eat cold steel........
-
I think what heralded the end of the swiss pike was field cannon and Arquebuse, which was what the landsknecht army used to defeat the Swiss mercs. I think it would be difficult for a sword to cut a pike head especially if it was rushing you.Originally posted by |-|05|:oh and the Landskects were hired to defeat the Swiss as their massive 6th swords where used to cut the Swiss pikeheads.But the Landskects were very unreliable.There was even cases when 2 groups of Landskects on opposite sides decided to take the money they were paid and fake a fight by simply clashing swords and making war sounds before retiring.....not sure i want those guys on my team
-
not that hard when they're all bunched up espcially with their massive 6th blades and with a 2ft handle!The blade was curved/wavey.And yea they did use cannons to devastating effect especially on the compacted ranks of the pikemenOriginally posted by redrooster79:I think what heralded the end of the swiss pike was field cannon and Arquebuse, which was what the landsknecht army used to defeat the Swiss mercs. I think it would be difficult for a sword to cut a pike head especially if it was rushing you. -
I think a saracen or an mamluk army had already stopped the Mongols once.
Great read from Lord of host.
IAbout the chopping thing, i think it is hard for even a two hand sword to chop stout wood that is held midair. The mechanics of it doesn't seem right. Wouldn't know until its tried right.
Spanish buckler and sword combi had been know to slaughter pike formations though. I'll try to remember that battle. -
The mamaluke slave armies of Eygpt...yes they defeated and outnumber Mongol army far far away from home.Even then if you read the battle summary the mongols almost won!Originally posted by redrooster79:I think a saracen or an arab army had already stopped the Mongols once.
very very very surprising as they were outnumbered some 5 to 1!!!That shows their skill and ability!!
So have you read the site i put up? -
Any other topics you might want to talk about??
-
Great read. Although i might disagree with the castles part, theruthlessness of the mongols dealing with one castle might scare the rest to cowl.
There is a lot to discuss if there are enough likeminded folks. Teutoburg wald, cannae, real size of darius army at Gaugemela, real size of xerxes army that invaded greece. -
well his main point was that the mongols had to dismount to invade and by dismonuting they become bogged down in European warfareOriginally posted by redrooster79:Great read. Although i might disagree with the castles part, theruthlessness of the mongols dealing with one castle might scare the rest to cowl.
There is a lot to discuss if there are enough likeminded folks. Teutoburg wald, cannae, real size of darius army at Gaugemela, real size of xerxes army that invaded greece.
Real size of Darius army and Xerxes i'd say 80,000 would be nice.
As for Cannae it is a great great lost.......4 double leigons 80,000 men dead.......The Romans really should have done better like spreading their soldiers out....i think that was like the only time a small army actually surrounded a bigger army! haha
Teutoburg wald was a lost but not that big of a lost the bugger lost would be the death of trajan before he could push the borders to the Elbe which could have shorten their lines and might even have made them last longer!! -
some studies focused on fresh water sources in northern greece and thrace suggested xerxes army could not have fielded more then 150,000.
Teutoburg did break the myth of the invincible legions and set a precedence. Although Tiberius who was sent in to clear up after Varus did have the freedom of the german countryside but varus did lose 3 legions.
Cannae was muchly blamed on the naivety of the roman consul there, publius who marched the legions in napoleonic column style. Scipio proved to be wiser, if not better. -
Yes the Roman were naive to think that their sheer numbers and better trained soldiers would win.As for Varus yes he lost 3 leigons and those were never replaced.....sad but still not the end....the end came when the romans lost The Battle of Adrianople which smashed the illusion that the Leigon was unbeatable!!sadly.The numbers of Xerxes army was focused on water supplies especially when it was said they drank entire lakes dry but i believe 150,000 was way too much to support....heck during the 18th centary that number is already considered really big!Originally posted by redrooster79:some studies focused on fresh water sources in northern greece and thrace suggested xerxes army could not have fielded more then 150,000.
Teutoburg did break the myth of the invincible legions and set a precedence. Although Tiberius who was sent in to clear up after Varus did have the freedom of the german countryside but varus did lose 3 legions.
Cannae was muchly blamed on the naivety of the roman consul there, publius who marched the legions in napoleonic column style. Scipio proved to be wiser, if not better. -
Oh and one more thing do you know the name of the battle in Britan between the celts and the brits where 1 leigon totally and utterly destroyed the enemy of 40,000?
