12-14-2008, 10:39 PM
Avete!
Against my better judgement, and contrary to my usual practice, I let myself get sucked into a thread on MyArmoury.com discussing a hypothetical "Alternate Battle of Hastings". In this scenario, the force holding the hill is Roman, not Saxon.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=14443
As you can see, I let it go a while before jumping in. And I seemed to be making progress, but there are a few people who are convinced that Norman cavalry would steamroll any Roman cavalry and then chop the legions up at leisure. Besides the minor fact that the Normans were darn near defeated by the Saxons who didn't have ANY cavalry, they're just ignoring the other advantages the Romans would have.
But my problem is that I don't know cavalry or horses!! I could use help from a horse expert, someone who has ridden with Roman saddles and can explain better how stirrups just aren't so much of a nuclear weapon to make Normans invincible against auxiliary cavalry. At least, I don't *think* the Roman cavalry would be so hugely ineffective, but like I said, that's not my strong point.
Anyone else want to have a go? Mind you, MyArmoury is generally a pretty intellectual place, so it's odd that right alongside this thread there is also "Medieval knights vs. samurai" and "Spartans vs. samurai". Both gone to 5 pages so far, and lots of good information, but still...
Maybe I just have a problem with people who read through all my points and then say, "Nah, the Normans would kick Roman butt!" Sigh...
Thanks!
Matthew
PS: Hey, maybe if we convinced them that Normans were actually using Late Roman/Byzantine equipment and tactics--okay, now I'm confused...
Against my better judgement, and contrary to my usual practice, I let myself get sucked into a thread on MyArmoury.com discussing a hypothetical "Alternate Battle of Hastings". In this scenario, the force holding the hill is Roman, not Saxon.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=14443
As you can see, I let it go a while before jumping in. And I seemed to be making progress, but there are a few people who are convinced that Norman cavalry would steamroll any Roman cavalry and then chop the legions up at leisure. Besides the minor fact that the Normans were darn near defeated by the Saxons who didn't have ANY cavalry, they're just ignoring the other advantages the Romans would have.
But my problem is that I don't know cavalry or horses!! I could use help from a horse expert, someone who has ridden with Roman saddles and can explain better how stirrups just aren't so much of a nuclear weapon to make Normans invincible against auxiliary cavalry. At least, I don't *think* the Roman cavalry would be so hugely ineffective, but like I said, that's not my strong point.
Anyone else want to have a go? Mind you, MyArmoury is generally a pretty intellectual place, so it's odd that right alongside this thread there is also "Medieval knights vs. samurai" and "Spartans vs. samurai". Both gone to 5 pages so far, and lots of good information, but still...
Maybe I just have a problem with people who read through all my points and then say, "Nah, the Normans would kick Roman butt!" Sigh...
Thanks!
Matthew
PS: Hey, maybe if we convinced them that Normans were actually using Late Roman/Byzantine equipment and tactics--okay, now I'm confused...