weapons and armor

[Dienekes]

another minute factor in winning in real warfare is how well your troops are equipped. The mongols and light leather and fur armor, bows and a sword similar in demensions to a scimitar. When looking at this aspect we can analyze what their weak points are. The arrows are missles that work fairly well against lighter armor (it is a common misconseption that arrows can pierce through most armor, it cant, that's why they wear the armor) and some chainmale. It however falls short against heavy plate and banded armor. The scimitar is a close slasher weapon that wouldn't do anything against chainmale or banded and may break through plate. With this in mind the plate armor of the romans would be the best defensive armor. for shields we know that tower shields and large aspis' work the best since they can easily block the arrows (aspis are a little worse for arrows but far superior in closer combat so I like them better) the tear shield has a chance of working though slim.

for weoponry arrows may work the best for the back lines, the barbarians of the steppes had virtually no armor so the bolts could penitrate through. The front lines I would have given a Alexander spear (roughly 25-30 feet long) for various reasons. The first, if the opposing horseman got desperate and charged there is no way on earth that they could get their horses to charge through a wall of spears (the ostrogoths tried charging a greek spear wall like this once and the horses either veird away or died) the other reason that if these spears are held at the right angle they can nock away arrows.

With these weapons and armor the barbarians would find it much harder to get through to a generals troops.

[Dienekes]

terribly sorry, a bit new to this site this was supposed to be posted with the cavalry archers bit.

[Dienekes]

since I wrote it what does everyone believe is the best match of equipment for soldiers of the classic time period.

My personal dream army would have banded plate chestplate because it is the most reflexive and is the only armor that can protect against bolts at a distance of 30 feet (though there is no way in war that a bolt would be fired at 30 feet) It would have a steel corinthian style helm because they were the most protective to the head without the expense of the flashier roman style helmets (not counting the horsehair crest which I would take off) also I would use greeves and light gauntlets for glance protection without slowing the troops. The Spartan Aspis shield (not that of the rest of Greece) is the best shield being as protective against archery as a Tower shield yet still being yeildable in a melee combat (a problem the Romans never quite solved) My Front line would have no shield and only light leather armor and weild the 6ft long zwehander swords to destroy the pikes of the enemy My main body would have alexander style 20 foot spears and a lakonian short sword in case of spear breaking. My back line would bear Muslim foot bows for maximum range and power. My cavalry would have heavy German based cavalry with a light cavalry based off the Hun design of Horse Archer with the Composite Bow however I would give the thier horses a lighter non gold armor the Egyptians used of scale mail.

Tell your own classical dream army

[Dienekes]

okay the thread is now changed to Dienekes' weapon and armor session.

Today in my session I go over the basics. Number one the sword. If you don't know what a sword is get out now. The sword ranging from the short Gladius of Rome to the German Zweihander had multiple uses and a range of skill and strength needed to weild them effectively. Lets start with the gladius. For today we will only look at small medium and large swords without getting into detail. Small swords roughly a foot to two . They are highly effective at puncturing through armor and peircing shields. They cannot be used to dual with do to shape and length and are relatevely hard to break, they are normally considered a thrusting weapon. The most famous short swords would be the Gladius and the Xiphis. The medium length sword became popular in Europe after the fall of Rome. It stands around 3 feet long. The medium length sword is used for dualing and a made to be defensive and use flexibilty instead of a bulky shield. They are also normally used on horseback to be able to give a good swing at attacking infantry. These weapons range from slashing to thrusting to the occasional hacking style of fighting. The final form of sword is the large sized sword ranging from 4.5-6.5 feet long. These swords can be used for duals but are not recommended. The size and weight of these swords normally means no additional armor or protection (except for the smaller sizes). It is used mostly for anti cavalry and anti pike. Some famous types of large swords are the zheihander (6-6.5 officially the longest swords) and mandobles, both from medieval germany.

here is a list of swords.
Africa
Flyssa
Kaskara
Shotel
Takouba

Mediterranean
Gladius
Kopis
Khopesh
Makhaira
Spatha
Xiphos
Lakonian

China
Butterfly sword
Dao
Jian

Europe
Anlace
Arming sword
Sidesword
Backsword
Cutlass
Falchion
Mortuary sword
Cinquedea
Dirk
Espada Ropera
Estoc
Flamberge
Grossmesser
Kriegsmesser
Rapier
Smallsword
Sabre
Seax
Two-handed swords
Árije
Claymore
Greatsword
Zweihänder
Longsword
Bastard sword
Spadone

Japan
Aikuchi
Bokken
Chokutō
Dōtanuki
Katana
Ken
Kodachi
Nagamaki
Nodachi
Ōdachi
Shikomizue
Shinai
Tachi
Tantō
Wakizashi
Zinba

Philippines
Barong
Pinute
Talibon

Middle East
Katar
Kilij
Kindjal
Saif
Scimitar
Shamshir
Shashqa
Yataghan

South Asia
Campilan
Parang pandit
Pulwar
Tulwar

South East Asia
Kampilan
Kris

Next class shields.

