk... And yet were most famous for using arrows as their main weapon! Which doesn't make much sense to me, because before Genghis Khan the mongols were mostly buisy trying to kill eachother more than conquering other people. Then obviously as soon as firearms appeared, said armor was nowhere to be found.

You know, coming to think of it... This thread was mostly inspired by one question "could it have gone differently?".
By that I mean, when analyzing fiction we tend to compare it to our history as if that's the only way it could have possibily went. As some of you said, strategies and weapons were just a very specific response to a situation. Perhaps other responses would have also worked.
If there's so much confusion as to why some strategies were employed maybe it's because they were employed in a fairly arbitrary fashon. They tried, it somewhat worked and they stuck to it until someone else in turn found a very specific counter to that strategy. After all once upon a time it was mostly individuals who decided how to do things, the idea pool was considerably smaller. So it makes sense to me that some idea simply remained undiscovered.

Could this be the key as to why everything is so confusing? Because we are not looking at the optimal way to conduct warfare, just at the way that organically developed from some very specific situations.

VoxRationis
2014-09-09, 11:12 AM
Full plate became much more common after a given point because the recently invented water-powered trip hammer made it easier to smith large, flat pieces of metal, which could then be tailored into armor.
Also, part of the reason there's a mishmash is because these games are trying to be able to portray several different eras without too much effort. If you print out stats for all the European weapons from antiquity to the early modern period, it's easy for DMs to just cut out what wouldn't make sense to have in their settings. Similarly, a given campaign setting often includes multiple cultures with different economies, governments, and technology levels, leading to different weapon selections.

Nerd-o-rama
2014-09-09, 11:14 AM
Your problem is you're looking for a simple, linear, easy to understand progression of rock beating paper beating scissors across thousands of years and hundreds of cultures across an entire continent (and bits of two others - we haven't even brought South or East Asia or subsaharan Africa into this yet, to say nothing of what little we know of pre-Columbian New World warfare).

Real life history isn't that simple, and wouldn't be even if we had perfect information, which we don't. Hell, we don't even have unified terms, hence the confusion above about "plate" armor. Life is complicated, and there are hundreds of factors involved in any individual fight, let alone trends of warfare from the invention of writing to the invention of rifling.


They tried, it somewhat worked and they stuck to it until someone else in turn found a very specific counter to that strategy.

See, right there, that's it, that's military history. And of course it's not a global thing, either. Elephant cavalry can trample right over packed formations using short swords, and that's terrifying, but people in Europe wound up not caring and sticking to formations because - surprise - you can't get elephants safely over frigid European mountains without horrendous attrition.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-09-09, 11:29 AM
I don't understand what usefulness a formation of short swords would present over a formation of long spears. Reach, as far as I can tell, is one of the more important elements of a good melee weapon, expecially when used by a formation.
A spear is very good at full length, and next to useless inside that length - if you can deflect the spear point(s - if there's multiple ranks), say with a shield, you can close in. Meanwhile, while a sword has a much shorter reach, it's pretty good at any range below that.

IIRC, the scots held a dirk in their shield bearing hand, and, once the shield had deflected their opponents weapon, would use it to stab and slash at them.

As for the Napoleonic era, some units, especially cavalry, did wear armour, which would help in melee, but musket balls would go through most of them, and the materials science of the age simply wasn't up to the task of making anything more resiliant.

In fact, until you get into things like kevlar and modern ceramic armour, it still couldn't do it - an infantryman's steel helmet was pretty much only to prevent injury from shrapnel, if they got a direct hit to the head from a bullet, they were more than likely dead.

Aside from the aforementioned thread, if there's a particular era your interested in, you might want to have a look at the Osprey range of books, in particular the Warrior range - http://www.ospreypublishing.com/warrior/.

Spiryt
2014-09-09, 11:52 AM
And then nothing made sense because it seemed like trying to figure out which tactics and equipment evolved in response to what was a lost cause. Especially when it comes to determining the capabilities of some weapons, like the longbow, you find incredibly contradicting statements. Like the aforementioned shield piercing capabilities, but apparently armor was fine because they kept on using it.

And that's not even going into the fact that apparently Mongols of all people had arrowproof and bulletproof armor made of silk... And yet were most famous for using arrows as their main weapon! Which doesn't make much sense to me, because before Genghis Khan the mongols were mostly buisy trying to kill eachother more than conquering other people. Then obviously as soon as firearms appeared, said armor was nowhere to be found.


