Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[JeanryChandler]

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

Were the fecthbuchs written more for knights or for 'gentlemen' commoners with money? I always thought the knights had their own private training...

Either way, again, I cant speak for Andrej but you used the term 'gang' that I had brought up. I don't mean to belittle the knights, my point wasn't about individual fighting prowess, the knights clearly had plenty of that, as much or more than any warrior class in the world clearly. The reference is to the level of military organization , which seems to have been kind of hit or miss, sometimes (though not always) very lacking. No fechtbuch I have ever seen really deals with military tactics, for that matter no Medieval book I know of at all other than Vegitus which pretty much reiterates some Roman lore...

Jr

[david welch]

JeanryChandler,

Were some fight books written for wealthy commoners? I don't know. A lot of them say who the were written for in the preface and it is usually something like "my noble lord..." or say in the actual text to keep the information away from the peasants though. I just assumed they were written for the people in the warrior class that could afford the book and had reason for the knowledge.

This isn't a larp site, or a living history reenactor group. I just wanted to know why anyone that thinks

I mean, medieval knights were not really good at what they did.

would want to come here unless they have ulterior motives? Our focus usually isn't on large scale tactics unless they are being used to further our understanding of the martial art part of it.

Again, this is our purpose:

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.

And if you don't think the people we are studying were very good, why would you come here unless you have some sort of agenda?

[JeanryChandler]

I certainly didn't mean to imply that Fechtbuchs were written for peasants. I honestly had been under the apparently false impression that they were written for the "gentlemanly class", for example as you might see in Elizabethan England ala William Shakespeare and his father, and that knights had private training regimens which would not have been published.

I can see that you are highly agitated by all this, I'm not certain I understand why. My purpose in trying to explain some of what Andrzej said was simply to clarify, I think it's quite apparent that English is a second or third language for him and he is also coming at this from a different background (i.e. Eastern European), which frankly I tend to find interesting whether I agree 100% or not (and as you can see, I challenged many of his points). I don't think he meant to be offensive I believe he just expressed himself somewhat poorly.

This isn't a larp site, or a living history reenactor group.

Certainly not. But I did assume people here had an interest in the historical context and background of the fechtbuchs and the medieval fighting traditions. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm an outsider not an ARMA member, if I have offended anyone in this forum I apologize.

And if you don't think the people we are studying were very good, why would you come here unless you have some sort of agenda?

My only agenda is to learn more about Western Martial Traditions as well as the Historical context therof, and to share such small knowlege as I have in these fields. I would have really appreciated it if someone could have shared some of this kind of information with me 25 years ago when I began to research.

If I have come across like I have some kind of negative agenda, I apologize, it's certainly not my intention. This is y'alls space here, I have probably been posting way too much.

Jr

[Mike Cartier]

Jeanry may not be a member but I have certainly appreciated many of his inputs on various historical discussions. This discussion also is very interesting lets not mess it all up.

[Filip Pobran]

Our focus usually isn't on large scale tactics unless they are being used to further our understanding of the martial art part of it.

Again, this is our purpose:

In reply to:
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.

i find tactics to be the parts of martial heritage <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[TimSheetz]

Dang,

I miss posting for a day and there are 26 new posts.

OK, Jeanry, you first!



"Yes but my point is, walls of spears were ridden down regardless, even while tightly packed, when they weren't properly equipped. If the kinghts lance is longer than your spear, it's a simple matter of physics."

Well that and how disicplined your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth ranks were. When I say a wall of spears I am not talking about a big group of guys holding spears.

Anyway, my main point to the discussion was not to prove that infantry can never be beaten by cavalry forces or to say that cavalry was useless, or that there weren't great cavalry forces capable of breaking lines of infantry... but was to oppose a point somone made about infantry being basically useless [warning - this is a paraphrase]. I think I have done that and so I let it rest and will let anyone challenge my theory by getting on a horse and charging me with a lance when I am holding a good long spear and shield.


" Just as cavalry itself, regardless of how motivated, brave or well trained, was completely hopeless against Tanks in the early days of WW II. "

True.. the machine gun made sure of that.

Also the tank had a HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT... that is a big difference. If you look at the Blitzkrieg, then you are creating huge psychological impact on the enemy that actualy multiplies the actual advantages.

AND THIS TAKES ME TO WHAT I SAID>>>>

It also puts us in an era where we are logistically able to keep fighting 24/7 in stead of a primarily daytime activity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEN WHAT YOU SAID>>>>>
They did plenty of night fighting in the Renaissance!

What I should have said was, "It also puts us in an era where we are logistically able to keep fighting 24 hours a day for years on END... "
Sure there was scrapping and maneuvering you tried to do at night.. but when we start comparing WWI and on, we are getting into a whole different world... Ever hear of mass psychological casualties before WWI? Not really. Why? Because of the logistical capability to keep artillery falling on you all the time, to shoot flares up so people can try to kill and attack you all the time... 98% of the population will become a psych casualty after 60 days of continued combat.