[Dienekes]

Today we learn about the shield. This is believed by historians to be the second warlike equipment made by man (after the spear). The shield is also in most cultures the first piece of armor that a man would get if they joined an army. The shield was first and formostly used to deflect ranged weaponry being thrown or shot at the user of the shield. The earliest shields were small and rectangular but they have spread to be of almost any shape. For today we will only look at grossly vague basics. Once again I will be splitting them into small medium and large. The small shields were orriginally put in use by the Vikings as a hand to hand combat tool, most of these were made of wood and if used correctly could prevent almost all forms of melee attacks. When it was changed to be made of metal the aspects of how the shield was used changed dramatically and the major type of small shield the buckler was born. Medium shields have the largest range of shield type and use. They were capable of being used effectively as weapons and armor. These shields had a wide range of shapes that really didn't effect the performance of the shield except of course if used by cavalry or infantry, the infantry having the larger more basic shaped shields. Some well known medium type shields are the Kyte shield, and the normal Aspis (incorrectly called Hoplon). The large shields have the smallest catagory, mostly because of weight and that when made of light materials were only really good against archers and not straight melee combat. The only two real different large shields are the Tower and Spartan Aspis (though this by performance is used like a medium sized shield).

Here is the shield list

SMALL
buckler
parma
unnamed small shield
unnamed wicker shield
unnamed hide shield (these last three have historian names that have no basis on what they were actually called so I call them unnamed)

Medium
Aspis
Heater
Kyte
Samnite
Enarmes
Double Helix shield (unfortunately not joking)
Armaduras
Bayeaux
Targes
Oval
Domed
Persian (sorry bout the last three names can't find actual names anywhere)

Large
Spartan Aspis
Spearbearers shield (also called Troy shield though it has no historical ties to Troy but was shown in the movie)
Scutum
Tower

Next session spears

[dizzle]

interested - I looked on Wiki and saw that there is also historical precedent for chakrams. I am being dead serious.

[Dienekes]

hey thanks for replying. But honestly im not suprised wikipedia is one of my favorite sorces of information. They have everything!

[dizzle]

I love historical information.

[Dienekes]

Spears, the oldest and arguably the most useful weapon. Basically its a piece of wood with a small bit of medal on the top, yet its uses are numerous. The spear has really only two "sizes" throwing or melee. The throwing spears are smaller lighter and as the name suggests used to be tossed at the opponent. Now the throwing spear was used for two things one just piercing through armor and killing the target, since it was heavier and more powerful than an arrow it had a higher chance of breaking the armor but the range was only 40-50 feet if you were trained all your life in how to throw these things. The other use of a throwing spear is to immbed itself in the opponents shield. This would do two things one it would destroy the shields balance causing the weilder to stumble and two if the opponent got close to you you could grab the spear yank hard and fling the shield away or nock them off balance. Here is a list of throwing spears.
Angon
Assegai
Ballam
Bandang
Bhala
Bilari
Budiak
Cateia
Chimbane
Contus
Do-War
Egchos
Enhero
Fal-feg
Falarica
Framea
Gravo
Golo
Granggang
Hak
Harpoon
Hinyan
Hoko
Huata
Irpull
Ja-Mandehi
Jaculum
Jarid
Javelin
Jiboru
Kasita
Kamayari
Kan-Shoka
Kannai
Kapun
Kiero
Kikuki
Koveh
Koy-yung
Koyuan
Kujolio
Kuyan
Laange
Lance-Ague
Lama-pe
Leister
Mandehi liguje
Mahee
Makrigga
Makura Yari
Mkukt
Mongile
Mongoli
Mu-Rongal
Nage-Yari
Nandum
Nerau
Paralyser
Patisthanaya
Pelta
Pill
Pillara
Pilum
Plumbate
Sang
Sangkoh
Sanokat
Saunion
Shail
Shanen kopaton
Siligis
Short spear (or common spear)
Simbilan
Sinan
Sligi
Soliferrum
Spiculum
Su Yari
Sudanese lance
Tahr Ruan
Tao
Tawok
Telempang
Te yari
Tirrer
Tjunkuletti
Tombak
Tschehouta
Tumpuling
Wainian
Wallunka
Wi-Valli
Zagaye
Despite the vaste list of names there are relatively few that have any real difference among them.

