Greatest comanders of the ancient and medieval world
- Thread starter Alfredthegreat
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Antonis said:
Richard the Lionheart wasn't gay. The only reason some people believe so is because of the fact that he slept in the same bed as another young noble as children. Note that is slept in its literal sense, not a euphemism. I think I remember reading that the practice was common at the time, a way of fostering a close bond between nobles so that when they reached adulthood each might have an ally who would aid them in the complicated political theatre of feudal Europe.
DanAngleland said:
Sounds like greek loving, gaaaaay!
Antonis said:
Gotta be more obvious it seems.
Heh, maybe one day I'll have time to check out the aristotle wiki. After looking at the 3 vids I just felt there were more colourful personalities out there, like some of those persian alchemists and all.
I don't think growing up in a harsh environment counts as 'inheriting'. Big difference between being handed some army, and trying to build one from scratch.
I think I recall one video documentary where Alexander took out enemy cavalry with spearmen which I think is great. I suppose it was standard that infantry tended to waste cavalry. Seems overpowered in the warband game. Maybe I should pick more fights with the rhodoks.
One thing that I'm curious about. Does anyone know where the documented incidences of mameluks wasting mongolian cavalry? I heard the Mongolians pretty much wasted every place until they came up against the mameluks.
I don't think growing up in a harsh environment counts as 'inheriting'. Big difference between being handed some army, and trying to build one from scratch.
I think I recall one video documentary where Alexander took out enemy cavalry with spearmen which I think is great. I suppose it was standard that infantry tended to waste cavalry. Seems overpowered in the warband game. Maybe I should pick more fights with the rhodoks.
One thing that I'm curious about. Does anyone know where the documented incidences of mameluks wasting mongolian cavalry? I heard the Mongolians pretty much wasted every place until they came up against the mameluks.
Well by inheriting I meant that the warrior culture was there way before he came along.
I do play the khergits, love the manoevrability and I wonder why the tier 4 lancers seem to cost more and appear to be more effective than my veteran horse archers. I suppose they're a bit overpowered since infantry don't respond too well to cavalry charges. When I started out I relied on archers but these days I just send in the heavy cavalry and wait it out.
Yeah no Warband ,as good as it is shouldn't be considered as a source for this kind of discussion, a well trained pike formation would decimate any kind of heavy cavalry head on, as horses, even well trained ones are not stupid, they know that running into a wall of pikes will kill them, hence the square formations during musket warfare and schiltroms and phalanxes before that. Melee cavalry would be good against a pike formation as they had little to no shields, and if kept well supplied they could even take on well armored and shielded infantry, but if they run out of arrows then they are pretty useless unless they are used to attack flanks, scare enemy into thinking they will be charged, or pursuing fleeing enemies, in this respect Total war is a bit of a better teacher on the uses of cavalry than warband*
Another thing that comes up a lot when reading about the mongols is that they were not ashamed of running away from a fight, and while European and Arab horses may have been faster, their horses had crazy stamina, and once the enemy was thoroughly exhausted they would lay ambushes, so in that way I think that their horses were superior to the more powerful, faster and bigger western horses, they also mostly wore leather or light armor while Europeans were weighed down with mail and other stuff.
*ACTUALLY in war band, with clan matches I remember cavalry having a mainly harassing role during the opening phases of combat, either making infantry move out of formation so that archers could shoot them, or flushing enemy archers out of cover so friendly archers could shoot them, in all of these they would play a passive aggressive role and only once the infantry locked together they would go in and bump people to the ground so infantry could chop them up, also having to constantly check behind your back for cavalry will put you at a massive disadvantage.
Another thing that comes up a lot when reading about the mongols is that they were not ashamed of running away from a fight, and while European and Arab horses may have been faster, their horses had crazy stamina, and once the enemy was thoroughly exhausted they would lay ambushes, so in that way I think that their horses were superior to the more powerful, faster and bigger western horses, they also mostly wore leather or light armor while Europeans were weighed down with mail and other stuff.
*ACTUALLY in war band, with clan matches I remember cavalry having a mainly harassing role during the opening phases of combat, either making infantry move out of formation so that archers could shoot them, or flushing enemy archers out of cover so friendly archers could shoot them, in all of these they would play a passive aggressive role and only once the infantry locked together they would go in and bump people to the ground so infantry could chop them up, also having to constantly check behind your back for cavalry will put you at a massive disadvantage.
Si-A-erra. said:
Much like real life, in Warband pikes masssacre cavalry. Not so much in Native, but in mods that want realism(and there are many) you can see how it is. If you want an analogy with real life, take the Eagle and The Radiant Cross mod. Laurian(Spanish in real life) pikemen with a square formation can withstand and defeat any cavalry. But the dragoons(or any light cavalry) can eventually wear them off by shooting and riding past them or shooting, retreating and repeating that. That's why in an imaginary battle in equal terms(technology etc.) between Alexander and Genghis, the Mongols would win almost ever possible scenario. The phalanx could smash the horsemen and their little ponies, but if the Mongols would just go back and forth until they were out of arrows, they would create enough gaps in the phalanx for their cavalry to take advantage.
