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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="txwad" data-source="post: 1530195" data-attributes="member: 12509">"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."I didnt say infantry was "superior" -- I just said with a strong and willing free infantry contingent at the heart of the army, your army was very difficult to beat decisively.  Adrianople actually proves my point.  By the fourth century AD, we are talking about late empire, not republic, legions werent manned by traditional "romans" (in the sense of free italian yeoman types).  Fourth century legions had erratic discipline, had abandoned a lot of the armor of their forebears, did not use the same sort of entrenchment tactics as thoroughly, etc.  As for Crassus, sure the Parthians beat one legion, big deal, but they couldnt DO anything.  IE their horse archers couldnt follow up against the strings of heavily fortified cities, disciplined garrisons.  It was a one-off much like Teutobuger Wold.  That is what I mean when I say disciplined infantry is very difficult to beat decisively in a meaningful way.He is definately right about the EARLY Mongols, while they were united under Subotai and Genghis and were using Chinese and Persian siege engineers they were arguably the most formidable army until Napoleon.  I think you overstate your case about the others, the Turks overran a bunch of balkan peasants, big deal.  The first real european city (vienna) stopped their advance (barely).The Mamlukes and Janissaries were formidable but they didnt conquer much except for a wretched peasant fellahin population in egypt and some balkan peasants.  They certainly had at best a mixed record (Lepanto, Vienna) when they werent fighting on their home turf.Of course the French KNIGHTS were free, they were aristocrats, not democrats.  The point is that you cant make an army out of that.  The peasants and Genoese crossbowmen who formed the bulk of their army were near worthless, because they had no real incentive to fight, no espirit de corps.  By contrast, the Greeks (at least those who were eligible to serve as hoplites) were free men by definition and that was the heart of their army.  Incidently, Sparta was NOT invincible against their freer greek neighbors.  Sure they looked good against a bunch of naval pansies like the Athenians, but the Thebans wiped out the Spartans time after time, under a gifted Epaminondas.Your point about Alexander actually illustrates my point further.  It was only very late in his conquests that Alexander made a serious effort to be perceived as a god among his own troops (rather than peasants).  This was part of the reason there was at least assasination attempt against him later on.  Alexander's troops were free greeks out to avenge their society against the persians, they certainly would have killed anyone who tried to whip them into battle.  Much like the Roman Republic morphing into a degenerate empire, the same is essentially true of Hellenism.Im not claiming any one branch of an army is superior in an absolute sense.  Im saying that while you can claim an occasional victory against well-trained, motivated freemen, it is very difficult to conquer them -- look at hannibal, he wiped out legion after legion after legion and didnt do anything to the romans.  then scipio wins one big battle at zama and the carthaginians  collapse like a house of cards.  by contrast, dictatorships with mercenaries like saddam's iraq or darius' persia or french chivalric armies dont have much financial or staying power.</blockquote>

Verification