The longer melee spear normally was made of thicker wood or some are made of metal (lance) with large metal heads that could break through almost any armor better than any other weapon (with possible exception of the axe). Among the smaller of these spears could also be thrown in emergancies though very few armies did this. The larger spears could be held in an angled possition so that incoming arrows and spears would bouce among them and fall harmlessly (orriginally developed by Philip of Macedon). These spears could impale incoming infantry and if held correctly with a shield can stop infinate amount of cavalry charges. Heres the list.
Aunurgith
Awl pike
Barchi
Boar spear
Bohemian ear spoon
Chimbane
Contus
Dung (great name aint it)
Falarica
Hasta
Jousting lance
Kadji
Lance
Magari yari
Mon-Gil Mon-Gil
Ox tongue
Pike
Plançon a picot
Qiāng
Rifle-and-bayonet (if you count it)
Rummh
Sangu
Sarissa
Spear
Spontoon
Sudis
Su yari
Taru
Tepoztopilli (Actually a slashing weapon)
To-ono
Yari

Next my personal favorite axes.

[Dienekes]

The axes are my personal favorite historical weapon. More powerful than all but the largest swords while staying relatively light. Extremely hard to learn how to fight compared to swords and spears but once mastered an axeman was considered unbeatable in battle situations. The two types of axes are throwing and melee. The throwing axes were roughly the same size but with roughly half the head size. These axes when thrown could reach a maximum range of 35-40 feet and upon impact these axes could break anything. The franks when using them broke straight through shields the arm and the armor to pierce the knight attacking them. Despite their superior strength throwing axes never truly became popular due to the smaller range. Melee axes spred through most armies in the world at some point however most (except the Viking Berserkers) stopped using axes due to the challenge of effective usage. They were incredibly hard to parry with, most required two hands to wield effectively so no shield could be worn (one of the reasons the Vikings made one of the first true buckler shields) and they were extremely heavy. Eventually the Holy Roman Empire stopped this problem by making a special axe and zweihänder sword corps that charged first into battle consisting only of the strong and naturally talented who were not of noble birth and therefore could not become knights or squires. The melee axe has really three types and three methods of use horsemans axe, normal, and dual headed axe. The horsemans axe was almost a mixture of a throwing axe and a normal axe with a longer handle so it could be swung down from horseback while still leaving one arm open for lance or shield. The normal axe is one or two handed depending on handle length not head size. Normally used to hack away shield and spear and not fighting true armored troops because the heads were not large enough to effectively parry however there were many exceptions as shieldless spearless soldiers tend to attack with sword those who are cutting them away. To correctly weild one take your arm and swing putting your weight forward to add some strength to the blow without locking your arm or throwing off your balance. To parry hold the axe like your going to attack with it and try to cup the incoming blade with the bottom of the axe head and pull down and toward you to make your opponent become unbalanced. When facing multiple opponents... don't. The double headed axe is the masterpiece of the axe, increasing all its strengths and decreasing the weaknesses (except weight of course). The waraxe as it is nicknamed is used relatively like the normal battleaxe with only a couple of differences. The waraxe if you throw your weight into the blow you will fall down the axe is to heavy and the extra head adds the required weight. When parrying you can use the foremented way however this axe can use its two heads in a shield like manner if you can flip your grip fast enough. Finally the major difference in use is in how to fight multiple opponents the normal axe would have almost no chance however as long as they are all relatively in front the waraxe can be backswung at a quick pace to either stop incoming attacks or cleave through stupid attackers who got too close. Here is the list.
Battle-axe
Hurlbat
Throwing-axe
Frankish axe or francisca
Tomahawk
Waraxe
Dual standard axe
Pulaski
Upturned pulaski
Upturned hurlbat

[Ryokan]

Fine. I'll bite. :teeth:
Assuming one could politically organize them, just horse archers. Lightly armed and armored. Mobility and flaxibility always win.
Barring that, some variation on the Roman heavy infantry theme.

[Dienekes]

Thank the Lord for a tactician! So you like the mass horse archers. Ghengis Khan man. This was an extremely good tactic though it had three weaknesses. One horses controlled the movement more than the actual riders and when a horse gets scraded or sees an obstical it will run away (as used by the Romans against the Huns). Also the chance of actually hitting the target using the old recurve or composite bows was similar to 1/15-20. Not the best odds but when a thousand arrows are in the air that is extremely hard to dodge. Its one blaring weakness is the lack of armor for effectiveness, heavily armored horse archers are still extremely lightly armored. And when faced with extremely heavy armored knights (Germans for instance) they tend to get defeated in a frontal rush or flank. The one army that you would most defenately loose to is the Roman Legion whos Scutum shields would most likely block all arrows and their slow moving yet diliberate marcher would make sure they wont get into a trap and their spear wall would stop any cavalry rushes should you get desperate. After that Philip of Macedons phalanx, the 20 footers would deflect incoming arrows and the possible "Macedonian Fire Machines" would give your horses more distress then they have ever know. Good choise though, always respected the nice cav archer.

