Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[david welch]

Andrzej Rosa said:

I mean, medieval knights were not really good at what they did. If you have loosely connected bunch of knights, who rarely if ever train how to deliver coherent charge and hit with all the horses at the same time, and you put them against well drilled, trained and disciplined infantry unit the outcome tells more about discipline and training than about relative qualities of cavalry and infantry.

If you are going to come here and say something like that... I want to see it backed up with some facts.

David Welch
ARMA East Tennessee

[Aaron Pynenberg]

knights not that good at what they did---???? that is an ignorant and irresponsible statement if you ask me, and if you are going to fill up the forum with these kinds of blanket- statements, start off your post with, "don't bother to read this"- Thanks, Aaron

[Andrzej Rosa]

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant that never did Europe as a
whole develop a horse culture that would allow it to field vast amounts of
cavalry like, say, the mongols

"Europe as a whole", . I somehow like it.

C'mon. You meant Western Europe and written just Europe. No big deal.

They obviously did quite well without it. Hungary and Poland are in
some parts the perfect place for cavalry, but combined the plain-like areas
of both nations are only about 90,396 square miles in size.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was much bigger than that. It included most
of todays Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia with
some parts of Romania. But of course borders differed at different times.
Anyway it was some big area.

In fact, that very fragmentation prevents any single, large cavalry
army comparable to the size of those of Asia from forming.

I do not think it prevents, but even if it does, it does not mean that large
army based on cavalry makes no sense. Actually, quite often when I read
descriptions about some battles in Western Europe I had this strange feeling,
like, "had they had real horsemen, things would look less strange".

Push of a pike?, Caracol against cavalry?, avoiding decisive battles?
Abisinians with their strange dance around shields trying to hook their funny
swords would not look much stranger than some of that.

I write it lightly, just to show that what is typically assumed as "normal"
might look strange to others. Also, that there was no single nation or
culture who had it all best.

"I guess that Turks would have differrent opinion about this supposed
European predominance. "

-->Lepanto, Jannissaries

Konstantinopol, Warna, Janissaries.

Janissaries were Turks. Their corpse was their home and comrades were their
brothers.
Regards.

[Justin Lompado]

Thanks for the info, I did not know that.

[JeanryChandler]

I think it's kind of a language / cultural miscommunication. I believe what he meant is that on a tactical level knights often weren't fighting as a modern military force, but more like a gang as I had said. I think this is partially true. I mean, a knight was independent enough that he could and did flee the battlefield whenever they wanted to. To a modern military tactician this is kind of unthinkable.

This idea isn't new, it's a theory proposed by some military historians going back to the turn of the century, I first read it in Hans Delbruk. Again, I don't belive it was meant as a reflection on knightly prowess in individual combat, just their type of military organization.

And anyway, some medieval knightly armies DID fight as a effective combined-armed force going all the way back to the Romans. It's just that it wasn't always the case, and the main argument is how often they fought in a really professional military manner on the tactical or operational level.

Jr

[Andrzej Rosa]

Thats what I thought. The vastly different time periods make this an
apples and oranges discussion here,

I'll stand my ground. I believe it is still discussion about apples and
bigger apples.

As you mentioned in the example you cited, in the 16th and 17th
centuries the ratio of lances to guns dropped considerably in favor of the
guns, for a wide variety of reasons. This made the infantry correspondingly
more vulnerable to cavalry charges.

Gustavus Aldophus of Sweeden, who you mentinend carried things yet further
in this direction with his innovations with grapeshot and ritter knights..

So you mean, he increased firepower and reorganised their cavalry and went to
invade Poland just to show how inefficient his new army is going to be
against Polish warfare? So he failed at that, because their invasion was
successful.

Just to remind - It was I who said that gunpowder and musketry favored
infantry, yet hussaria could still break them. Even if some more pikes would
be better (if so, why Carolus Gustavus did otherwise?) Poles repeatably
fought against such crazy odds, that this kind of argument can be countered.

(By the way, I believe this form was eventually adopted in the West,
at least nominally. IIRC there are still regiments to this day in England for
example which call themselves Hussars...)