I think that the problem here is that general Google searches generally won't produce very viable info.

Thus contradictions.


I did more research and apparently longbows were able to pierce shields like they werent' there. Armor too.

Longbows didn't pierce shields and armors like they 'weren't there'.

That's mostly weird longbowphiles propaganda that doesn't find any basis in sources or actual physics.


And that's not even going into the fact that apparently Mongols of all people had arrowproof and bulletproof armor made of silk.

Mongols most certainly didn't have arrowproof armor for entire body. Or their horses, more importantly.

Not to mention that with prices of silk that Mongol warrior wouldn't exactly be able to achieve locally, most wouldn't have it.

To make armor out of silk one would need pounds and pounds of silk.

Are you sure you haven't found THIS story about silk and mongols?


Genghis Khan was once said to have issued all his horsemen with silk vests, as an arrow hitting silk does not break it but ends up embedded in the flesh wrapped in silk, allowing the arrow to be removed by gently teasing the silk open,

Whether it is true or not, it's somehow sensible.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 12:00 PM
See, right there, that's it, that's military history. And of course it's not a global thing, either. Elephant cavalry can trample right over packed formations using short swords, and that's terrifying, but people in Europe wound up not caring and sticking to formations because - surprise - you can't get elephants safely over frigid European mountains without horrendous attrition.

I was probably going at it from the wrong perspective, I got fixed on the idea that history was "optimized" and didn't considered the old axiom that is "**** happens". Not everything is perfectly logical and for a trend to catch on it only needs to avoid obvious obstacles that expose the inherent flaws. As you said, if we had elephants in Europe military history would have been much different. And of course, we have the gift of hindsight.

Right, if someone else wants to analyze the topic further, feel free to do so. Otherwise, my questions have been answered and the thread can be locked.

Oh and of course big thanks to all the users that kindly replied and helped me understand.

Berenger
2014-09-09, 12:26 PM
Pre-medieval warfare: formations of shields plus whatever weapons. The Romans used short swords even if apparently spears beat swords every time, but it's ok because the Romans conquered Europe anyway so gg. Archers did their thing but apparently bows in the ancient ages were useless and couldn't pierce anything because a light wooden shield protected against arrows like an umbrella protects from rain. Why where archers even there. Romans had crossbows but for whatever reason they weren't a game changer like they would be later. The phalanx went out of style and I have no idea why.

Formation of shields: I'd say "generally yes", those were used frequently (greek phalanx, roman formation, shield walls in central europe, england and scandinavia).

Spears beats sword every time: Absolutely no. When standing in a tight formation, a spear can be useful as a thrown weapon, to resist the initial charge, to be used by warriors in the second or third rank or to fend off enterprising cavalry, but ultimately the enemy will come up close and the spear becomes utterly usesless because you can't use it in the intended way. This is when you need a medium melee weapon (short sword, bulky knife, axe).

Romans got away with using just swords: They didn't. I can't go into this in detail because it would go beyond the scope of this posting, but be aware that the roman military got through several drastic changes during history. Early on, they used spearmen (spear = hasta) extensively until they developed the "standard legionnaire" ubiquitous in modern media - which happened to be equipped with thrown spears (pilum).

Bow use: Dedicated missile troops are paramount in siege warfare. In open battlefield warfare, they are still nice to have but they are also a liability because they have to be defended from melee attacks. Bows weren't that advanced back then so slings (sturdier, cheaper) and javelins (sturdier, easier to use, "fire and forget", better shield killer) were used instead. All that said, bows were still used by all major factions. They would not have been used if they were completely useless.

Roman crossbows: They are even more unreliable than bows. You couldn't even march crossbowmen through heavy rain and expect them to fight the next day because the weapons may be heavily damaged.

Decline of the phalanx: From my understanding, the main reason was that the phalanx was ungodly slow. Slow things on a battlefield can be whittled away by strong, concentrated attacks of more flexible forces or a continuous rain of ranged attacks.