[Durthorin]

Thank the Lord for a tactician! So you like the mass horse archers. Ghengis Khan man. This was an extremely good tactic though it had three weaknesses. One horses controlled the movement more than the actual riders and when a horse gets scraded or sees an obstical it will run away (as used by the Romans against the Huns). Also the chance of actually hitting the target using the old recurve or composite bows was similar to 1/15-20. Not the best odds but when a thousand arrows are in the air that is extremely hard to dodge. Its one blaring weakness is the lack of armor for effectiveness, heavily armored horse archers are still extremely lightly armored. And when faced with extremely heavy armored knights (Germans for instance) they tend to get defeated in a frontal rush or flank. The one army that you would most defenately loose to is the Roman Legion whos Scutum shields would most likely block all arrows and their slow moving yet diliberate marcher would make sure they wont get into a trap and their spear wall would stop any cavalry rushes should you get desperate. After that Philip of Macedons phalanx, the 20 footers would deflect incoming arrows and the possible "Macedonian Fire Machines" would give your horses more distress then they have ever know. Good choise though, always respected the nice cav archer.


Roman Legionaries backed by longbowmen or heavycrossbow. I'd prefer the longbow for rate of fire. Given the speculative ranges and accuracy of horsebow to longbow I'd see a lot of your mounted archers going down.. add in that a horse hit is a horse that tends to die or want to leave the field as well.

[Dienekes]

Another good one there is no doubt the legionares were one of the best and giving them a longbow is always good, however people now adays seem to relay to heavily on bows. (My beleif is that they are to stunned by what Legolas can do in LotR) Bows are good not the best. The legion unlike the horse archers is a little tougher to find a match for, the scutum shields would deflect all projectiles but are to unbalanced and heavy when up close (during the second Roman attack on Greece the Greeks ran forward as the Romans did the turtle and took a step back and kicked down the front lines shields then throwing all their spears into the now open line, brilliance). as I just gave away the most possible defeat of this army would be a heavy phalanx on flat ground (on rugged the Romans would puncture the line and screw over the entire phalanx) I'd give them Spartan Aspis shields and the Macedonian spears maybe some heavy cavalry to cause some turmoil but thats only secondary. Everyone has to like the Legions they were one of the best.

[Durthorin]

Another good one there is no doubt the legionares were one of the best and giving them a longbow is always good, however people now adays seem to relay to heavily on bows. (My beleif is that they are to stunned by what Legolas can do in LotR) Bows are good not the best. The legion unlike the horse archers is a little tougher to find a match for, the scutum shields would deflect all projectiles but are to unbalanced and heavy when up close (during the second Roman attack on Greece the Greeks ran forward as the Romans did the turtle and took a step back and kicked down the front lines shields then throwing all their spears into the now open line, brilliance). as I just gave away the most possible defeat of this army would be a heavy phalanx on flat ground (on rugged the Romans would puncture the line and screw over the entire phalanx) I'd give them Spartan Aspis shields and the Macedonian spears maybe some heavy cavalry to cause some turmoil but thats only secondary. Everyone has to like the Legions they were one of the best.

Given the bow had evolved in the English longbow and heavy crossbow to its highest form. Historically bowman prior to the longbow were mostly an annoyance to armored foes. The longbow and heavy crossbow could if tests by the British War Museum are correct actually punch threw plate armor making them far more dangerous to an armored knight. Against a lightly armoured horse archer their penatration and range would be devestating. As to the Roman shield, one has to consider it in context of how it was used and what it allowed. It was not meant as an indiviidual defense but as unit defense.

[Dienekes]

read again. The bows punched through plate armor at a distance of 20 feet or less. And though it is true that the Roman scutum is for a unit yet so was the Aspis to a bigger exstent being that the whole basis of the Aspis is to protect the person to your right. A correstly built Aspis has the boss and handle slightly to the left so the right side goes way out of the body but when used in proper formation creates this shield wall with a small hole right were you need to place your spear. The major weakness was of course the unarmored left flank while the Romans decided to fix this but made many new weaknesses such as immobility and lack of use in pitched melee combat. However this was extremely useful against the enemies the Romans fought the barbarians using javelins and bows whenever possible.

