tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post4562018600217756450..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: The history of arms branches in Orient and Occident - reduxUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-24625411330116802522012-06-03T09:47:42.888+02:002012-06-03T09:47:42.888+02:00Sorry, it's sergeants not squires.Sorry, it's sergeants not squires.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-16231458569634162102012-06-03T09:36:41.311+02:002012-06-03T09:36:41.311+02:00This point of view on european warfare has to do w...This point of view on european warfare has to do with a mindset that wants to settle conflicts in battle and a historiography that for this reason doesn't equally emphasize the irregular combat in regard to the regular combat.<br /><br />Knights for example were foremost mobile well-trained and well-equipped soldiers that unlike a levy had an economic support to allow them participation in extended campaigns. They fought on foot and horseback, with more or less armour according to the situation and it is by no means clear whether they shunned ranged weapons like javelins, bows and crossbows in combat. At Hastings that clearly wasn't the case. What today is seen as knights were mostly non-noble squires who had even less qualms with any restrictions on weapons. The often quoted papal ban on crossbows exists in many versions that all share one trait: all ranged weapons are frowned upon as means of warfare among Christians. This is an ancient idea often returning because ranged combat creates more casualties without the decision achieved in close combat by psychological means.<br /><br />The famous German reiters are a good example to research how the regular role of an intermediate cavalry often gets stressed over their feared irregular role. The reiters date further back in time than the pistol, first setting out with crossbows in northern Germany, the region next to mounted archers with bows in the east (Baltic "turkopoles" for example).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-76726306704653900342012-05-28T22:12:36.226+02:002012-05-28T22:12:36.226+02:00To make the answer short: Medieval European warfar...To make the answer short: Medieval European warfare had several components, long spears, crossbows and longbows and horses. These formed a mix of troops that either fought on foot or on horseback, much depending on the situation. Additional weapons were axes, long knives and rare swords.<br />The crossbow was a javelin replacement, mounted and on foot, comparing it to a composite or longbow is problematic because of a limited number of shared tactical characteristics. If you look at crossbowmen as upgraded javelineers together with lancers on foot and on horseback you have the basic European Medieval warfare formation derived from their older formation of javelinmen and spearmen with archers falling out of favour in most Western regions. <br /><br />The problem was the crossbow - longbow/composite bow match. Quite often it is reported as going against the crossbow in the Hundred Years War and the crusades. But this distracts from the other times were for example Oriental armies greatly feared the crossbow (and the very European Spanish Moors even adopted it as their favorite weapon) that provided precise armour piercing(including indirect fire in massed formation) while the bow had more volume, but less accuracy for the same amount of training (don't compare novice crossbowmen with expert longbowmen because both were highly paid professionals). The volume advantage of bows could work under conditions where the crossbow was not able to sufficiently exploit superior accuracy and kinetic energy at a slower rate of shot (due to lacking protection). But this resulted from the European mode of not shooting multiple projectiles with one crossbow shot like their Chinese counterparts.<br /><br />Big difference is of course mounted use of bows and crossbows that automatically had light cavalry with these weapons (to what degree were they armoured?). But we currently lack data to access the tactical situation. German Reiters likely originated from crossbow armed predecessors and Poland was the cultural and technological mix between mounted bowmen and crossbowmen, so I'm looking forward to their future contributions on this topic. At least the Mongols' light cavalry did honour the fearsome crossbowmen at the battle of Mohi.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-16020074415086018752010-01-26T16:35:36.960+01:002010-01-26T16:35:36.960+01:00Sometime in the next years, yes.