Medieval warfare: hell if I know. Swords were expensive, so nobody used them, except knights, who were not nearly as uncommon as one might think because entire armies made of them were the norm. But they didn't use swords. In fact, swords were never used in actual battle, ever, and were just a symbol of status you moron. Also, archers were important. They could pierce armor like it wasn't even there, only later we see that full plate was developed to stop bullets. Around this time shield formations weren't used anymore because archers could pierce shields like paper even if they didn't at the time of the Roman Empire. Cavarly won every time because everyone forgotten how to use 3 meter long spears that would have probably been pretty effective and were used centuries earlier.

The middle ages: DO NOT EVEN BEGIN to think of "the middle ages" - this way lies complete and utter madness. "The middle ages" were in no way static. Not in terms of society, not in terms of politics, not in terms of technology, not in terms of science and most certainly not in terms of warfare. The answer to nearly every question about "the middle ages" must begin with "Well, this depends dramatically by time and location, but...".

Use of swords: In the early middle ages, swords may have been "lordly" weapons because they were hard to make and very expensive. By the end of the middle ages, a sword of middling quality wasn't necessarily beyond the reach of the average peasant. They were seldom the primary weapon for anyone, but they were a good, carryable (that's important!) sidearms in most situations, including daily life. With the advent of heavier armors, they lost some battlefield value in favour of weapons with better piercing or crushing ability.

Bow use: There were better bows available than in earlier times. There were terrifying archers especially from britain, but they came at a cost. They needed to be strong, healthy individuals that had to train a lot. Also, the fragmentation into small territories (under the control of what were essentially warlords) compared to the sheer size and unity of earlier empires led to a type of warfare that had a higher portion of sieges and raids as opposed to proper large-scale field battles (those were actually very rare in "the middle ages" - the many famous examples of medieval battles are stretched over a long time, after all).

Pike use: In the early middle ages, warfare was primarily the domain of nobility and trained fighters that often fought mounted (compare: the tree orders, aka those who work, those who fight, and those who pray). Later on, the percentage of both infantry and "commoner soldiers" (to use a somewhat sloppy term) rose steadily. The military and social reasons for and the military and social impact of this development are both interesting and confusing and I will leave an explanation to someone who has a better grasp on it than me.







Reinassance: pike formations everywhere. Why the hell did the phalanx go out of style when it was basically the same thing as a pike formation?! But no, apparently now pike formations beat EVERYTHING. They were so compact that they could stop arrows (???) and shields weren't needed, because now armors were advanced enough to provide protection against musket bullets. Which is why 2 handed swords, which were commonplace just like full plate, are everywhere. But pikes and muskets still win, so what role did 2 handed swords have? Right, bulletproof armor. Why didn't pikemen had that?
Also, heavy cavalry belongs to this time period, apparently, and NOT to the medieval time, even though muskets and pikemen made it obsolete. I guess it was just too cool to pass.

Important consideration: The nature of society informs the nature of warfare. Mass infantry tactics presume a society that can afford to feed and arm masses of infantry. This is closely tied to changing economics, money, agriculture etc.

Armor: It would be ruinous, cost-ineffective and logistically next to impossible to put everyone in the army in the best armor available to the culture. The best armors made by artisans from the best materials may have had a decent chance to protect you from almost everything under favorable circumstances, but this was definitely not the armor issued to some random pikeman from a commoner background. That's because a human life may very well be considered cheaper than a suit of mastercrafted armor. Or a war horse. Or a pebble, in fact. Also, you have to keep in mind that a kill-loss-ratio of 1:1 or even worse can be considered acceptable if you have more soldiers - and you can field more soldiers when you skimp on the equipment.







18th century warfare: armor was useless for some reason so everyone said "**** it" and just marched unarmored in a compact formation that made them perfect targets for cannons and rifles, because I guess nobody had a better idea. Like using the same bulletproof armor that they had a century earlier? Or not staying in a compact formation that is an incredibly easy target? Nope. Compact formation of cannon fodder it is. Cavalry was back only they used pistols and carabines, which by all accounts didn't hit anything but the hit and run attacks were very pretty so they kept them around. But lancers were still there. No idea how, given that pikes seemed to work wonders against them. But nobody had them anymore, because bayonettes were better even though a rifle is a lot shorter than a pike.

Armor: Even a century before, there was no completely bulletproof armor. As a matter of fact, there has never been such a thing as anything-proof armor in the entire history of mankind. Ever. Even if there had been completely safe armor, what makes you think it would still be a match for new, better rifles? Also, armor is expensive. It may very well be more expensive that the training and the weaponry of the soldier. Furthermore, armor is heavy. It makes soldiers slower, especially in difficult terrain. It makes them tired to haul it around all day. At last, there is other equipment to carry. Go to http://thomatkinson.com/ and look up the Soldier's Inventories pictures. Notice how every generation of soldiers seems to carry more undoubtedly useful, but heavy stuff?

