Herr Starr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,869
Norway
I think it fits well with the theme of the subject:



I always get a little annoyed at the classic RPG convention of having people in heavy armor be less agile. It's simply not true for most historical combat armor. It's only when we start talking about feudal tournament armor that it becomes truly cumbersome.

Medieval knights equipped with full plate armor were like modern day tanks in terms of the danger they posed on the battlefield. Almost impervious to damage unless you could trip them somehow, and they were as fast as any other combatant.
 

SofNascimento

cursed
Member
Oct 28, 2017
23,101
São Paulo - Brazil
The concept of skilled horse archers wearing down armored heavy infantry and cavalry with arrow fire before the accompanying heavy cavalry delivers the killing blow led to many humiliating defeats for the Romans long before the Mongols showed up on the horizon.

There is Carrhae... and how many more? You might want to throw Anthony's campaign but that's less a battle and more a terribly executed campaign...
 

moonknight93

Banned
Nov 29, 2017
509
No, but I'm disputing the claim that the pike square was the high water mark of medieval warfare until firearms and artillery. I could be misreading the intention; that could also mean "it took firearms to make the pike square obsolete" but I'd say that's because Europe didn't have anything like the Mongols did. The first Mongol invasion was built around mounted archery; if it happened a few centuries later and wasn't halted by succession problems, they probably would've mowed down pike squares as pikemen are literally, completely, 100% useless against mounted archers. Granted, later invasions weren't as successful but Europe had adapted better tactics by then, namely by stressing an army that by design lives off the land.

The pinnacle of European medieval warfare was the pike square, but if we're talking the Middle Ages as a time period, nothing barely even slowed down Subutai's forces. I think he would've been fine against pike squares.

Interestingly, it's not like the transitions in tactics over the years were all that clear-cut, because to a large extent it depended on the resources you threw at it. Mongol light cavalry was basically a society built around invasion itself. In equal numbers, an army of elite longbowmen of the Late Middle Ages would've easily defeated an army of 18th century musketeers; the difference was the resources it took to build & maintain one vs. the other. Britain couldn't expand its empire the way it did if it relied on archers.

You give way too much credit to the mongols. They used the same style of warfare that was typical of the steppe tribes in the 4th/5th century and was also used by the parthians centuries before, and the Romans already proved that mounted archery can be countered effectively (of course, pike formations weren't nearly as mobile as the roman cohorts).

Logistic plays a big part. A pike formation is deadly against cavalry and mounted archery requires great logistic to resupply the arrows. This is something the parthians managed to do against Crassus because they were in friendly territory, but it's something a bit more complicated to achieve if you are the invading forces (which the mongols would've been)
 

moonknight93

Banned
Nov 29, 2017
509
The pinnacle of Medieval European warfare was the pike square because it was the second to last major tactical innovation

Was it? The greeks used pike formations for centuries before the romans defeated Macedonia with more mobile and independent units.


to many humiliating defeats for the Romans long before the Mongols showed up on the horizon.

Bassus is spinning in his grave
 

Seductivpancakes

user requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,790
Brooklyn
Unless you're inside some small tight room or hallway, it's always going to be the pole arm. You don't even have to guess which is the better weapon as it's been proven in history, it's the pole arm.
 

Kin5290

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,404
There is Carrhae... and how many more? You might want to throw Anthony's campaign but that's less a battle and more a terribly executed campaign...
The Sassanian/Sassanid Persians, who succeeded the Parthians, adopted Parthian horse tactics, including horse archer/lancer combinations. They warred with the Romans on and off from 230 to the late 300s. At the Battles of Barbalissos and Edessa in 253 and 260, Persian armies under the Sassanid king Shapur I destroyed large Roman armies of 60,000 and 70,000 strong, in the latter battle also capturing the Roman Emperor Valerian. However, ultimately neither side could make any permanent territorial gains.

Was it? The greeks used pike formations for centuries before the romans defeated Macedonia with more mobile and independent units.

Bassus is spinning in his grave
No. Macedonian phalanxes (Greek hopllites used spears, not pikes) were forward facing formations with limited mobility and flexibility, while the entire point of the pike square was that the pikes could be leveled in any direction.
 
Last edited:

SofNascimento

cursed
Member
Oct 28, 2017
23,101
São Paulo - Brazil
The Sassanian/Sassanid Persians, who succeeded the Parthians, adopted Parthian horse tactics, including horse archer/lancer combinations. They warred with the Romans on and off from 230 to the late 300s. At the Battles of Barbalissos and Edessa in 253 and 260, Persian armies under the Sassanid king Shapur I destroyed large Roman armies of 60,000 and 70,000 strong, in the latter battle also capturing the Roman Emperor Valerian. However, ultimately neither side could make any permanent territorial gains.

We have very little information about those battles. Indeed, we have very little information about the 3rd century as a whole. No doubt because of the immense turmoil that wreaked the Roman Empire in that century. When we do have more than one source they tend to contradict themselves concerning the battles that were fought between Rome and the Sassanians, so I very much doubt those numbers. We can safely say that there were Romans defeats, otherwise Shapur wouldn't be able to push as deep into Roman territory as he did, but not enough to really threaten the integrity of the East... the Sassanians campaigns were large scale raids and they were eventually thrown out by Roman/Palmyrene forces, which pushed deep into Persian territory after a string of victories.

All I wanted to point out is that the Romans (more generarically: a heavy infantry focused army) could counter horse archers and shock cavalry. They suffered a number of defeats to that kind of army? Yes, but they also suffered defeated to barbarian armies as well. It's only natural that an army that existed for so long would suffer defeats.
 

Deleted member 28564

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,604
The halberd. Halberds were effective against both cavalry and infantry, heavily armoured or not. In addition to this, they weren't considered 'knightly' weapons, meaning that they could be widely used. Pikes and spears would be the best weapon in terms of cost, and pikes were used in conjunction with halberds by the most feared units during the (later) medieval period – Swiss mercenaries.

Though I see I'm late with this reply.