Random Thoughts XV: Temere Cogito, Ergo . . .

[warpus]

The last couple get to call themselves whatever they want in every moment.

We can do that already. This could be all covered in the first episode though.

 

[Farm Boy]

We can, and they have. But here we are, talking about them!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The development of the crossbow? It required next to no skill.

I spent a couple of nights watching crossbow videos on YT. They're more complicated than they seem at first, enough to the point that I realize that I have to completely rewrite a critical scene in my King's Heir story.

 

[Arakhor]

Some say that the first couple was named Adam and Eve.

Does anybody say what the last couple is going to be named? Adrian and Jessica? What if there's an Eve in there too and it's a love triangle? Couldn't this be a TV show?

If you were Nordic, the answer is Lif and Lifthrasir.

 

[r16]

musk will see it will not be Adriana and Jessica .

 

[Takhisis]

Why did javelins fall out of favor in medieval Europe?

Who says they did?

What did happen was simple mechanics.

Acceleration equals a force divided by mass. Slings, bows and then crossbows all meant that more force could be applied to an object. A crossbow IIRC could apply twice the force to the same object as a ‘normal’ bow. And then firearms came along.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Acceleration equals a force divided by mass. Slings, bows and then crossbows all meant that more force could be applied to an object. A crossbow IIRC could apply twice the force to the same object as a ‘normal’ bow. And then firearms came along.

I'm pretty down on crossbows. Very slow reload.

Had an English king not caught a disease, and outlived the insane French king, the reputation the crossbow may be different today. Lot of crossbow centric armies collapsed very quickly after contact with higher morale forces.

Guns, similar disadvantage, but much more morale shock on the enemy, relative to the crossbow. Guns I can see replacing the javelin, but large scale replacement in favor of the crossbow seems dumb(which doesn't mean it didn't happen for that reason, just that it's pretty baffling to imagine it to me)

 

[Voidwalkin]

In a somewhat similar way, I'm very much on the Roman side when the Rome vs China debate crops up.

Chinese armed forces were too reliant upon massed missile troops of dubious moral(often, Chinese infantry faced social stigma, of low rank). They would have, at best, done in 5/10% of a Roman legion the brief time it would've taken said legion to close to melee range, at which point, a complete rout would occur in very quick time.

Neither sufficient to rout the enemy, nor cause meaningful attrition, within the 1 or 2 minutes it takes guys to basically walk 100 yards. I'm very much of the mind that even the B tier powers of classical Europe, the Celts, Dacians and Germanics would've necessitated China change both its doctrine and its social structure(the latter they probably couldn't do very quickly) or they'd collapse any ancient Chinese dynasty they had prolonged contact with. Just not really very competitive militarily with heavy infantry.

 

[r16]

javelin is too much mass to use to fill the skies with projectiles as movies love to show . And too much armour on likely targets if one has taken the wikipedia correctly . Crossbow should have been better but somehow outperformed or whatever by the longbow which probably was regularly outperformed by composite bows . Meaning we had bows long after everybody gave up theirs and javelin was very popular in parts of the world where you could still individually fight your enemy , instead of the European mass tactics forcing an equal mass .

 

[r16]

china would have crushed Rome . Like there is a reason the Europeans rejected to follow Alexander , right ?

 

[Takhisis]

I'm pretty down on crossbows. Very slow reload.

Yes, but at the time, the evolution of armour meant that doubling the hitting power was just a basic neccessity because otherwise arrows wouldn't punch through armour.

Also, higher force means a crapton more range.

Had an English king not caught a disease, and outlived the insane French king, the reputation the crossbow may be different today. Lot of crossbow centric armies collapsed very quickly after contact with higher morale forces.

Guns, similar disadvantage, but much more morale shock on the enemy, relative to the crossbow. Guns I can see replacing the javelin, but large scale replacement in favor of the crossbow seems dumb(which doesn't mean it didn't happen for that reason, just that it's pretty baffling to imagine it to me)

Don't forget that bows (self-bows like the English yew-staves or composite ones) take years and years of training, which means a special, dedicated group or even social caste. It's incredibly un-economic. Training a man to hold the thing still and not get scared by the loud noise and aim at a large pack of massed infantry takes only a few months and can be done with any levies.

 

[Voidwalkin]

china would have crushed Rome . Like there is a reason the Europeans rejected to follow Alexander , right ?

The record of Roman legions vs light infantry is astonishingly one-sided.

The Chinese would have sent probably about 80,000 poorly motivated light infantry at Caesar, who would've lasted about ten seconds against Roman legion men before deciding to bug out.

Don't forget that bows (self-bows like the English yew-staves or composite ones) take years and years of training, which means a special, dedicated group or even social caste. It's incredibly un-economic. Training a man to hold the thing still and not get scared by the loud noise and aim at a large pack of massed infantry takes only a few months and can be done with any levies.