[Bambiraptor]

Longbowmen shooting down Mongolian archers? Curious: shooting a moving a target is quite difficult. Especially with such high lead-time. According to this (http://www.ealdormere.sca.org/files/handbook_archeryapp1.pdf) document, a good Longbowman could shoot his arrow a distance of 200 Yards (mind you that would be pressing the effectiveness of that projectile). A good Mongolian archer could strike a target from 200 to 400 meters (from Leo de Hartog's Genghis Khan; Conqueror of the World). That was on horseback too. The reason for the defeat of the French knights was not due to the Longbow as much as it was result of poor tactics (charging into volleys of arrows was not a good idea, and letting yourself become flanked by archers was even worse).

As for my classical dream army . . . I would simply appreciate Spartan soldiers. Nothing more fearful than a legion of well trained men who value teamwork and unified defense against tyranny above all else.

[Dienekes]

Hail Lakedaemon! the Spartans in my opinion the greatest warriors around. However I will not say they were without weakness. Mostly there weakness was bronze. Their offensive and defensive tactics were the most difficult and the most effective pulled off by any army (including the Roman Legionnaires). Their 9 footers and Xiphos or Lakonian swords could pierce or bash through any armor and they were so well trained that they only lost one battle of equal numbers. At the end of their reign as superpower. When the Agoge was cancelled, the helots were freed, and sparitiates could be involved in trade. Basically once Sparta had already died it lost. For troops there was non better but I believe that they could have been more effective if we replace the nine footers with 20 footers, just to increase their reach a bit.

Now to your bit on archers. Personnally I dislike them, they're overrated and in some cases inpractical but the public loves them for reasons I will never understand. Though it is true the mongol bows can shoot longer 400 feet is exagerated. The reason why I would place my money on the longbowmen is simply because they can volley better than the mongols can, and with volleys aim is really errelavent. Also the mongols were almost completely unarmored so if an arrow hit it would kill the horse and thus the rider or just the rider while an English bowmens scale mail should help them survive being hit.

[Bambiraptor]

Well volleying is good and all, but what if I flank your Longbowmen on open ground? Organizing a barrage of arrows should prove to be quite difficult in the heat of battle, especially when your opponent is racing around you or sending decoys. According to my good friend Leo de Hartog, the Mongolian horde also had a habit of using their extra horses as decoys; mounting lamps or dummies on the mounts to confuse or strike terror into the enemy.

I do agree though, most archers are truly over-rated, but the Golden Horde is a different matter. Genghis Khan was just not good in battle, but outside as well. Two to four horses per soldier, all capable of fighting. Whereas in Europe, knights would often have horses to carry their supplies, one for battle, etc. Of course we must remember that the Great Khan burned down entire cities for grazing land in his pursuit for an effective fighting force.

On the issue of armor: I don't believe a Englishman could afford armor as well as he could steal it during a campaign, so it may be important to remember that professional armies were nonexistent in their time. A big problem in the Hundred Years War I believe, pillaging and what not.

A Briton would practice archery at a young age. A Mongolian was born with a bow in his hand.

[Dienekes]

sorry been away 4 awhile. But I must say a fact on that last part, the Golden Horde was the horde that ruled China after Ghengis Khan died, one of his sons I believe, Kublai Khan. Who tried to make the Mongols a barbaric tribe that had excellent cavalry become a naval force... needless to say failing miserably. On the bit about organization while being charged, though this was supposed to be on weaponry I must add a bit of tactics here, you never have archers in the back, ever. For presiecly the flanking reason. This is one of the many reasons I believe good old Alexander to be the second greatest tactician of all time (Narses #1). He invented the reserves, and how they can be used as replacements and antiflankers. With medium armored reserves in the back and the heavy pikes in front there would be no problem at all when shooting off volleys. However the best volleying bow as I have stated many times before is the muslim foot bow, longer reach than even the Mongols composites and since the twine they used was often cooked first the bolt had a higher chance of piercing through plate (though there is only 80 recorded knights during the entire war, this is a higher percentage than any other bow at long range, look it up if your an archer lover)

Now however I go into detail in what I believe are the most overated weapon sets in the world. That of the Samurai. There katanas were made of low carbon steel and would easily break (the reason why every samurai wore two swords). There armor is made of a mixture of bamboo and bronze in affect unable to provent anything however would weigh the wearer down as if he were wearing a full plate armor of a knight, and don't even get me started on their headsets.

[Bambiraptor]

It would be incorrect to say that Feudal Japanese weaponry would've been useless. They were never used against European powers to begin with, so effectiveness will never be known really.

