Printable View
If you could go back in history to view one of these ancient battle's, which would you choose?
I just chose these few as they are battles of particular interest to me. I realise that there are 1000's more worthy of a mention, so feel free to post one of your own also.
Marathon
Gaugamela
Teutoburg
Agincourt
Cannae
Leuctra
Waterloo - want to see final strike of "Old guard"
Capturing of Tenochtitlan and battle of Otumba
Battle of Kannas
Battle of Tannenberg
Dont know if i would want to see a real battle. People dying and stuff. Not exactly pretty...
Something is missing....
Battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald 1410....
But from those I want to see Agincourt...
All the battle are ancient ones so no wonder that Tannenberg 1410 isn't there ~;)
I voted for Cannae, because I find the other ones more boring or tooo difficult to watch ~;)
I've always thought about the stamina it takes for a front line soldier of antiquity to hold his position and fight for extended periods.
Let's just say a soldier survives the battle, fighting in the line for (for arguements sake) 5hrs, I wonder how many kills he makes, or the frequency of those kills. I'd assume he would be rotated from front line to rear so he can get his wind?
The fighting must have been ferocious , the noise incredible and the smell overpowering.
What must of the feeling been like (referring to a Roman soldier, again for arguements sake) waiting in line with his mates watching the advance of the barbarian horde screaming their war cries! Adrenalin plus!
A nasty business war, but interesting nonetheless.
Does anyone know of any sites that explain in detail the things i've mentioned above? Perhaps chain of command also. How the soldiers were rotated, messages relayed and so forth?
Agincourt is ancient?! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
Ancient or not - Agincourt !!!
just look at the scene - 6,000 dirty peasants with bows only against 20,000 knights (the best army in the Western world) , and a "swamp" in the middle .
the French don't know until now what fell on them that day
I can't really see a more unbalanced major battle in history and with such results and more important , with such effect on modern warfare
I didn't notice :embarassed: Anyway it wasn't really interesting in my opinion ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Agincourt is definitely an interesting battle but in what way did it effect modern warfare?
For me it would be battles like Cannae and Zama but of course there are lots of other worthy battles to watch too.
CBR
Between Cannae and Gaugamela for me. Seeing either battle would be very interesting to say the least. But if i had to choce one, Cannae it is.
I'd go for Cannae - seeing Hannibal stop the mighty Roman war machine would be brilliant.
But I wouldn't object to seeing Alexander at Gaugamela or Agincourt, either! ~;)
Out of those options... Cannae. It would be amazing to have been placed on a slope above the battle and directly behind Hannibal in the center. To see the long columns of green Roman troops marching in step to their death. Sweet sweet victory :2thumbsup:
Agincourt to see all those knights getting killed by thousands of arrows coming down out of the sky. ~D
Hm then you would be disappointed as it wasn't the arrows ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
CBR
Archers indeed played a role in that battle, but the terrain, weather and being vastly outnumbered allowed them to do something entirely different indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Agnincourt wasn't won by the English, it was lost by the French. Or?
Out of those I would go with Teutoburg. As for my own interest.. I would definately like to see Kursk.
Out of the ones shown probably Agincourt
My own personal interest - The Battle of Königgrätz, 3rd July 1866
Teutonburg Wald
I would have loved to see the look on the faces of the Roman soldiers and their families when the ambush was launched.
Cannae , just like to have seen Hannibals famous move, seeing his center ''fall'' ,romans pushing on , and then getting surrounded by Hannibals veterand on the flanks.
Yeah I would defiantly want to see that..
:balloon2:
Definitely Leuktra. First time a western general employed real tactics.
~Wiz
Out of these choices, Cannae. From my own preferences, Liegnitz or Salamanca.
It would be even more fun to see heavily armored knights getting stuck in the mud and getting stabbed to death by grungy peasants with kitchen knives. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Anyways, Zama I think would be more interesting than Cannae. Its the difference between watching a superior commander wipe out an inferior commander and watching two superior commanders battling it out.
Kursk would be cool too, but only if I get some sort of crazy zoom camera.
Best would be the Battle of Chi'bi on the Yangtze river in 208A.D. Over a million troops battled it out on and by the river. Probably need a zoom camera for that one too.......
Of those listed, Leuctra. The last throes ofd Sparta, what else could one wish for?
Well I would have loved to see Thermopylae, but that's on a whole different level.
Of other battles; Constantinople 1453 and Kursk (biggest tank battle ever, 'nuff said).
EDIT: Looked up a bit more on Leuctra and after that Mantineia and decided to add Mantineia to the list and learned more about the tactics involved. They are now also one of the main reasons I would want to watch those battles.
Out of those listen it has to be Cannae or Agincourt. Cannae because of the military genius and Agincourt because to witness the sheer destructive force of the longbowmen would be dumbfounding.
However the scenes would be disgusting so I probably wouldn't have the stomach for either anyway.
Agincourt, I have to see how the English outnumbered 5-1 won that battle...
Mud > disorganised attack > longbowmen > ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by PittBull260
:p
No Bannockburn? Fine. Cannae then.
It was the end of chivalry , for the first time ever , an army based on missiles soldiers defeated an army based on sheer man power (swords , knights , cavalry etc') , from that day on , the concept of warfare was changed for ever , from long bows to muskets to guns to bombs to missiles !Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Hanibaal lost the war
Bannockburn would be another good battle to go and watch, I picked Königgrätz for the sheer scale of the battle and to see the Prussian breach-loading rifles in action against the Austrian smoothbore muskets.