SO, my point was less about walking and spying and fighting at night and more about long term sustainment that no pre-20th Century culture could maintain.... which is why I don't like to compare them too much!

How do you like that?

I won't even jump on the "Knight/gang" band wagon, tough-guy!-)

Peace,

Tim

[TimSheetz]

Hi Andrzej,

I have to differ with you on your opinion of the musket. My view is influenced by two books called "ON KILLING, and "ON COMBAT".

Fascinating books, by the way... even if you don't wholly accept the theory or viewpoints. But the view is that the musket became dominant not becasue of its effects being greater.. but becasue they were scary and created a psychological impact on the opponents. I don't have it in front of me now, but the author actually references an experiment where a commander from the 17th Century Prussia (I think, I could be wrong on the country) built a wooden wall the same size as an enemy regiment formation.. same height and width, etc... and had his forces practice firing at it to test the damage. The effects were staggering! The entire wall was riddles and blown to pieces. Is this proof of the value of firearms! NO. It shows the POSSIBLE value, if the HUMAN COMPONENT is DISCIPLINED and TRAINED properly, ONLY then does it become an effective tool. Why can we say this? Because when you look at how long some sustained musket battles lasted, one thing is clear... they were not firing accurately.. not even accurate enough to hit a "broad wall" with massed fires at effective range.

All that was to say, when discussing troops that heavily rely on muskets (a psychological weapon) while they are fighting troops that fight as heavy lancers (also a psychological weapon) we are in for trouble that does not, in my opinion, work as a general example of infantry pike/spear men in the broad scope of the renaissance that we study.

If the musket wielding Infantry had actually trained properly (or perhaps it is more fair to say if they had executed poperly), the cavalry probably would have been seriously damaged - as you mentioned they could have been at the very close range...

This has been a lot of fun discussing.

Thanks,

Tim

[TimSheetz]

HI,

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.


Right, Musketry favored only in that it caused fear in troops and made them break... it did not make them better versus units able to stand up to the psychological affects of a weapon like that... Heck, bows and arrow can cause more casualties and have a higher rate of fire... So do crossbows! Why go to muskets? Because the bang and the occaisional head of the guy next to you exploding into pieces scares the crap out of troops who then want to exit the area very quickly.

Tim

[JeanryChandler]

Tim,

Good points all. I think you and I agree in the power of well trained infantry, I tend to lean that way myself. I also incidentally agree with you about the importance of the "flash bang" aspect of musketry, that seems to be the consensus now of several historians. Even as it scares the enemy, it also excites the shooters and their comerades.

Pikes, Gustavus Adolphus, and the increasing hegemony of cannon is a whole nuther subjedct I'm a little too worn out to broach. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Jr

[Filip Pobran]

Yes but my point is, walls of spears were ridden down regardless, even while tightly packed, when they weren't properly equipped. If the kinghts lance is longer than your spear, it's a simple matter of physics.

not quite. when legions came into use, they crushed phalanx one after other. later, no one used phalanx against legion.
macedonian spear - 3-4m
against
roman javelin - 1,5-1,8m
roman sword - 0,8-1m

[JeanryChandler]

Respectfully, I think thats apples - oranges. We were talking about cavalry vs. infantry. The Macedonain Phalanx was much less maneuverable and more easily flanked. Neither macedonians nor romans had firearms or heavy crossbows or primitive cannon which medieval infantry did have from the 1300's, and perhaps most significant,

Roman legions were themselves smashed by Gothic lances in the first major use of heavy cavalry in Europe at Adrianople 378 AD.

Jr

[Andrzej Rosa]

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.

You are right. Point is, that after all the brainwashing they went through
they were not Christians anymore and not Europeans too. Bringing them
forward as an European achievement was not very fortunate, I'd say.


Filip Pobran

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.

When? In the times they fought against hussaria they were infantry. I do
not know from where comes this misconception about Cossac cavalry. Maybe
from us, because so called "lower banners" were popularly called Cossacs, but
they were Poles (one can check pay-list, for example). Maybe from later days,
when Cossacs actually had good light cavalry. I'm not sure.

David Welch

I mean, medieval knights were not really good at what they
did.

would want to come here unless they have ulterior motives?

Ulterior motives?!!

Man. I read here that infantry is invincible because horses will not charge
into spears. So I tried to clarify this misconception, and I hope not without
some success.

TimSheetz

I have to differ with you on your opinion of the musket.

Not really. You are actually pretty close to my stand on this matter.

If the musket wielding Infantry had actually trained properly (or
perhaps it is more fair to say if they had executed poperly), the cavalry
probably would have been seriously damaged - as you mentioned they could have
been at the very close range...

In reality, musket fire caused very limited casualties to chargers.
After Carolus Gustavus things changed a little, but casualties were still not
very high.