-
During the celtic queen boeddicea's revolt?Originally posted by |-|05|:Oh and one more thing do you know the name of the battle in Britan between the celts and the brits where 1 leigon totally and utterly destroyed the enemy of 40,000?
edit: Icenii queen -
Adrianople was suffered by the eastern empire. The significance of adrianople in terms of shift of power could not be disputed, but by that time the legions had been beaten already on a couple of occasions, by goths, by celt, by parthians, by persians, you name it.. By adrianople there already is no illusion of roman invincibility. Teutoburg set a precedence where before the legions was sweeping everything away.Originally posted by |-|05|:Yes the Roman were naive to think that their sheer numbers and better trained soldiers would win.As for Varus yes he lost 3 leigons and those were never replaced.....sad but still not the end....the end came when the romans lost The Battle of Adrianople which smashed the illusion that the Leigon was unbeatable!!sadly.The numbers of Xerxes army was focused on water supplies especially when it was said they drank entire lakes dry but i believe 150,000 was way too much to support....heck during the 18th centary that number is already considered really big!
150,000 was not very big in the 18th and 19th century. Napoleonic battles usually well surpass that number in terms of men fielded. -
yea thats her name!!!
Anyway about the Leigons well i suppose so.....they were afterall in decline already and that pompus idiot Valen did not wait for the western empire to come help him!!
And 150,000 was pretty big during the 17th-18th cent for each side considering the armies then averaged 90,000 per side like the Prussians at Jena and Auerstaedt
And most greek armies at that time was a mere 10,000-20,000 per city!!!!! -
You guys would've like Medieval: Total War very much.
If you're looking something on Chinese/Japanese warfare there are some chinese websites on them, just that i can't rem their URLs -
wouldn't know about the greeks during the 17th 18th but napoleonic battles often supassed 150, 000 although earlier campaigns did involve less men but later campaigns involved much larger numbers. i think you know that so theres no need for me to quote instances.Originally posted by |-|05|:yea thats her name!!!
Anyway about the Leigons well i suppose so.....they were afterall in decline already and that pompus idiot Valen did not wait for the western empire to come help him!!
And 150,000 was pretty big during the 17th-18th cent for each side considering the armies then averaged 90,000 per side like the Prussians at Jena and Auerstaedt
And most greek armies at that time was a mere 10,000-20,000 per city!!!!!
As for Valens, thats the problem with monarchies, no matter how good or bad the emperor is, you gotta bear with it.
Oh yes and i do play medieval total war. great game, one of my favs. -
i was refering to the greek armies during the time of XerxesOriginally posted by redrooster79:wouldn't know about the greeks during the 17th 18th but napoleonic battles often supassed 150, 000 although earlier campaigns did involve less men but later campaigns involved much larger numbers. i think you know that so theres no need for me to quote instances.
As for Valens, thats the problem with monarchies, no matter how good or bad the emperor is, you gotta bear with it.
Oh yes and i do play medieval total war. great game, one of my favs.
Ahh yes medival total war it good but the FPS on certain maps really really falls to a terrble rate for me on my GForce 2!!!!I hope when Roman Total war comes out it wont be as bad -
Oh haha, yeah the greek city stats could mobilize very limited amounts of men thus perhaps lies the reason of her never quite militarily dominating the region before the arrival of the legions. The combine greek army at Plataea was in the region of 80 000 with the spartens providing 8000 of their spartiates together with helot complements.Originally posted by |-|05|:i was refering to the greek armies during the time of Xerxes
Ahh yes medival total war it good but the FPS on certain maps really really falls to a terrble rate for me on my GForce 2!!!!I hope when Roman Total war comes out it wont be as bad
MArathon was in the region of 11,000.
And the stand at Thermopylae although often only mentions the 300 spartens but it involved up to 7000 heavy infantry of sparta and her allies.
As for MTW, i also only have a gf2 but one tweak that worked for me was to go to the configuration of your graphics setting and lower the memory used for PCI texture to around 5 or 6 for openGL (or was it 3d3) .It helps a lot, most battles are incredibly smooth -
ahh ok ill give it a tryOriginally posted by redrooster79:Oh haha, yeah the greek city stats could mobilize very limited amounts of men thus perhaps lies the reason of her never quite militarily dominating the region before the arrival of the legions. The combine greek army at Plataea was in the region of 80 000 with the spartens providing 8000 of their spartiates together with helot complements.
MArathon was in the region of 11,000.
And the stand at Thermopylae although often only mentions the 300 spartens but it involved up to 7000 heavy infantry of sparta and her allies.