Formations: This type of warfare looks near-suicidal at first glance, even more than warfare in general. It seems ridiculous and counter-intuitive to stand upright on an open field without cover while getting shot. I'll give you this. But without these formations, you couldn't concentrate enough firepower on the enemy and you couldn't stop him from breaking thorugh your lines after killing the first few ranks of men. It's, at the heart of the matter, a game of math and statistics: sacrifice a large number of men to have a shot at victory or "play safe", spread out, lose fewer men and yield ground to the advancing enemy.

Biggest killers: It is important to keep one thing in mind - enemy bullets, shells and fighting in general are not what kills your soldiers. The biggest killers in these wars are, by a large margin: epidemics, poor logistics (food, clothing) and retreats from battle.

Role of cavalry: Remember how "retreat from battle" is a major killer? Cavalry is responsible for this. Cavalry has a hard time attacking a solid block of infantry, but when the infantry gets panicked and shattered by artillery and it's enemy numbers, cavalry cuts down the fleeing soldiers en masse. Other cavalry duties are scouting, surprise raids and foraging (gathering supplies).







19th century warfare: nobody cares. There were rifles and ****, also cavalry with rifles even though it provided no practical advantages by all accounts. But revolvers were cool. Zulus with spears and shields made of leather kicked the asses of riflemen, just so I can get a headache thinking about it.

Role of cavalry: See 18th century. Also, you have to seperate between cavalry and mounted infantry. Mounted infantry may look like cavalry, but they just use horses to get around quick and dismount for the actual fight.

Revolvers: Revolvers are pretty cool because they can fire much quicker than most contemporary longarms. I wonder why the armies in the war of secession did not equip rank and file soldiers with revolvers to break the commonplace bayonet charges - I can only suspect it's about the cost, production time and extra weight of revolvers. Perhaps someone else can answer that question more reliably.

Invincible Badass Zulus: I suspect you talk about the battle of Isandlwana (which happens to have a pretty extensive Wikipedia entry, including reasons for the outcome of the battle). Let's say that "being outnumbered close to 10:1" and "stretching out your forces even more" do not mix well.







How come pikemen and musketmen weren't slaughtered by archers, which by all accounts could shoot faster and further away?
Pikemen and musketmen: Trained and battle-ready in a few weeks.
Archer: A really good archer has to train from an early age to attain the skill and strenght to use his bow. He has to be a man of above-average strenght. In the light of ever-growing armies, there simply were not enough qualified archers. Also, I heard that archers tended to wash out in their early thierties due to the heavy strain on arm and shoulder (but I don't have a reliable source for this, so take an extra grain of salt).

Edit: I wish there was a point in this post that wasn't ninja'd, swordsage'd and space pirate'd three times over. :smallannoyed:

Yora
2014-09-09, 01:02 PM
And already I get contradicting statements from two users... I'm starting to think nobody actually knows the facts of warfare that happened hundreds of years ago and now we are all just guessing. Which is really frustrating.

Edit: ok, wait, so now you agree? So swordsmen were an elite of professionals with better-than-average gear, right? That's the idea?
Welcome to the world of history. Nobody is sure about anything, and all you ever get is educated guesses by people trying to create some kind of explaination that makes sense for them personally.

Military technology is probably even one of the least uncertain topics when it comes to history.

Could this be the key as to why everything is so confusing? Because we are not looking at the optimal way to conduct warfare, just at the way that organically developed from some very specific situations.
The mother of invention is not curiosty, but laziness. :smallamused:

MrConsideration
2014-09-09, 01:08 PM
Could you clarify on this point?

Pikes - the long, late medieval variety - way a tonne, and getting into position to 'brace' for a charge isn't instantaneous. Marching in armour, carrying your pike, is time-consuming and exhausting. Cavalry can gallop around your line easily enough, and charge at your back whilst you're distracted in the chaos of battle. Horse-archers, or cavalry with guns, can charge at you, shoot at you with impunity and dash off before you can get close. Pikes can defend your infantry from a cavalry charge, and are pretty good in a melee, but once that formation breaks down, you have a big, unwieldy pole which effectively can't harm anyone that close to you.