One more point about the phalanx. All phalanxes, from early to the late periods, had one weakness(well, several, but yeah...). In rough terrain, they tended to leave gaps unintentionally when marching. From wikipedia(yes Wikipedia is not THE source but it got that right), I read that:
Weaknesses[edit]
The Hoplite Phalanx was weakest when facing an enemy fielding lighter and more flexible troops without its own such supporting troops. An example of this would be the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian contingent led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.
The Macedonian Phalanx had weaknesses similar to its hoplitic predecessor. Theoretically indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable, and once engaged it may not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. Thus, a phalanx facing non-phalangite formations required some sort of protection on its flanks—lighter or at least more mobile infantry, cavalry, etc. This was shown at the Battle of Magnesia, where, once the Seleucid supporting cavalry elements were driven off, the phalanx was static and unable to go on the offensive against its Roman opponents (although they continued to resist stoutly and attempted a fighting withdrawal under a hail of Roman missiles, until the elephants posted on their flanks panicked and disrupted their formation).
The Macedonian phalanx could also lose its cohesion without proper coordination or while moving through broken terrain; doing so could create gaps between individual blocks/syntagmata, or could prevent a solid front within those sub-units as well, causing other sections of the line to bunch up.[21] In this event, as in the battles of Cynoscephalae and Pydna, the phalanx became vulnerable to attacks by more flexible units—such as Roman legionary centuries, which were able to avoid the sarissae and engage in hand-to-hand combat with the phalangites.
Another important area that must be considered concerns the psychological tendencies of the hoplites. Because the strength of a phalanx was dependent on the ability of the hoplites to maintain their frontline it was crucial that a phalanx be able to quickly and efficiently replace fallen soldiers in the frontal ranks. If a phalanx failed to do this in a structured manner the opposing phalanx would have an opportunity to breach the line which, many times, would lead to a quick defeat. This then implies that the hoplites ranks closer to the front must be mentally prepared to replace their fallen comrade and adapt to his new position without disrupting the structure of the frontline.[11]
Finally, most of the phalanx-centric armies tended to lack supporting echelons behind the main line of battle. This meant that breaking through the line of battle or compromising one of its flanks often ensured victory.
The Hoplite Phalanx was weakest when facing an enemy fielding lighter and more flexible troops without its own such supporting troops. An example of this would be the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian contingent led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.
The Macedonian Phalanx had weaknesses similar to its hoplitic predecessor. Theoretically indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable, and once engaged it may not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. Thus, a phalanx facing non-phalangite formations required some sort of protection on its flanks—lighter or at least more mobile infantry, cavalry, etc. This was shown at the Battle of Magnesia, where, once the Seleucid supporting cavalry elements were driven off, the phalanx was static and unable to go on the offensive against its Roman opponents (although they continued to resist stoutly and attempted a fighting withdrawal under a hail of Roman missiles, until the elephants posted on their flanks panicked and disrupted their formation).
The Macedonian phalanx could also lose its cohesion without proper coordination or while moving through broken terrain; doing so could create gaps between individual blocks/syntagmata, or could prevent a solid front within those sub-units as well, causing other sections of the line to bunch up.[21] In this event, as in the battles of Cynoscephalae and Pydna, the phalanx became vulnerable to attacks by more flexible units—such as Roman legionary centuries, which were able to avoid the sarissae and engage in hand-to-hand combat with the phalangites.
Another important area that must be considered concerns the psychological tendencies of the hoplites. Because the strength of a phalanx was dependent on the ability of the hoplites to maintain their frontline it was crucial that a phalanx be able to quickly and efficiently replace fallen soldiers in the frontal ranks. If a phalanx failed to do this in a structured manner the opposing phalanx would have an opportunity to breach the line which, many times, would lead to a quick defeat. This then implies that the hoplites ranks closer to the front must be mentally prepared to replace their fallen comrade and adapt to his new position without disrupting the structure of the frontline.[11]
Finally, most of the phalanx-centric armies tended to lack supporting echelons behind the main line of battle. This meant that breaking through the line of battle or compromising one of its flanks often ensured victory.
I highlighted some points, which seemed relevant.
Kharille said:
It happened a few times starting with the battle of ain jalut. But the mamluks caught the mongols on the back foot. The great khan (think it was mongke) died and due to the stupid mongol inheritance laws, every khan was required to head back to mongolia to "elect" (read: fight over) the new great khan. Long story short, it failed and the mongol empire split up almost immediately.
They'd left those not eligible for the "election" behind with a skeleton force of auxiliaries - infantry from georgia and Armenian knights with a few horse archers. The mamluks had a similar sized force (mamluk horse archers with african heavy infantry and bedouin light infantry and archers) and defeated them with relative ease due to the expertise of their generals. The Mongols later returned several times in the form of the ilkhanate, but were too busy making nice art and homoerotic poetry to care about conquering Egypt.
mongols would crush alexander, they got heavier, but slower horses. However, I think the khan can't write, or can he?
0verkill...
Gah, this is so ludicrously silly!
Shh. You're an idiot for thinking Hannibal's army wasn't 20% elephants!
They really should put a disclaimer on that show saying "this show is almost 100% garbage"
They really should put a disclaimer on that show saying "this show is almost 100% garbage"