A good ambush but don't forget Germanicus , just 6 years afterwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
How exactly does that lessen his victory in Cannae?Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
It is not just a lessening but a total deletion.... you should win wars , not just battles...Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
But this topic is about battles specifically. And I still fail to see how that battle (or any other) would be any less impressive to behold, or any less of an achievement for the victor there, just because the war was eventually lost.
Erm no not really. The rise of the Swiss and even Landsknecht armies came later and they were primarily infantry armies and 10-20% of them were missile armed and rest had pikes or halberds. Even the English armies changed over time and had more melee troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Men-at-Arms were still used but infantry (mainly melee type) recruited from the commoner or mercs became much more common during the last half of the 15th century, so they primarily were used in the good old cavalry role.
It was only after several decades of use started arquebuses and muskets started taking over and become the dominant arms in the pike armies of the 16th century. Heavily armoured knights were still used 150 years after Agincourt.
CBR
This thread is about battles not wars. And why do you want to see Agincourt then? The English lost the war...Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
CBR
It is a simple logic , you can win a major battle for what ? fame ? glory ? nay ! battles are a part of wars , so you must look at the outcome of a battle before judging it.....Hanibaal won the battle , so ? he was a military genius , so ? ... von clausewich said that wars have only one goal - to change the political situation , well , Cannae changed the political situation ?? this fact only , makes the battle of Cannae , less important , and , let say , the battle of Heraclea in 280 bce more importantQuote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
Lost the war 38 years later man...Hanibaal won Cannae in 216 bce and in 207 was nothing , stuck in Bruttium for 4 years , that is 9 years after his victoryQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
You know , even days after Cannae , he could not do anything but waiting for a Roman army to come - such a victory...
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/punic2-cannae-after.htm
:book:
Never the less , it was a great battle
Hannibal would have won if Carthage had continued to support him. But he couldn't get any reinforcments, if memory serves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
please read...(wikipedia)
Significance
Warfare changed tremendously during the Hundred Years' War. From the type of weapons used, to military tactics, to the very notion of what war means, the Hundred Years' War challenged the long-established order of medieval society.
Weapons
A number of new weapons were introduced during the Hundred Years' War. Of these, the most famous was the Welsh (or English) longbow; while not a new weapon at the time, it was used in new ways. Gunpowder, firearms and cannons played significant roles as early as 1375. The last battle of the war, the Battle of Castillon, was the first battle in European history where artillery was the deciding factor.
War and Society
The consequences of these new weapons meant that the nobility was no longer the deciding factor in battle; peasants armed with longbows or firearms could gain access to the power, rewards and prestige once reserved only for knights who bore arms. The composition of armies changed, from feudal lords who may or may not show up when called by their lord, to paid mercenaries. By the end of the war, both France and England were able to raise enough money through taxation to create standing armies, the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that there were standing armies in Europe. Standing armies represented an entirely new form of power for kings. Not only could they defend their kingdoms from invaders, but standing armies could also protect the king from internal threats and also keep the population in check. It was a major step in early developments towards new monarchies and nations and entirely broke down the Medieval 3 orders.
At the first major battle of the war, at the Battle of Crecy, it is said that the age of chivalry came to an end. Ironically during this time, there had been a revival of chivalry, and it was deemed to be of the highest importance to fight, and to die, in the most chivalrous way possible. The English even apologized for fighting non-chivalrously, saying they had no choice since they were so unfairly outnumbered, leaving the dirty business to the Welsh (non-English or French speakers). It was a lesson the French would take a long time to learn and at great cost, before they also began to fight in less chivalrous ways. The notion of chivalry was strongly influenced by the Romantic epics of the 12th century and knights literally imagined themselves re-enacting the stories on the field of battle. Someone like Bertrand Du Guesclin was said to have gone in to battle with one eye closed, declaring "I will not open my eye for the honor of my lady until I have killed three Englishmen." The Black Prince was called the Black Prince because he always dressed in black in honor of his ladies. Other knights carried the colors of their ladies in to battle.
:book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Agreed , he was a bad politician , that is , a good man...
I think that the main reason why Hannibal couldn't get any reinforcements was that there were no secure supply routes between Carthage and Italy. Also, part of the problem facing Hannibal was that the city of Rome, even without the soldiers killed at Cannae, was too well defended for Hannibal to take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
You are not gonna see many soldiers equipped with firearms during the 100 Years War. And neither did longbows show that commoners could suddenly defeat knights as Flemish and Swiss armies showed that earlier and they didnt use many missile weapons.
And dont forget that English armies had Men-at-Arms themselves that did most of the fighting as archers by themselves couldnt stop an attack.
What we do see is more centralised states that could rely more on good quality infantry so the use of Men-at-Arms were not as important anymore and therefore moved back to their original role as cavalry. But that is still after the end of the war.
One weapon the became the dominant weapon of the later decades of the 15th century was the pike. It was the weapon of choice for the Landsknechts and the Swiss also went over to that in exchange of their trusty halberds.
CBR
Well....OK ~:)
Agincourt of course! Ah, to see my old comrades one last time....*weeps because of the nostalgia*
The Battle for Monte Cassino, 1944. It must have been maddeningly frustrating, having the Germans up there constantly shooting you, with no way of getting a them without being spotted.
Well I have heard the Germans were not up there and the monks said they never went in until it was rubble. But at this point who knows what really happened?