As for MTW, i also only have a gf2 but one tweak that worked for me was to go to the configuration of your graphics setting and lower the memory used for PCI texture to around 5 or 6 for openGL (or was it 3d3) .It helps a lot, most battles are incredibly smooth
And yes i know there was allies at Thermopylae but the numbers i have seen was around a mere 3,000-5,000 not 7,000! hehe they were mostly Thebes i think cannot really recall.But the Spartans were formitable you gotta admit that Surrendering only once to Atheians during the Peopalyse(spelling?) war
Those battles of old were great....staring you enemy down before charging into battle and actually seeing the fear/anger in the eyes of your enemy!!! -
And some sources quotes around ten thousand. Seven thousand was the figure quoted by Herodotus, but keep in mind herodotus was the one who quoted xerxes army to be in the millions.
Thebans were forced to go as hostages of the spartans, the moment the persian army crossed Thermopylae, Thebes capitulated, at the battle at Plataea the thebans were actually on the side of the Persian. The main forces were the Spartan Thespians, Thessalians and Phocians and probably a few more which i cannot remember. Not only the Thebans fought on the side of the Persians i think there were even a contingent of companion cavary from Macedonia on the side of Xerxes. I think there was even a prophecy where the blood of a spartan king was required for greece to be saved. But the oracle often had its own agendas so we wouldn't really know would we.
I ever read a book by Plutarch on the Lives of a few spartan kings and also in it was quotes from various spartan sources. Amoung them are well known ones like "A spartan returns with his shield or upon it" or when Xerxes asked Leonidas to lay down his arms his response was "come and get them" pretty hollywood yah. Another was a about an ally whining about how the sky was filled with persian arrows that the sky became dark. Leonidas or one of his officers responded."Good, we fight better under shade"
i guess spartans became pretty famous for one liners.
"Go Stranger and to Sparta Tell
Faithful to Her Laws,
Here, We Lie" -
The Pelopenesian War. Spartan heavy infantry was beaten a couple of times i think. Once was by Athenian usage of light infantry who used javelin and slings and another time was when a contingent of spartans trapped on an island surrendered(almost unthinkable). In the end the Spartans won with help from the persians (ironic isn;t it) thus beginning an age of Spartan hegemony until they were beaten by the thebans at Leuctra.
Staring the enemy in the eye was what the spartans was good at i guess, they were know to march silently with precise drills and lowering of their spears coordinated only by shrill pipes. the silent precise drill was said to have unnerved enemy to the point where they broke even before the battle is joined. Mongols used a somewhat similiar trick i think. Silent advance.
Oops, its peloponesian named after the lower half of greece. -
yep yep read all that......the surrendering part was a real dagger through the heart for the Sparten for never before had that happen...though it was like a mere 30 spartans and a few hundred helots.Originally posted by redrooster79:The Pelopenesian War. Spartan heavy infantry was beaten a couple of times i think. Once was by Athenian usage of light infantry who used javelin and slings and another time was when a contingent of spartans trapped on an island surrendered(almost unthinkable). In the end the Spartans won with help from the persians (ironic isn;t it) thus beginning an age of Spartan hegemony until they were beaten by the thebans at Leuctra.
Staring the enemy in the eye was what the spartans was good at i guess, they were know to march silently with precise drills and lowering of their spears coordinated only by shrill pipes. the silent precise drill was said to have unnerved enemy to the point where they broke even before the battle is joined. Mongols used a somewhat similiar trick i think. Silent advance.
Oops, its peloponesian named after the lower half of greece.
As for the quote in you previous post i believe it was carved into stone and still around?not too sure hehe
Oh and the Thebans were fighting for Persia? never knew that for i havent gone that far back hehe currently reading more about the 14th-18th cent.....and also frm the time of Alexander the Great onwards.And yes i believe there was a group of Macedonians but they were there under threat from the Persian King....Alexander I really did not have much choice though he was on the side of the greeks later -
Yep, the macedonians surrendered to the persians although at that time the macedon kingdom was rather barbaric as compared to the greek city states, they spoke a different dialect of greek. I think it was with the discovery of gold mines in thrace together with reforms made under Phillip II that macedon began to 'catch up' with the rest of greece.
With Alexander it wasn't him siding with the Greeks it was more of him and his father forcing the greeks to side with them. -
I said Alexander I not the great...different guy lahOriginally posted by redrooster79:Yep, the macedonians surrendered to the persians although at that time the macedon kingdom was rather barbaric as compared to the greek city states, they spoke a different dialect of greek. I think it was with the discovery of gold mines in thrace together with reforms made under Phillip II that macedon began to 'catch up' with the rest of greece.
With Alexander it wasn't him siding with the Greeks it was more of him and his father forcing the greeks to side with them. -
thought it was a I (eye). Also thought the king then was call amyntas, my bad.
-
hmm.....during Xerxes time was Alexander right? i also not too sure heheOriginally posted by redrooster79:thought it was a I (eye). Also thought the king then was call amyntas, my bad.