Two-handed swords are pretty rare on most battlefields.

'the Mongols' is a catch-all term that can refer to any of the many Mongol Khanates which stretched from Crimea to Manchuria down to the Persianified Il-Khanate to the Yuan dynasty of imperial China to the cannon-toting Mughal Emperors of Delhi. It's like saying 'The Europeans did this...' when you could be talking about ancient Rome or Maurice of Nassau. (Also, basically everything you read about the Mongols on the internet is total nonsense about their superhuman abilities, and the same goes for samurai or vikings or any 'warrior-culture').

Spiryt
2014-09-09, 01:31 PM
Pikes - the long, late medieval variety - way a tonne, and getting into position to 'brace' for a charge isn't instantaneous.

Well, actually there were few discussion about that around recently.

And unsurprisingly, it does seem that even very long pike is rather light and manageable weapon.


http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=276626

The problems with wielding it in formation would be of course more of a 'geometrical' nature.

That's why good pike squad needed some serious esprit de corps and general coordination with each other.

That's why I wouldn't agree with this:


Pikemen and musketmen: Trained and battle-ready in a few weeks.

Most pikemen, especially famous Swiss one were likely simply better soldiers and foot fighters than most of Medieval period had seen.

Also skilled as fighting as one in large numbers.

That's why utter domination of mounted warriors in most 'straight out' battles was finally broken.


Later on, the percentage of both infantry and "commoner soldiers" (to use a somewhat sloppy term) rose steadily.

I don't think that it's all that true generally. In France, Itally, and generally central Europe, commoners did plenty of fighting and formed huge parts of armies.

They just mostly weren't worth all that much, and often indeed didn't bother with fighting all that much, it wasn't their business.

Unless they knew they could win, and raid/pillage/rape something, and generally have solid gain out of all this of course. Like always.

Consider Bouviness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines

Huge masses of infantry, though indeed most important happening were cavalry matters.


Armor: It would be ruinous, cost-ineffective and logistically next to impossible to put everyone in the army in the best armor available to the culture. The best armors made by artisans from the best materials may have had a decent chance to protect you from almost everything under favorable circumstances, but this was definitely not the armor issued to some random pikeman from a commoner background. That's because a human life may very well be considered cheaper than a suit of mastercrafted armor. Or a war horse. Or a pebble, in fact. Also, you have to keep in mind that a kill-loss-ratio of 1:1 or even worse can be considered acceptable if you have more soldiers - and you can field more soldiers when you skimp on the equipment.



I already covered this - armour was not 'issued' to commoners.

Commoners were buying armor, because getting struck with lance in mail may mean broken ribs, while getting struck without one is painful death out of bleeding or infection.

Of course, it was economical calculation, because in normal, commoner life armor was something really abstract, very costly abstract.

Still, see the amount of most probably common, poor soldiers in armour buried at famous Visby battlefield.

Commoner who actually was joining 'army' in any way, either as part of feudal retinue, or communal, plebian army, was obviously trying to have army.

Often some kind of armor would be demanded from him, to be hired, or allowed into retinue, to meet 'standards' of equipment.

In late medieval Western Europe, with towns existing on their specific laws and social order, city guilds would probably do something closest to 'issuing arms.

Guilds/patriciates etc. would have duties and/or ambitions to have proper fighting forces at their disposal, so they would arm their fitting citizens accordingly.

That's why we have arsenal/trade writings preserved, which are very important sources for general plebeian warfare.

Berenger
2014-09-09, 05:19 PM
@Spiryt:

When I wrote that pikemen and musketeers could be trained in a matter of weeks, I meant that they could be expected to perform their intendet role in battle adequately - unlike an archer with a month or two of practice, which I would not trust to be able to keep firing at a steady pace and with acceptable accuracy. Obviously, such troops would not be able to keep up with hardened elite troops like as professional swiss mercenaries, but that was not my point.



I don't think that it's all that true generally. In France, Itally, and generally central Europe, commoners did plenty of fighting and formed huge parts of armies.
I'm not quite sure if this is a misunderstanding: I intended to express that there was a general trend towards larger armies with a higher amount of both commoners and infantry during the middle ages. I fail to see how the description of the battle of Bouvines runs counter to that point, a large portion of the french army is identified as town militia, the first serious action is ascribed to the attack of the infantry of the Low Countries and the entry emphasizes that "it was also the first battle in the Middle Ages in which the full value of infantry was realized".

veti
2014-09-09, 06:12 PM
I'd just like to mention a couple of key points that might help you make more sense of it.

