It probably wasn't like that but M2TW seems to invariably result in a bloody merge.
Printable View
It probably wasn't like that but M2TW seems to invariably result in a bloody merge.
Swiss Pike pushing...Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman
Swiss Knife Pushing...
hope the front rank of Pezhetairoi won't sit down and crouch like M2TW pikemen... or move their pike upward when walking... :clown:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not really. Knights in Europe were by far the most effective for most of the middle ages (And definitely the early chaos). The Romans were an anomaly in the fact that their armies were infantry dominated. Alexander relied on his companions to break the enemy, where Rome simply slogged it out with manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
I don't think that it was an anomaly, as after the Renaissance we encounter the same: infantry based armies dominating the battlefields.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
The dominance of the knight was largely due to a lack of solid middle class to raise an effective infantry force from, as the kingdoms of Europe didn't state-equip their soldiers, at least until Henry V of England, IIRC. The few infantry that were up to the task were usually mercenaries, too few in number to make a significant difference. The occasions where there was such an infantry force, such as at Tours and Coutrai, knights weren't the invincible force they previously were thought to be. Even the Anglo-Saxon fyrd levy was effective against the Norman heavy horsemen thanks to their shieldwall (though they were admittedly on a hill). Dismounted knights and men-at-arms were also effective against mounted knights when organized.
ahh yes, and the dreaded halberdeirs dragging the poor tin-can slob from his horse to his doom.....
Huscarle with Daneaxes!
Anyway, the middle ages were more "the age of absent effective heavy infantry" that "the age of the knight" militarily.
This however came about for lack of organised enough states to field heavy inf. It takes time and money to train, and money to equip a heavy inf force. Same goes for heavy cav (knights) but as the knight can operate effectively when not in formation while the inf cannot, the knight can effectively train alone on his manor. Where he is also the local lord and law.
So, lack of organised state = lack of heavy inf.
Lots has been written on the subject.
It is wrong to say that the Romans relied so heavily or only on infantry. That was perhaps the case later on in the prime time of the empire with it's standing army and professional soldiers, fighting more or less against not so well organized "barbarian" foes. The Romans always used strong cavalry elements. Without it battles against the Punic or Hellenistic enemies were very dangerous.
Pike use in the middle ages was more aggressive than in antiquity. The phalanx was a perfect element to pin the enemy down and finish him off with other troops, especially cavalry. On it's own as in the later Hellenistic time it was difficult to decide a battle with an attacking phalanx alone. Ptolemy did it at Raphia, with the help of his elephants, but that was a seldom event. Against the Roman infantry the phalanx was effective as long as it kept formation. At Kynoskephalai this formation was shattered by Greek cavalry and the attack of the Roman elephants.
That was more of a command and control break down as all the records indicate that 2/3rds of the phalanx was completely out of formation due to command and control issues from operating on the rough terrain.
I think Pydna was a better example as like Issus, the phalanx overran its favorable ground because it was being too successful except the Macedonians didn't have the flanking cavalry to sandwich the Romans so the Romans just fell back until the phalanx was completely messed up.