That's part of it: I actually think that's a plus, not a negative. It creates a warrior culture, and boosts morale. These tended to run over crossbow levies across Europe, from the longbowmen, to Flemish and Swiss pikeman, to Norman knights, we kinda see every force that can withstand the basic morale shock of the first volley run roughshod over crossbow levies.

 

[Lexicus]

In a somewhat similar way, I'm very much on the Roman side when the Rome vs China debate crops up.

Chinese armed forces were too reliant upon massed missile troops of dubious moral(often, Chinese infantry faced social stigma, of low rank). They would have, at best, done in 5/10% of a Roman legion the brief time it would've taken said legion to close to melee range, at which point, a complete rout would occur in very quick time.

Neither sufficient to rout the enemy, nor cause meaningful attrition, within the 1 or 2 minutes it takes guys to basically walk 100 yards. I'm very much of the mind that even the B tier powers of classical Europe, the Celts, Dacians and Germanics would've necessitated China change both its doctrine and its social structure(the latter they probably couldn't do very quickly) or they'd collapse any ancient Chinese dynasty they had prolonged contact with. Just not really very competitive militarily with heavy infantry.

The Han dynasty and subsequent Chinese states had plenty of heavy shock infantry.

 

[r16]

ı can't tell whether ı read Keegan in the previous century or not . But am pretty sure ı can follow the idea ... But who were the peer enemy that those legions fought ? When some barbarian lot miracolously pushes back a legion , a second one is brought . The Roman Road and even more importantly the Mediterranean . Carthage and Macedonia as in the relevant Civ III scenario is within reach . Iran under its various names was not . If one was to take the Mediterranean with him , somehow , it would have been some sight .

before Caesar can face that mob of 80 000 , he will be harried 3 months straight by 8000 horsemen . And who says the mob will not be like 800 000 ?

 

[Takhisis]

That's part of it: I actually think that's a plus, not a negative. It creates a warrior culture, and boosts morale. These tended to run over crossbow levies across Europe, from the longbowmen, to Flemish and Swiss pikeman, to Norman knights, we kinda see every force that can withstand the basic morale shock of the first volley run roughshod over crossbow levies.

Having a separate military class is what de facto happened to Rome during the two decades of war with Carthage under Hannibal and what led to a free farmers' republic becoming a mess of chain-gang slavery devoted to sustaining a professional military class which eventually led to the leaders of the army commanding the vote and eventually the Principate.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The Han dynasty and subsequent Chinese states had plenty of heavy shock infantry.

The Northern Army of the Han dynasty was a true military peer of any legion. Unfortunately for the Han, it was a pretty small force.

The rest, eh, pretty dubious quality.

Having a separate military class is what de facto happened to Rome during the two decades of war with Carthage under Hannibal and what led to a free farmers' republic becoming a mess of chain-gang slavery devoted to sustaining a professional military class which eventually led to the leaders of the army commanding the vote and eventually the Principate.

It led to feudalism, too, of course. A warrior culture is a very effective thing when victory depends on standing in there for about five minutes longer than the other guy.

A free Republic of free farmers and freedom is going to have to compete with other social structures, which may be undesirable but better able to take, and hold, territory, I suppose. Competition, for ya.

 

[warpus]

If you were Nordic, the answer is Lif and Lifthrasir.

What if I have like 2% Nordic DNA?

You probably don't have to answer that

 

[Arakhor]

Well, if Ragnarok does occur, I'm fairly certain it will be an equal-opportunity apocalypse.

 

[Lexicus]

The Northern Army of the Han dynasty was a true military peer of any legion. Unfortunately for the Han, it was a pretty small force.

I highly doubt you are familiar enough with the archaeological and literary evidence from China to support this claim.

The Chinese would have sent probably about 80,000 poorly motivated light infantry at Caesar, who would've lasted about ten seconds against Roman legion men before deciding to bug out.

Oh my god, I missed this gem

 

[Voidwalkin]

I highly doubt you are familiar enough with the archaeological and literary evidence from China to support this claim.

This army was created to address Han struggles against the Xiongnu, and is widely recognized to be their most professionalized. It's really the only shot they'd have. Its battle record is superior to all its contemporary units.

Oh my god, I missed this

Average length of Chinese conscription: 2-4 years.
Average length of Roman service: 20 years.

After the Han phased out conscription, the men who would become "professionals" seem to be from stigmatized classes, forced into "professionalism", no foreseeable morale problem there.

This is the force you intend to stand up to Caesar's guys, heavy infantry specifically set up to engage another large infantry mob in decisive battle? A buncha poorly motivated soldiers, intended to provide mass against equestrian nomads, and hold a fort?

Where there is no consensus to repeat, rote, your conclusions tend to be lacking, but are presented just as confidently, btw. It's a gem of its own.