[Dienekes]

Through the wonders of math and metellergy plus basic weapon principals we can indeed find out. White Steel, Damascus Steel, and 7% Oxidized steel are all better than 3% mid carbon steel used by the Japanese meaning the weapons were lighter and stronger. Then we go into uses. The katana was almost always used during a formal nonlethal challenge all other times the spear was the number one weapon. Let us compare to the rapier. The rapier was lighter, more durable, more flexible, did not have the curve of the katana was useful in fighting against the five points of the body instead of the katana three points, and it allowed the use of the other hand. the japanese had soldiers whose principal martial ability was speed then handed them armor and weapons that greatly reduced speed and required more strength, it doesn't make any sense. And one final thing 1963 a fencing champion (not exactly true rapier dueling) fraced against the considered best katana duelist of the time (actually battu, again not exact katana fighting) the winner was the fencer the katana just couldn't handle the speed and penitrability of the rapier. If you want a katana like weapon take a saber and add a two handed handle, they work better.

[Dienekes]

sorry, i continue, no matter how many people dont want me to.

The armor of the orriginal and ending samurai was that made of wood and bamboo, weighed roughly 50-60 lbs and did not protect against an arrow at 100 yards-(actually only 285 feet)... think about these numbers when compared to roman or plate armor. Roman banded plates 15-20 lbs and protected from projectiles at 30 feet. German plate 40-45 lbs protected from arrow at 50 feet and further. Templar chainmail 45-50 lbs protected from bolt at 80 feet.

My final point is in that of flashiness, I loath it, completely. The samurai went flashy to the point of stupidity. I will not say the knights were without their flashy crap but they added only when it did not greatly disturb the demensions of the armor. And even then the knights normally had a completely nonperturbed set of armor for real use.

[DarwinianJihadi]

I, like Ryokan, am a fan of the horse archer. Match them up with cavalry and cataphracts for shock effect, and you got a serious fighting force that’s both flexible and deadly.

If I were to create my own pre-gunpowder army, I would go with combined arms. In addition to the three elements I listed above, I would add at least two more elements.

The first would be heavy infantry. Like a few others, I see a lot of potential for these units. However, rather than go Roman, I’d rather take a cue from Renaissance Swiss pikemen and the Landsknecht units. I’d armor them with a brigandine jerkin with a helmet, bracers, and maybe greaves. Maybe even mail if feasible. However, I don’t want them being too overly burdened by armor. They would be armed with a combination of long sarissa-type pikes to ward of frontal attacks from knights and cavalry, halberds, archers and crossbowmen at the flanks with swordsmen armed with two-handers or short thrusting swords interspersed through the ranks to help in melee combat.

The second would be light infantry. Armored pretty much as the pikemen, but without any possibility of mail, and armed with a bastard sword or a medium sword like the one Dienekes described before and a buckler for agile defense. They’d be more like skirmishers when cooperating with the heavy infantry, but would largely be independent when operating in areas where open formations of pikemen and cavalry would be disadvantageous such as heavily wooded areas.


One horses controlled the movement more than the actual riders and when a horse gets scraded or sees an obstical it will run away (as used by the Romans against the Huns).


I'm not so sure about that. The "Parthian Shot" maneuver required the horsemen to veer his mount away from the front of enemy lines while he (or she) continued to fire while riding away. That indicates a good degree of control over the horse.

Also the chance of actually hitting the target using the old recurve or composite bows was similar to 1/15-20. Not the best odds but when a thousand arrows are in the air that is extremely hard to dodge.
Well, one has to wonder how one is supposed to dodge any arrows at all when you have fellow soldiers around you. You'd just end up bumping into each other and possibly breaking up whatever formation you're in. This would be especially true of heavy infantry like the Romans. Crassus' legions didn't fair too well against the Parthians who were by and large composed of light horse archers.

Its one blaring weakness is the lack of armor for effectiveness, heavily armored horse archers are still extremely lightly armored.
Speed is the horse archers' best defense.

And when faced with extremely heavy armored knights (Germans for instance) they tend to get defeated in a frontal rush or flank.
While knights were comparatively mobile, I don't know how they were supposed to outmaneuver an opposition who is also mounted but has little to none of the heavy armor to slow them down.

The one army that you would most defenately loose to is the Roman Legion whos Scutum shields would most likely block all arrows and their slow moving yet diliberate marcher would make sure they wont get into a trap and their spear wall would stop any cavalry rushes should you get desperate. After that Philip of Macedons phalanx, the 20 footers would deflect incoming arrows and the possible "Macedonian Fire Machines" would give your horses more distress then they have ever know.
The Parthian neutralization of Roman incursions into their territory would seem to indicate that an army made up of 90% horse archers can indeed deal with heavy infantry when combined with good tactics and strategy.