First, as others have already said - tactics and terrain. The Romans developed their "throw pilum, then quickly engage with swords" drill, in part, specifically to beat phalanxes. (Their other advantage was, again as others have said, mobility. A phalanx engaged from the front is a very, very hard target, but from the side or rear, it's easy meat. If you can engage it from two sides simultaneously, you will win. That didn't change until someone came up with the idea of pike squares, which solve that problem but give rise to new ones, like "sitting target for artillery, which matters because artillery at this time takes a while to get your range, so there's a lot to be said for moving as much as possible".)

(So why didn't the ancient phalanx-users form squares? I don't really know, but if I had to guess, I'd put it down to the mobility thing. A phalanx can't move particularly fast, but it can at least move, inexorably and terrifyingly, towards the enemy. A square - just stands there, letting the enemy do whatever they like around it.)

Second, economics. The kind of plate armour that could "stop bullets" was always expensive, and even if you could afford a cuirass and helmet of that quality, that still leaves quite a lot of your body unprotected. Also economics-wise: the kind of bows that could pierce armour required constant practice - there was, famously, a period in English history when football was outlawed, because it took up time that should be devoted to longbow practice. That means it's hard, and expensive (in terms of the opportunity cost of his time) to train a longbowman and keep him in training. Economically speaking, simpler weapons will always have an advantage over those that require that sort of practice - that's how muskets displaced longbows, despite being far less effective for the first several centuries. The 'training requirement' thing applies to a lot of the more exotic tactics you've mentioned, and remember that 'on a horse' automatically makes many combat tactics way harder.

Well-trained pikemen were something that grew steadily less effective as muskets, and drill to use them, improved. By the time a formation of musketmen could deliver three volleys a minute, over a range of more than a hundred yards... the time required for a phalanx of pikemen to lower their weapons and advance steadily on the musketmen became very costly. Musket drill improved markedly throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, with innovations such as 'fire by rank' (which meant a basic two-deep formation could deliver one volley every 10 seconds, instead of 20), 'fire by platoons' (pretty much, continuous volleys). The final straw that made the pike obsolete was the invention of bayonets that didn't actually stop you from firing the musket. That meant that a formation of musketmen could, in theory, stand up to a cavalry charge on their own. (The bayonet can't beat the pike, one on one, but it doesn't have to, because it has a freakin' gun right behind it.)

Incanur
2014-09-09, 10:07 PM
Hard technological determinism doesn't work for understanding historical warfare, especially not before gunpowder weapons became effective. Neither does hard tactical determinism: x unit type always beats y unit type. Effectiveness of any given unit varied dramatically depending on the skill, morale, cohesion, and leadership of the human beings involved. This doesn't mean technology and tactics didn't matter - of course they did - but they mattered as part of a complex equation.

A number of vexing questions stand out: bow versus crossbow, bow versus gun, pikers versus targetiers, cavalry versus infantry. Western crossbows greatly impressed the Byzantines in the 11th, 12th, and early 13th centuries, according to both Byzantine and Western sources. While unfamiliar with crossbows, the Byzantine military had composite bows. One account of the Fourth Crusade described Western crossbows as a major advantage that the Byzantines feared, and the Westerners managed to conquer Constantinople against seemingly impossible odds. Yet fast forward to the 14th and 15th centuries and you have English archers - using arguably technologically inferior bows compared with composites - repeatedly defeating crossbowers in field engagements and at least holding their own in naval encounters. So there's no clear answer in the abstract to crossbows versus bows.

Bow versus gun has perhaps a clearer resolution. Even 16th-century firearms had a number of undeniable advantages over bows: most obviously their vastly higher kinetic energy delivered. The matchlock eventually drove the English bow from the field and proved more valuable to the Japanese military than bows in the same period. But Manchus conquered the Ming in the 17th century with the big-ear composite bow as their key weapon, and mounted Manchu archers repeatedly defeated Ming troops armed with firearms. At the same time Ming loyalists drove the Dutch from Taiwan with a force that contained many archers, and one Dutch source claims the archers proved competitive with Dutch guns. And into the last quarter of the 19th century Native American bows killed U.S. and Mexican soldiers in combat.