I'm still bus...Sometime in the next years, yes.<br />I'm still busy with research, networking and other stuff, though.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-86730375239583429812010-01-26T01:03:54.080+01:002010-01-26T01:03:54.080+01:00Perhaps you should try your hand at writing books....Perhaps you should try your hand at writing books.So?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-44674444210380532612010-01-25T18:20:15.367+01:002010-01-25T18:20:15.367+01:00I limited this to army combat branches. Engineers,...I limited this to army combat branches. Engineers, logstics, signallers and the like were excluded as well.<br />That's the difference between a free blog post and a book chapter. ;-)S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-20772125917628336172010-01-25T04:40:35.419+01:002010-01-25T04:40:35.419+01:00What about airpower? War winner (American) or jus...What about airpower? War winner (American) or just another kind of artillery (Soviet)?So?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-90037515639534967102010-01-23T12:20:04.902+01:002010-01-23T12:20:04.902+01:00Well, back to the original quote:
"These new ...Well, back to the original quote:<br />"These new armies of the feudal societies moved towards small all-heavy (shock) cavalry forces (the knight armies)."<br /><br />There were exceptions to the rule at the periphery and I was probably looking too much at Central Europe when I wrote this, but the quote is nevertheless accurate.<br /><br />Heavy cavalry certainly gained ever more traction from Augustus' time up to the late 12th century.<br /><br />Infantry was at times well-armoured, but it didn't have the ancient Roman or Hellenic discipline until the 14th century, probably not until the Renaissance led to the reinvention of strict discipline for ground war.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-15385472349371550452010-01-23T08:16:07.052+01:002010-01-23T08:16:07.052+01:00To further illustrate my point, I think the heavy ...To further illustrate my point, I think the heavy knights should be compared to the WWII German Stuka dive bomber, not tanks.<br /><br />Like the Stuka, heavy cavalry had a mostly psychological effect, and could easily panic unexperienced and undisciplined troops. But their actual effect against infantry that stayed and held their ground was very limited.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16908242597993305429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-72045211558762476102010-01-23T07:42:31.121+01:002010-01-23T07:42:31.121+01:00Of course there was good infantry during the medie...Of course there was good infantry during the medieval times. A good example is the battle of Hastings. Norman heavy cavalry attacked all day with little effect against Harolds line of infantry.<br /><br />The battle was only decided late during the day when a faked cavalry retreat made the infantry break their line and pursue. They were then vulnerable and were slaugthered when the cavalry turned back and attacked.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16908242597993305429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-78681581820297489272010-01-22T23:21:07.656+01:002010-01-22T23:21:07.656+01:00Alternatively, one could develop and deploy a Damo...Alternatively, one could develop and deploy a Damoclean nuclear arsenal to ensure that no nation state ever sets foot in yours lest they have their name etched their and/or collective human civilization's tombstone. Putting to use the wasted matériel and intellectual capital on the coming soon issues of overpopulation, transhumanism, and human marginalization via robotics; rather than towards a hunter-gatherer trait that still has not been bread out of our stock after 10,000 years of being landed but rears its head in success softened Westerners as a passion for historical militarism but only flaking commitment to hopeless defensive maneuvers when knowing full well that their civilization's living standard was built on the back of a billion corpses and their supposed moral superiority will lead them to be crushed via inferior production capacities because an unscrupulous enemy is fully able to take advantage of War's one true purpose, resource consolidation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-63410950342796731142010-01-22T23:17:24.885+01:002010-01-22T23:17:24.885+01:00There weren't any "prepared and disciplin...There weren't any "prepared and disciplined line"s in the 6th century to 12th century in Europe unless the Byzantines were involved (and even they were not exactly hallmarks of discipline).S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-49776305019682116112010-01-22T23:08:46.036+01:002010-01-22T23:08:46.036+01:00Great post, although you seem to have bought into ...Great post, although you seem to have bought into the myth of the "dominant" heavy cavalry during the medevial times.<br /><br />Cavalry has never been tanks, they have never enjoyed the superiority over infantry on open ground that tanks have. They were never able to make succesfull frontal attacks against prepared infantry that stood their ground.<br /><br />Most of the battles during the medevial times were sieges, and infantry was always the dominating part of the armies. Even during the days of the heavy knights, cavalry was mostly used for flanking attacks and pursuits of broken enemies.<br /><br />Their charges could be sucessful in scaring and routing unprepared or poorly trained and eqipped infantry, but like I said, they could never break through a prepared and disciplined line.<br /><br />The armoured knights were the fighter pilots of their day. Much admired, lauded and written about (which is probably the reason for their exaggerated status in military history) but not at all as militarily influential as their reputation suggests.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16908242597993305429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-21253406097371857602010-01-22T19:59:19.668+01:002010-01-22T19:59:19.668+01:00LRRP and armoured recce soldiers run the same risk...LRRP and armoured recce soldiers run the same risks - and bitching is no way out in wartime.<br /><br />Besides, the legitimate wars - the defensive ones - are wars in which policy and population aren't overly casualty-sensitive.<br /><br />All other wars are stupid adventures and honestly, I'd prefer if we extended the casualty aversion in those cases to the extreme and avoided those stupid wars altogether.<br /><br />The only exception is likely intervention against genocide à la Rwanda. That case wouldn't call for light cavalry (although their mindset would be helpful).S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-26233546703785730872010-01-22T19:42:39.963+01:002010-01-22T19:42:39.963+01:00Great post. I would add one comment to your conclu...Great post. I would add one comment to your conclusions though. The overwhelming desire to avoid excessive casualties (see MRAP, folly of) and unreasonable development of technological objectives for future combat vehicles (see FCS, downfall of) may prevent such a light cav concept from evolving. You almost have to be willing to accept risk and heavy unit casualties if your light cav get into something they can't handle. That's not something that our armed forces seem to want to do today.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01031567700911395326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-72842607253809609342010-01-22T12:38:52.498+01:002010-01-22T12:38:52.498+01:00This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/22/...This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/22/2010, at <a href="http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">The Unreligious Right</a>UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.com