Good choise though, always respected the nice cav archer.
Indeed.

however people now adays seem to relay to heavily on bows. (My beleif is that they are to stunned by what Legolas can do in LotR)
I don't know about that. Bows, like firearms today, are in some ways equalizers. They allow you to engage your enemies at a distance, thus partially negating whatever melee abilities they may have with swords, spears, axes, and such. Of course, the thing with bows is that you need to be skilled and I think it takes a long time to actually train bowmen. Probably the reason why firearms superceded bows in armies even though firearms couldn't match a bow's range until the mid-19th century.

the Golden Horde was the horde that ruled China after Ghengis Khan died, one of his sons I believe, Kublai Khan.
I thought the Golden Horde was the khanate that ruled Russia, Ukraine, and parts of central Asia...

It would be incorrect to say that Feudal Japanese weaponry would've been useless. They were never used against European powers to begin with, so effectiveness will never be known really.
Since Japanese swords were by and large slashing weapons, they would have been quite ineffective against the various armors Europeans used (scale, mail, half-plate, full-plate). There were, however, a few weapons, such as certain spears and maybe certain knives that would have been useful in piercing even steel plate.

The samurai went flashy to the point of stupidity.
Hee hee! When the Mongols first invaded the Japanese islands, the first thing the samurai warriors did was to line up across from the first wave of invaders and start ritualistically reciting their lineage to display their honor. The Mongols (and their Korean and Chinese subjects) responded by firing cannons into them.

:lol:

[Dienekes]

Awesome post Jihad! But in a lot of the things you said I would have to disagree with. You however got me on the word dodge. I sometimes, most the time actually, get ahaid of myself in words. Block would have been better word choice there, with the movement of the shield to block the bolt, as arrows could not break shields, or most armor for that matter. For the knight bit. You are acting as if the battle field is limitless. It never is, and it is at the point when the archers have no where to run that heavier cavalry tends to trample over them. Look at the fall of the Huns and the Mongols.

The Golden Horde started in China, it conquered Russia, then left(what's to conquer in Russia?) Afterwards Kublai built a great fleet to attack Japan, and would have, but a tsunami wiped them out.

The problem with cavalry, that is seen even in the incredibly inaccurate LotR movies is the horses actual weakness. When facing light spears and swords they were gods, non-better. However it is against archers and pikemen and throwing spears that cavalry seem to have a problem against. The Parthians faced early Rome, not the powerful legions we're so used to seeing, they had smaller scutum (shields), no throwing spears, leather armor, and the old late italian version of the Gladius. In this case the Romans were asking to be killed by cav archers. A light cavalry horse has a really large weak point, also known as its head and neck. A small cut sends the horse wild, or will drop it instantaneously. When Narses fought the Ostrogoths (another cav archer culture) he ordered all his archers to attack the horses not the actual fighter (during Byzantine time) before Narses suggested this it was considered rude (more stupidity in warfare). Noted that only 30 Byzantine died, and the cav archers of the Ostrogoths lost over 3000. (However this is an extremist time because Narses was in my opinion the best general the world has ever seen and the Ostrogoths never knew what hit them).

However when compared to the later Roman legion as we truly know and love, with big scutum, spanish gladius, pilum, and banded mail and face them against let's say Carthage (after the reforms of Scipio of course) and the Huns, or the Visigoths all of which relied heavily on the horse archer and the Romans always appear victorious against this type of warrior.

Finally there are countless times when the horses on their own accord swerved away from the incoming against the riders will, normally when something unexpected happens, you know like when a wall of pikes appears, or an elephant these times. However these accurances were dramatically lessened upon the invention of the bits(the thing that steers a horse when put in the mouth (surprisingly this invention was by the viking... I am still confused how that happened) before that there were ropes around a horses snout and neck.

random bit on knowledge, in the Roman army infantry training was 5 years, cavalry was 7, archer was 4. and Spartan inf 22 years, cav 17, and archer 5 years. I don't have any other records like these two on hand so the only other thing I can compare it to is the french renaissance. Cav 15-17, inf no training, and archer 2 years. However I am more likely to believe the Roman training more accurate on a whole because the renaissance infantry was just a mob with big sticks.

[DarwinianJihadi]

Awesome post Jihad!
Thanks. I happen to have an interest in pre-gunpowder warfare.

You however got me on the word dodge. I sometimes, most the time actually, get ahaid of myself in words. Block would have been better word choice there, with the movement of the shield to block the bolt, as arrows could not break shields, or most armor for that matter.
Do arrows have to break shields to be effective? I would imagine having your shield nailed to your arm by an arrow might reduce your effectiveness on the battlefield. Of course, I’m not saying that any penetration of a shield would automatically mean that the soldier would be out of commission, but hails of arrows do tend to increase the possibility. I would also wonder how well a formation of shielded infantry could handle arrow barrages from more than one side.

And of course, not all shields are equal. A Roman scutum is much better than say, a pelta in protecting the wielder.