The question of targetiers against pikers went back and forth across the centuries. Macedonian pike (sarissa) formation initially had much success, though I've also read they at times lost to or had trouble more traditionally armed Greek heavy infantry with large shields and shorter spears. In their first encounters the pikers pushed Roman targetiers back, though the Roman fought so fiercely that they slew many Greek in defeat. Then eventually the Romans prevailed, and the use of extremely long spears (pikes) declined. Many centuries later pikes against rose to prominence in fits and starts, then came to dominate Western warfare starting in the 16th century, though crucially backed by halberds and large two-handed swords. Swiss pike-and-halberd formations - which could be quite fast as far as infantry goes by most accounts, by the way - at first rolled over Spanish targetiers. Targetiers did later put in a few good showings against pikers, and remained favored by some military writers through the 16th century and beyond, but apart from briefly flourishing under Maurice of Nassau, targetiers declined in numbers as the century went on. And there's negligible evidence of anybody field targieters armed with javelins in the old Roman style, despite many attempts to revive Roman martial methods.

Regarding cavalry versus infantry, that went back and forth all over the place. In the 15th century in Western Europe, French men-at-arms had a rough time in pitched battles against the English, and for a time dismounting was the dominant logic. Then the Italian Wars began and French men-at-arms briefly did great deeds, repeatedly defeating their Italian and Spanish counterparts and even managing to stalemate Swiss infantry at Marignano 1515. Then the tables turned after 1525, and again during the French Wars of Religion - the gendarmes last glory days before being driven from the field by the pistol.

In addition to emerging out of a matrix of social, cultural, and economic factors, weapons and tactics in part fluctuated based on who won. Badass soldiers with javelin, sword, and shield? Let's do the same! Double-hard dudes wielding the pike and halberd? Let's become pikers! Etc.

Aedilred
2014-09-09, 11:53 PM
When looking at the successes of the English army in the 14th century, there are a few factors that are worth bearing in mind. The archers were terrifying in their heyday, but they're really just the most visible part of a whole tactical and strategic model including pikes, billmen and a proto-professionalism, which has assumed legendary status thanks to cultural history and, probably, the effrontery taken by French nobles that they were being shot at by peasants.

The longbow was never as dramatically successful again as it was at Crecy, where it thoroughly outperformed the crossbow, the battle was a slaughter and English casualties were negligible. But it's worth looking at the context there: firstly, there was the rain, which the English archers were able to endure while the Genoese crossbows suffered from. The crossbowmen also advanced without all their pavises, which on top of their limited range after the rain left them ridiculously vulnerable to arrow fire. Secondly, the French tactics were suicidal. Although they got their act together a bit later, they'd already screwed things up so badly by that point it was difficult to coordinate anything. Thirdly, it was the first major pitched battle fought on French soil by the new English army (on land). The French just had no idea what they were dealing with. By the time of Agincourt, the French had worked out ways to deal with the system, and really Henry got very lucky - it helped that he made a radical departure from accepted strategic norms. A few years after that and it all collapses in on itself - obsolete in the face of new technology.

Like Incanur says, you sometimes see a sort of rock-paper-scissors effect going on over time. The phalanx is great at seeing off cavalry but is vulnerable to more flexible infantry. Infantry are great against phalanxes but are vulnerable to cavalry. Professional troops are preferable to militia but they become too expensive and few in number, and are overwhelmed. But the large militia armies are vulnerable to disciplined troops in sufficient numbers. And so round and round it goes. There are all sorts of variations and technology is advancing and changing things all the time but you can quite often see a lot of the same principles in play: there's not a massive difference between the phalanxes the Macedonians form at Gaugamela against Darius's chariots and the squares formed by Wellington's boys at Waterloo against Ney's cuirassiers. Gunpowder did ultimately change the game, but only very late in the day (American Civil War/WW1), and even on the modern battlefield, you can still see a lot of the same struggles being played out.