I let it rest and will let anyone challenge my theory by getting on a
horse and charging me with a lance when I am holding a good long spear and
shield.

Careful with a challenge like that! Somebody could call you upon that.
Anyway I believe that expected outcome of this kind of duel would be you and
a horse dead. Horseman should survive no problem, which is supported by
casualties from battles when this happened. Many horses and very little
horsemen dead, some wounded.

Heck, bows and arrow can cause more casualties and have a higher rate
of fire... So do crossbows! Why go to muskets? Because the bang and the
occaisional head of the guy next to you exploding into pieces scares the crap
out of troops who then want to exit the area very quickly.

Longbow is a difficult weapon to master. I know from experience. It takes a
lot of training to be able to draw and shoot 100# and heavier bow.
Cross-bow? I do not know. I guess that when you come to draw-weights which
can pierce plate cross-bow becomes heavy, cumbersome, mechanically
complicated and difficult to master weapon.

I agree with your point about psychological advantage of firearms. Maybe not
above massed archery, but probably way above cross-bows.

Regards.

[Gene Tausk]

Andrej:

I am somewhat confused about what you are talking about as well when you refer to a "cossack." I speak Ukrainian and read source materials in the original and I think Filip's description is more correct than yours (although there were Russian cossacks as well besides Ukrainian. You can see the difference in that in Russian the word for Cossack is "kazak" while in Ukrainian it is "kozak" Also, they were not mercenaries). Cossacks were also well regarded for their horsemanship skills. There are a lot of stories about the horsemanship abilities of Cossacks, some of them no doubt speculative or enhanced (much like our Wild West heroes in the US), but I have never heard of Cossack infantry.

In fact, there is a nascent movement in Russia and the Ukraine to try and bring back the Cossack traditions and high on the list of the skills is horsemanship.

What source materials are you using that describes Cossacks as infantry? If these materials are in Russian or Ukrainian, PM me so that I can look them up myself.


----------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Filip Pobran]

Russian cossacks as well besides Ukrainian

that's a loooong story full of misconceptions and informations that were spreaded by russians in time of "golodomor" about which no one on west knows. we can open another theme about that. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />



about cossacs being infantry...
"kozak" (&amp;#1082;&amp;#1086;&amp;#1079;&amp;#1072;&amp;#1082;) was name for free man, solider. on the west, they were light cavalry. at the east, &amp;#1082;&amp;#1086;&amp;#1079;&amp;#1072;&amp;#1082; was solider. it doesn't metter if he is on foot or horse, he was kozak. it is interesting that in ukraine was no heavy cavalry, or infantry (except on west, in galicia, "&amp;#1043;&amp;#1072;&amp;#1083;&amp;#1080;&amp;#1095;&amp;#1080;&amp;#1085;&amp;#1072;").

[Andrzej Rosa]

I am somewhat confused about what you are talking about as well when
you refer to a "cossack." I speak Ukrainian and read source materials in the
original and I think Filip's description is more correct than yours (although
there were Russian cossacks as well besides Ukrainian. You can see the
difference in that in Russian the word for Cossack is "kazak" while in
Ukrainian it is "kozak" Also, they were not mercenaries). Cossacks were also
well regarded for their horsemanship skills. There are a lot of stories about
the horsemanship abilities of Cossacks, some of them no doubt speculative or
enhanced (much like our Wild West heroes in the US), but I have never heard
of Cossack infantry.

OK.
There were at least two important "kinds" of Cossacs. Western ones, called
Zaporoski Cossacs and they were mainly infantry using Tabor (ring of wagons)
as a movable fortification.



Here is what Wiki has to say about Tabor

In the 15th century the Hussites developed a tactics of using the
tabors as a self-propelled fortresses. When the Hussite army faced a
numerically superior opponent, the Bohemians usually formed a circle of the
armed wagons, joined them with iron chains and defended it against charges of
the enemy. Such a camp was easy to establish and practically impassable to
enemy cavalry.
The tactics was later adopted by various armies of Central Europe, including
the army of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 16th and 17th centuries this
tactics was also mastered by the Cossacks who used their tabors also for
protection of marching troops.

so you see, that at least Wiki is not surprised at connection between
Hussites and Cossacs.

There are some descriptions of battles where Poles fought against thus
fortified Cossacs. There were times when Cossac infantry saved our hides,
like Chocim and Konaszewicz Sahajdaczny, who was a hero of this battle.
I'll search later for some sources, but in Poland this is sort of obvious to
anyone interested in history of those times, that Cossacs were one of the best
infantrymen you could have. And also that separation from Ukraine and
"losing" this source of infantry weakened Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
substantially.

There were also Eastern Cossacs, called Don Cossacs, who were more inclined
to ride a horse, and who couple of centuries later had really premium
cavalry.

Cossacs of course had cavalry in times we speak about, but to the best of my
understanding, the overall quality was not very good. Their infantry, on the
other hand, was supposed to be good.

Regards.