For the knight bit. You are acting as if the battle field is limitless. It never is, and it is at the point when the archers have no where to run that heavier cavalry tends to trample over them. Look at the fall of the Huns and the Mongols.

I wouldn’t say “never.” Open steppes and fields help maneuvering of cavalry formations. And while I don’t know too much of the Huns (*hangs head in shame*), I do recall having read that early Middle Age knights did not beat the Mongols. I only recall the Muslim Mamluks actually defeating a couple of Mongol divisions in direct combat. The folks at Wikipedia seem to think that the only reason Europe didn’t suffer as much from the Mongols was because of the Death of Genghis Khan and their reluctance to actually commit to an invasion further into continental Europe.

The instances in Poland and Hungary where the Mongols were repelled seemed to be due to an insufficient commitment of troops and an inability to sustain battles against fully mobilized armies. IIRC, Mongols mostly plundered the countryside in those two incursions. It’s not really an indication of how well knights would do against light horse archers.

The Golden Horde started in China, it conquered Russia, then left(what's to conquer in Russia?) Afterwards Kublai built a great fleet to attack Japan, and would have, but a tsunami wiped them out.

According to Wikipedia (yes, not the best source, but I don’t think they would be idiotically wrong) the Golden Horde was the name of the khanate that specifically ruled Russia and western Asia.

The problem with cavalry, that is seen even in the incredibly inaccurate LotR movies is the horses actual weakness. When facing light spears and swords they were gods, non-better. However it is against archers and pikemen and throwing spears that cavalry seem to have a problem against.

Which is why my personal choice for a mounted army consists of both horse archer skirmishers as well as cavalry. The horse archers would harass the formations. Theoretically there’s no reason for the cavalry to get involved unless it was opportune for them to do so such as when the infantry retreat or break formation, in which case a wall of spears and pikes wouldn’t really be quite a problem for them.

The Parthians faced early Rome, not the powerful legions we're so used to seeing, they had smaller scutum (shields), no throwing spears, leather armor, and the old late italian version of the Gladius. In this case the Romans were asking to be killed by cav archers.
The battle of Carrhae happened in 53 BC. At that point, the Romans also had chain mail armor. Not quite like strip armor, but not simple leather, either. And of course, javelins (throwing spears) had been around for centuries before that battle. Roman legionaries already carried two pila by the late Republican period, which is when the battle took place.

According to Wikipedia (and I hope you don’t hold this against me), experiments with pila have shown that maximum ranges for the thrown spear was about 30 yards. Effective ranges were probably half to two-thirds of that. There’s no reason for the horse archers to come within 50 yards of enemy front lines since their bows have much better range.

A light cavalry horse has a really large weak point, also known as its head and neck. A small cut sends the horse wild, or will drop it instantaneously. When Narses fought the Ostrogoths (another cav archer culture) he ordered all his archers to attack the horses not the actual fighter (during Byzantine time) before Narses suggested this it was considered rude (more stupidity in warfare). Noted that only 30 Byzantine died, and the cav archers of the Ostrogoths lost over 3000. (However this is an extremist time because Narses was in my opinion the best general the world has ever seen and the Ostrogoths never knew what hit them).

My concept for horse archers is simple skirmishers. I don’t know anything about the Ostrogoths, but it was rather silly of them to have their mounted archers in a position where they could get into melee combat with heavy infantry. Probably the difference between them and the Mongols who came after.

However when compared to the later Roman legion as we truly know and love, with big scutum, spanish gladius, pilum, and banded mail and face them against let's say Carthage (after the reforms of Scipio of course) and the Huns, or the Visigoths all of which relied heavily on the horse archer and the Romans always appear victorious against this type of warrior.

Carrhae happened after Carthage. I’m not going to say that the Parthians or any other nomadic group would fair any better than the Goths or Huns inside Roman territory. But, they did have a good showing in more open areas where cavalry was more advantageous. It’s probably why the Parthians never even considered invading the Empire and were never considered that big of a threat to Rome.

Finally there are countless times when the horses on their own accord swerved away from the incoming against the riders will, normally when something unexpected happens, you know like when a wall of pikes appears, or an elephant these times. However these accurances were dramatically lessened upon the invention of the bits(the thing that steers a horse when put in the mouth (surprisingly this invention was by the viking... I am still confused how that happened) before that there were ropes around a horses snout and neck.
True, but the tactics for horse archers that I was thinking of doesn’t require them to get close enough to enemy lines for horses to get spooked by spears and pikes.

However I am more likely to believe the Roman training more accurate on a whole because the renaissance infantry was just a mob with big sticks.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that about the Landsknecht.

In any case, I was talking more about equipment and organization rather than training when I said I would have wanted a Renaissance heavy infantry force.