On knights specifically, during the peak era of knighthood (c.1000-1300) they were indeed really good. It's worth remembering that - at least in northern Europe - social systems meant that knights tended to be not just better-equipped and better-trained than common soldiers, but physically bigger, stronger and fitter, both from generations of selective breeding and better diet and lifestyle. They also trained as a unit and while they weren't as disciplined as true professional soldiers (or the contemporary Mongols) they weren't exactly the idiot Hollywood hotheads either. Well, for the most part (Crecy). Probably the best example of the value of the knight was the battle of Muret where a small army largely comprised of knights took on a force from one of the leading military powers of the day which outnumbered them around 15:1 and not only won but completely routed their foes. It's one of the most one-sided battles - and certainly one of the biggest upsets - in history, and it came down largely to quality of troops.

Incanur
2014-09-10, 12:32 AM
English archers did well against crossbowers on other occasions as well, including against Dutch crossbowers (http://books.google.com/books?id=H7VFJAK8LSUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=crossbow+%2B+shower+of+rotten+apples&source=bl&ots=OyUMBhWeZD&sig=MuBh8fr3rJoOTc5w8Xzrhf43Iuc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zt0PVLG-LIbPggSfi4BQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=crossbow%20%2B%20shower%20of%20rotten%20apples&f=false) (though heavily armored Burgundian knights ended up defeated the English in that encounter). The contest between English bows and Spanish or French crossbows in Gutierre Díaz de Gámez's account (http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf) seems fairly even, and that's coming from the opposing side. So while English archers didn't necessarily rout crossbowers, there's no indication that the bow put them at any significant disadvantage against crossbowers. That's because the English - like the Ming troops that took Taiwan from the Dutch in the 17th century - were great archers.

While rock-paper-scissors dynamics apply to an extent, it's more complicated than that. Few commanders if any in the 16th century recommended facing targetiers against an opposing pike formation without supporting pike of their own. Even Machiavelli wanted pikers in the front few ranks of his ideal army, and not only to defend against cavalry, though indeed that was a key function. Nor, as mentioned, were 16th-century targetiers quite like Roman soldiers with their heavy javelins. While it's possible such strict Roman-style infantry would have been effective against a Swiss-style pike formation, there's no evidence this ever happened. Part of this different likely stems from different arms and armor - better metallurgy, better armor, better swords, halberds, etc. - but I suspect it goes beyond these factors.

Vitruviansquid
2014-09-10, 12:43 AM
1. As far as I understand, as much military "innovation" comes from social needs as social "innovation" comes from military needs.

For example, a lot of people are confused about why heavy cavalry stuck around as long as it did when Swiss pikemen and Flemish burghers seem to have proved that the only technology required to beat them was a long stick with a spike on the end, or a shorter stick with the same spike. Well, how is a royal French army or a royal English army supposed to get a large number of pikemen in the first place? Their nobles are so wealthy, it would be a shame to waste their ability to equip themselves with a horse. On the other hand, much of their commoners might be so poor that the king would have to buy them armor to make them effective as pikemen. But then, would the peasants from different areas like standing next to each other in a pike square? These guys raid each other during winter when the harvest's bad and probably don't like each other as much as you dislike the enemy (whereas the Flemish burghers can supply a large number of men from the same city). And then, how do you train your commoners to fight in formation? If you let them use their swords and bows, they likely practiced the weapon by themselves because it's nifty to be able to defend yourself from day-to-day, but practice fighting with a pike requires a large number of people drilling together (once again, the burghers can do this, but you can't) and isn't really useful in their day-to-day lives because you won't defend yourself in "civilian life" with a pike. Under these circumstances, maybe an army of peasants armed with farming utensils and swords/axes would probably be able to beat your untrained pikes!

2. As well, the results of wars and battles can be shockingly irrelevant to tactics and the science of weaponry.

For example, a lot of people are talking in this thread about how the Romans used their sword and javelin based system to defeat contemporary phalanxes, but you should never accept a mono-causal explanation for anything in history. Another narrative might be that, despite the inferiority of the Roman swords-and-javelin fighting style, they can dominated the mediterranean because their armies were more professional, they were good at politically subverting their enemies, they had greater manpower and wealth to continually lose battles and still win wars, and so on. This is to say, just because the Romans dominated the mediterranean with a sword-and-javelin fighting style, it does not mean the sword-and-javelin is better than the phalanx or horseback archery as a fighting style. In the earlier example, I pretended the Swiss pikeman and the Flemish godendag was a better fighting system than the armored knight, but this actually doesn't always hold true, either. As people have pointed out earlier, there are rarely times when you can predict the winner of a battle based on the weaponry each side was equipped with in pre-modern times.