Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

    I know what a Roman legion is made up of, but how would the auxila be used? how would auxilary archers and cavalry be used? what tactics in battle would a legion normally use? (Imperial and Post-Marian)

    what would a medieval army consist of? what tactics would they use?

    thanks!
    Last edited by The Spartan (Returns); 06-04-2007 at 02:35.

  2. #2
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Grace
    what would a medieval army consist of? what tactics would they use?
    ...you don't ask easy questions, do you ? We're talking about a round five-century period on an entire subcontinent (if not wider afield) which was effectively divided to a slew of smaller theaters that usually didn't interact all that much, but tended to have wildly different emphasizes and preferences according to local circumstances. On top of which there were several major shifts in equipement and military method over the period...
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  3. #3

    Default Re: Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

    Well the only way to answer such general questions succintly is to tell you that basically armies in classical civilisation and the medieval period tried to kill people. And the purpose of the auxiliaries was to aid the main legionary force in achieving the goal of killing people. In both cases, the armies generally consisted of soldiers, that is, men employed for the purpose of killing people.

  4. #4
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

    ...and when it comes down to that, a lot of ink (or in this case bytes) could be spilled over the actual definitions of "soldiers" mentioned above, seeing as how for a good part of the periods both Roman and Medieval European armies in fact consisted of part-time levies... and that includes the Medieval chivalry, who after all spent far more time managing their estates than on active war footing.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  5. #5

    Default Re: Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

    I suppose they could all potentially fight and die in battles, but the further up the social hierarchy one went the less it was one's job to kill and the more it was one's job to organise other people to kill for you. For instance, the most dangerous job in the Hundred Years War and also the lowliest was probably to be a pillar (a sort of light cavalry or mounted infantry whose job was essentially to pillage and extort people for a garrison) because it exposed one constantly to the danger of being ambushed and murdered by other garrisons or indeed by the not so helpless peasants (zillions of such cases were catalogued by French courts). For that reason pillars were often actually other local peasants forced to serve to discharge a ransom obligation, or who wanted arms to press a private quarrel. On the other hand, generally the professional soldiers in the garrison and almost always the captain didn't have to risk themselves like that (if they did it was usually because the pillar had had his lopped off and the locals had to be taught a lesson).
    Last edited by Furious Mental; 06-04-2007 at 17:30.

  6. #6
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Ancient and Medieval Armies (Roman auxilary forces/tactics and Medieval tactics)

    "Auxilia" were generally recruited from particular regions for their specialist skills to compliment the largely infantry arm of the legion. Archers, cavalry, skirmishers, and light infantry where some of the types of auxilia formations created to round out a Roman legion. I have seen a diagram of the Roman "Quincux" formation used by the legion during the imperial period, which showed that the auxilia infantry were placed in the third or "reserve" line ready to protect the flanks or move forward in support of the main line.
    Auxilia archers were deployed interspersed in the second ranks. While the auxilia cavalry generally worked together on one flank or the other.

    Medieval armies generally had nothing of this sophisticated kind of organization, although there were some notable exceptions, such as Edward II's forces at Poitiers and Henry V's at Agincourt, relying heavily on a combined arms approach. Most medieval armies tended to be organized into "battles" of roughly battalion sized groups of men-generally under the command of a noble. There could often be alot of jockeying for position by the Knights and Men at Arms as each treid to position themselves to engage their opposite of "equal rank". So much of the success in warfare of this period involved the gaining of ransom for negotiating the release of captured noblemen that this often was at odds with sound military tactics. There was also a good deal of raiding, pillaging, and ambushing (chevauchee) done during this period by mounted company sized parties. The highlight of the middle ages was the siege, and considerable resources went into this activity more than any other.

    I hope this answers some of your questions. It is a rather broad topic to discuss, so perhaps you could define your queries a bit more.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO