And I think you don't know what you're talking about. The Hephthalites have never been proven to be of the same group as the Huns of Europe, originated in a different spot, and were only referred as 'Huns' because they wanted to instill the same sense of fear in their opponents, just like Kaiser Wilhelm II referred to Germany as the descendant of Attila's empire. You don't seriously believe that there was a real connection between the Huns who invaded the Roman Empire and the 'Huns' and 'Jerries' of the First World War...do you?
Roman Army vs. Medieval Army
- Thread starter AceChilla
- Start date
The Hephthalites came after the Huns. Perhaps the Sacaraucae were a mixture of Cumans and Rouran?
hum you are right about that, but as I said that was already just me speculating
Pikes were verrry late medieval and longbows and crossbows would never be in the same army.
Verbose
Deity
Earliest consistent use I've seen is the mercenary forces, "les routiers" operating in 12th c. France. These were bands of professional soldiers specialising in the use of pikes and slim daggers to bring down and kill armoured knights.
Naturally the north French feudal aristocrats hated their guts and regularily massacred these men, commoners from the border areas making up the more most likely theatres of war at the time, like Flanders and the Basque counties, when they had them at their mercy.
The Papacy also found them problematic enough to slap a ban on the use of such troops by the south French nobles, fighting the northern French, during the Albigensian crusade.
Elta
我不会把这种
Not necessarily. Scots,French, and the low countries (well, what was there at the time) Used them for different roles, though they were never in a major role.
For example if your catapult is at the back of your formation the men operating it can be easily attacked by light horsemen who flank around the main battle once it's started. So it's easy to give a bunch of peasants pikes and have them stand in a square protecting the operators.
At the invention of the Tercio in 1497 it was crossbowmen, sword and sheildmen with pikes. By 1525 at Pavia nearly every crossbowmen was now a arquebuses.
Depending on who you ask they may say that the early modern era started in 1492, or even as late as 1500. But the Tercio is generally accepted as the beginning of the modern era of combat. So it was not late medieval, but the end of it.
Depends on who commanded this Medieval army
here here, indeed my friend
Yes look what happened to the Romans in Parthia they were massacred by mounted archers.
Not every time. Not even close to every time. And after Carrhae, the defeats had less to do with tactical factors like archers than with logistic ones anyway.
Please use your handy multiquote button.
The French knights were forced into a bottle neck, they could not use there numbers. The French also hesitated their charge and let the English move forward and set up there wall of palings, instead of charging while the line was being moved. Thats the key not weapons and armor but timing, terrain, and stupidity on the part of the French.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Not bad posts, but try not to bump old threads unless you've got something constructive to add. Three one-line responses aren't really constructive. Also, the "multi" button enables you to quote several posts at once.
well after that the romans declined anyway, they got lazy
I click on this multi quote buton and nothing happens how do you use it?
I click on this multi quote buton and nothing happens how do you use it?
Not every time. Not even close to every time. And after Carrhae, the defeats had less to do with tactical factors like archers than with logistic ones anyway.
Please use your handy multiquote button.
Dude the whole post is full of one-to-three line answers. What do you have to have an award winning esay to speak on here?
Uh, no, that didn't happen either - at least, not the 'getting lazy' part. The Romans were many things, but at the end they were forced to actually invest too much time and effort into their Eastern wars, such that the advent of the Rashidun Caliphs and their conquests were made immeasurably easier. The Last Persian War is probably one of the single most epic conflicts in world history.
Click on the multiquote button for all of the posts you want to quote, then click on quote for any one of them when you're done.nokmirt said:
The organization and weapons of Roman legions was replicated by Spain in the late Medieval and early renaissance period. The sword and buckler men of Gonsalvo de Cordoba had the same high level of training and cohesion as Roman legions and they were the best close order fighting men in Europe for a long time, maybe even better than the Swiss pikemen. Which goes to show you that Roman militarty orgainization in its prime was equal to anything in Europe, until the late middle ages, although like most European armies, it was not ideally suited to warfare on the open steppes in the horse latitudes, unless you count the evolution of the Byzantine army. But even there, a Norman adventurer like Robert Guiscard could raise hell.
But while Gonsalvo's core were heavy infantry, it was also an all-arms force. If Early Imperial Rome was to handle similar sized European armies by the end of the 14th century they would definitely have to make some major adjustments to deal with large numbers of mounted knights, and the longbow.
EDIT: I guess technically speaking, Cordoba is part of the renaissance, not Middle Ages, as someone already noted.
But while Gonsalvo's core were heavy infantry, it was also an all-arms force. If Early Imperial Rome was to handle similar sized European armies by the end of the 14th century they would definitely have to make some major adjustments to deal with large numbers of mounted knights, and the longbow.
EDIT: I guess technically speaking, Cordoba is part of the renaissance, not Middle Ages, as someone already noted.
Uh, no, that didn't happen either - at least, not the 'getting lazy' part. The Romans were many things, but at the end they were forced to actually invest too much time and effort into their Eastern wars, such that the advent of the Rashidun Caliphs and their conquests were made immeasurably easier. The Last Persian War is probably one of the single most epic conflicts in world history.
Click on the multiquote button for all of the posts you want to quote, then click on quote for any one of them when you're done.
Thats funny but the question still stands unabreached, the question, "Why did Rome Fall?" has never really been answered. There have been several theories, and probably most had a part to play, but nobody really knows, exactly why? I do not though, think it was simply Persians, especially when they were far to the East.
It's quite clear as to why both Roman Empires ceased to exist, actually.
You're quite right: it wasn't Persians.nokmirt said:
RalofTyr
King
Remember Hannibal? He slaughtered the Romans, in several battles and still, he lost. Because the Romans could field another army as soon as one fell in battle.
The Roman army was composed of professionals, most had decades of military experience.
A Medieval Army, had a small section of elite knights, who trained from youth to be a warrior (not bad), but, the majority of a Medieval Army was composed of peasant soldiers. Most of whom had no combat experience, armor or a decent weapon.
Like most battles, any Roman vs. Medieval Battle would be decided not by arms, but by the tactics the Commander uses.
God's will.
The Roman army was composed of professionals, most had decades of military experience.
A Medieval Army, had a small section of elite knights, who trained from youth to be a warrior (not bad), but, the majority of a Medieval Army was composed of peasant soldiers. Most of whom had no combat experience, armor or a decent weapon.
Like most battles, any Roman vs. Medieval Battle would be decided not by arms, but by the tactics the Commander uses.
God's will.
As has been said a few times late medieval armies were not a rabble. Even William and Harold's small armies at Hastings were experienced enough. In this scenario we have to assume Rome is not ruling all of Europe, and by the late middle ages, northern European armies can field as large a force as Italy under Rome. Though I agree that Roman society in general would be more readily capable of replacing their losses in battle.
Similar threads