Actually not. Hussaria was never adopted anywhere beside Poland. Russians
tried a bit, but putting wings and leopard skin on does not hussar make.

What you refer to is much later times. British adopted their system on
Hungarian light cavalry, called hussars too. Both formation started with
Serbian warriors who were fond of lance, but they evolved differently.
Hungarians dropped lances, we put on some more armor.

Where we disagree is how this would have translated into earlier
battlefields in the Medieval period and the Renaissance. I think Hussars vs
Say the 15th century Swiss Reislauffer, Bohemian Hussites, or German
Landsknechts or for that matter English combined army of dismounted knights
and yeoman archers, would have had the same result as the huge Arab army did
against the hardened infantry of Charles Martel in the battle of Tours; i.e.
no luck.

They fought landsknechten, at Lubieszow, iirc. Wait a moment, I'll check.

Yeap. They broke them too. a.d 1577

Swiss... I can not find anything now, but they were mercenaries fighting for
the highest bider, so I see no reason for never facing them. Should happen.

Hussites are Cossacs, just without firepower to speak of. Hussaria indeed
was no good at fighting them. I mean that they could, of course, but it made
not much sense to use this kind of unit against fortified infantry.

What you still miss, IMHO, is that up to 15th century there was no well
drilled and disciplined cavalry in Europe. Infantry was drilled and
disciplines, so they won. Nothing unusual.

Regards.

[Andrzej Rosa]

Re: Knights no good.

Ease up guys. Knights were not pros. They could be good for their time, but faced with pros they often failed.

They also not "lived to fight". They were mostly concerned with gathering crops on time or eventualy distinguishing themselves at some tourneys.

Warfare was a part time diversion for many of them.

Presently there is a lot of reading freely avalilable to anyone not disgusted with P2P and steeling copyrights. Just a hint.

Best regards.

[JeanryChandler]

You misunderstand me. I contend that the Hussars were a development of the 16th and 17th century, facing the forces which they did at that time. I believe the increasing reliance on guns and cannon, perhaps ironically, made the infantry more vulnerable to certain types of cavalry even as it was better adapted to dealing with other guns.

Gustavs Adlophus took developed his guns and cannons further yet, leading us one step closer to the world of tanks and hellicopter gunships were no horse cavalry exists on the battlefield.

My point is that each military arm had it's place in a different era on the battlefield.

They fought landsknechten, at Lubieszow, iirc. Wait a moment, I'll check.

Yeap. They broke them too. a.d 1577

By this period the landksnechts were in decline, and as I'd mentioned before and you are no doubt aware, the ratio of guns to pikes had increased dramatically.

Hussites are Cossacs

I know some Czechs who would disagree with you on that!

Hussaria indeed was no good at fighting them. I mean that they could, of course, but it made not much sense to use this kind of unit against fortified infantry.

Indeed <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

What you still miss, IMHO, is that up to 15th century there was no well drilled and disciplined cavalry in Europe. Infantry was drilled and disciplines, so they won. Nothing unusual.

Well, thats a very arguable point. The mongols certainly were! Though they came from outside of Europe. The Byzantines clearly were as well. I would argue some of the military orders were quite organized from the 13th century, and the various knightly armies in general became increasingly sophisticated throughouyt the 14th.

But like I said, at some point we'll have to just agree to disagree. I have enjoyed this discussion and learned a lot from everybody.

Jeanry

[Andrzej Rosa]

I think it's kind of a language / cultural miscommunication. I believe what he meant is that on a tactical level knights often weren't fighting as a modern military force, but more like a gang

Yeah. Pretty much something like that.

On the other hand, I undestand the realities which lead to that. We are discussing middle ages, after all.

Just want to point that good cavalry could do what "not so extremely bestest" cavalry of knights could not.

Thanks for risking crucifiction by supporting me.

[david welch]

Re: Knights no good.

Ease up guys. Knights were not pros. They could be good for their time, but faced with pros they often failed.

