Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
sccrboi01 wrote: »
Ok but would a standard medieval army be composed of all those units? No each army would be different which is why the romans would still triumph
hildor wrote: »
The Red army would have winter on its side, despite the Stark motto
Unless you are talking about Iron Man?
OpulchenetsBG wrote: »
What armor and weapons would the medieval warriors be using if it plate then medieval hands down the gladiuses and pilum would completely fail to penetrate while the medieval knights would just smash the roman shield wall with bills, poleaxes, halberds, etc.
Willster wrote: »
There is quite a widsespread belief that the medieval knight was the ultimate power, but hasn't history disproved this?
the late medieval period shows that the medieval knight is actually being phased out by infantry: Examples include the many English victories over the French knights, the Flemish victories against French knights, the Scots at Bannockburn and the Italian states pike infantry. these cases in history demonstrated that the knight was not the ultimate battlefield weapon that most people believe in.
While the Shock value of a charge is not to be underestimated the fact that should a knight be bogged down by a heavy infantry formation, he is extremely vulnerable to being dragged off his horse and killed. (don't forget that that that helmet restricts his vision, cant kill what you cant see)
Zoe wrote: »
This like kind of like saying, How would Napoleon do against Rommel.....apples to lettuce.
Gen.Sherman wrote: »
The fact that medieval armies would have forged steel as opposed to bronze, technologically superior ranged weapons and siege engines, and battle strategies evolved past the Roman era I would say they would have a clear advantage.
Bronze compared to steel is brittle and no where near as durable. Medieval weaponry would cut right through what they had back then.
Noobcraft wrote: »
Romans didn't use bronze...
MrZanyGaming wrote: »
in the Medieval times, the only thing keeping the troops in order was threat of torture and execution for running. Not to mention a majority of the Medieval army was composed of farmers with almost no training.
Astalano wrote: »
Thanks for confirming you know absolutely NOTHING about medieval warfare.
Leving wrote: »
If used correctly and lead properly then the battlefield knight was the best weapon in the medieval period. In the examples you gave (Agincourt, Crecy, Bannockburn etc) not only were the conditions massively favourable to the infantry but above all else, ill-discipline cost the cavalry victory. Also, you'll note that in all of those battles the winner was the defender. Attacking without heavy cavalry in the medieval period was particularly difficult. Nobody here said that the medieval knight on horse back was invincible - of course they were not - but they were vastly superior generally speaking if the period is considered as a whole.
Indeed, the reason that most people know of those battles which you mentioned is precisely because they were out of the norm. They reflected inferior forces winning improbable victories over much larger and supposedly more powerful forces. That's why people have heard of them. More often than not, such circumstances did not happen. I suggest you read about the First Crusade for information on the effectiveness of heavy latin cavalry, especially against cultures which were not used to dealing with it.
The reason that heavy cavalry became obsolete (in terms of the full plate armour) was because gunpowder massively negated its effectivness. With the armour gone, it was no longer necessary for the infantry to carry massive polearms to smash the aforementioned armour to pieces, so they reverted back to using pikes for stopping the now less-well protected cavalry.
Willster wrote: »
Your reference to the Crusades is a double edged sword: having studied the period there was both success and failure of the heavy cavalry, I only have to mention the Battle of Hattin which resulted in catastrophic defeat for the heavy cavalry.
Leving wrote: »
Too be fair to him, a few things he said there aren't that far off the truth. Vast swathes of feudal armies were comprised of peasant levies who were forced to fight by their lords who owned the land which they worked. They were often poorly equipped and badly trained. If they refused to fight they would be thrown off the land or executed. The English longbowman was an exception to this rule since he was ordered by law to learn to use a bow from a young age and to practice with it so he became excellent with it. For the most part, it was not until standing armies were reintroduced that the common infantry man became a potent force as he had been during the Roman era.
Don't forget that medieval society was divided into three distinct categories; warriors (aristocrats, nobles and knights), men of religion (priests) and workers (farmers and other laborers). The 'warriors' were the heavy cavalry. Rich enough to afford a horse (or many horses) and the best equipment. Indeed, their mounts became a symbol of their status. They were well versed in fighting, since conquest was one of the most viable ways a man could make money and raise himself. I would read about the 'feudal revolution' in France during the 10th century for more information on this. Anyway, for the most part the infantry were just there to make up the numbers on both sides.
Leving wrote: »
Too be fair to him, a few things he said there aren't that far off the truth.
Vast swathes of feudal armies were comprised of peasant levies who were forced to fight by their lords who owned the land which they worked.
They were often poorly equipped and badly trained. If they refused to fight they would be thrown off the land or executed.
The English longbowman was an exception to this rule since he was ordered by law to learn to use a bow from a young age and to practice with it so he became excellent with it. For the most part, it was not until standing armies were reintroduced that the common infantry man became a potent force as he had been during the Roman era.