Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 1529856" data-attributes="member: 6533">Trollwad has a very good point about cash.  Funding was a chronic problem throughout the middle ages and much of that has to do with the fact that the institutions of their 'structurally backward' era were not as single mindedly designed to support a military as our own tend to be.This problem, btw, was even worse for the Romans.  Where a mideaval and early modern nation could expect poorly supported troops to simply dissolve into the countryside the Roman could expect another decade of civil war with accompanying Barbarian invasions.The following counter-arguments:Against the superiority of infantry:Two Classical events: Adrianople and the fall of CrassusOne Mideaval army:  The Mongols. I could list others, but why would I need to.I would confidently put the Mongols against any equivalent or superior force from any pre-field artillery period and submit that there is really no way you could achieve similar results with infantry.And I would more than happily put the Mongols against any democratic army and be prepare to see yet another pyramid of skulls erected to the great Khan's honor.Against the Superiority of freemen:Mongols, who only became great when they were no longer free.JannissariesMamlukesThe French Chivalry who were at least as free as any Spartan citizen, and certainly freer than their opponents.The Conquering armies of Alexander the Great, fresh from the newly imposed yoke of Hellenistic depotism.Ceasar, who might have become the doctor of the Republic but was certainly its death.There are too many variables to cover in ancient and mideaval warfare, no single system or specialty is going to prove to be the answer or the necessary development of warfare.Unless, of course, you can fight with the Mongols.</blockquote>

Verification