They also not "lived to fight". They were mostly concerned with gathering crops on time or eventually distinguishing themselves at some tourneys.

Warfare was a part time diversion for many of them

If these part time nonprofessional "gangs" of the people that were in fact the warrior class at the time were not really good, I don't see that you have anything to gain by being here on this site, where we study the fight manuals written for them. Surely you can't believe there is anything here that might be worthwhile in them for you to learn .

David Welch
ARMA East Tennessee

[Justin Lompado]

Apparently I am mistaken. I had thought the Janissaries (or some portion of them at least) were Christian youths whom the Turks took from their families in European nations under their "sphere of influence" or the like, and were converted to Islam. Maybe I was wrong, I don't know. That's the purpose of these forums. If you could tell me more about the Janissaries it would be appreciated, as they are underrepresented in books and history in general, in my opinion (for example, ask anyone what a knight or samurai is, but mention Janissaries and its totally different).

Thanks

[Andrzej Rosa]

I see we are "getting home" so just some clarifications and I'll call it a
night.

Re: Hussites not Cossacs.

Of course I meant preferred tactics, not nationality. I also think that
Cossacs were more dangerous due to more developed firearms which they were
so fond of.

Re: Premium infantry in decline.

Sure. Every formation has it's good and bad times, but I rather think that
what makes one decline is development of counter-tactics. Not just lowering
of the quality of units. In this case I think that they simply faced good
cavalry, as opposed to mediocre ones, who they could beat before.

Re: Guns weakening infantry towards direct charge.

I guess you might be right here, to a point. To a point, because infantry
without some sort of ranged weapons does not strike me as all that useful
(I'm sleepy as hell, so bear with me and do not pick on words, please ).
Infantry armed mostly with pikes would be hard pressed to stand against
crossbowmen, for example.

I mean, that even if earlier armies had specialised ranged and melee units
some sort of balance always had to be made. Be it infanterisation of
cavalry, if needed, but just anticavalry infantry is not good against other
infantries.

And last clarification. Hussaria actually did not evolve as antiinfantry
formation. As it happened, they could do that too, but they evolved for
fighting other cavalries mostly.

Regards.

[Andrzej Rosa]

If these part time nonprofessional "gangs" of the people that were in fact the warrior class

Warrior class means they were supposed to fight when they were called to. They did not earned their bread and butter by fighting.

at the time were not really good,

At the time they were as good as times allowed.

I don't see that you have anything to gain by being here on this site, where we study the fight manuals written for them. Surely you can't believe there is anything here that might be worthwhile in them for you to learn .

Let me translate it.
We are here to believe in what we really like to. We have a right to do that and some manuals to prove what we like to prove. Go away and spoil somebody's else fun!

No worries, I will eventualy. But I had fun here. I had some inspiring discussion with knowledgable folks.

Also observing some reactions to, IMO, quite innocent remarks was quite funny too.

Ease up, really.

Best regards.

[david welch]

Let me translate it.
We are here to believe in what we really like to. We have a right to do that and some manuals to prove what we like to prove.

Actually, I believe most of us are, or at least should be, here for this:

http://www.thearma.org/about.htm

ARMA - the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, is an educational non-profit organization dedicated to the study and practice of historical fencing and the exploration and promotion of our Western martial heritage.

The ARMA focuses on the interpretation and legitimate reconstruction of Medieval and Renaissance combat systems as a modern discipline. The ARMA endeavors to approximate historical fighting skills through a curriculum of reconstructed techniques, principles, and methods for using a variety of swords, spears, shields, staff weapons, daggers, and unarmed grappling and wrestling skills as taught in period books and manuscripts

David Welch
ARMA Tennessee

[Filip Pobran]

Hussites are Cossacs

well... i am student of ukrainian language, literature and history and i am astonished...

cossacs were free men from ukraine. due they way of life, they all were soliders, so, when they were in the west, they were mercenarys. and they were strictly ukrainian, because they formed brotherhoods. they were light cavalry armed with sabers, (mostly 2) pistols or musket. SOMETIMES, but very rare, the were armed with light rather short spear.