03-27-2014, 10:26 PM
I think searching for reason of success of a certain group of warriors in their equipment is usually a faulty way of aproaching the problem unless the difference in equipment is very high. Tactics are a better contender for the main reason of success, but high moral, agressive and commited aproach is what usually wins wars.
For example, siege of Antioch, First Crusade, AD1098. Why did Christian knights win the battle outside the walls? Because they had the high morals because of the supposed holy lance that pierced Jesus's side, because they had nothing to loose and everything to win so they fought like mad and retreat wasn't an option and because they had a vision in their minds, an oath they had to keep. Muslims didn't have that much on stake in that battle and when pressured, they broke. If they stood and fough they would envelope the Crusaders and defeat them, even though casualties would be high for them. But they could retreat and fight another day, Crusaders would starve to death if they didn't win that battle.
Since we are on RAT, everybody here would be familiar with Gallic Wars and Ceasar. :wink: Why did he win all those battles against Gauls? I think his aproach to that war was far more important than roman weapons and equipment. He went to war to conquer the Gaul. Gauls realized much to late that he Ceasar is fighting a total war against whole Gaul, not just certain tribes and they united to late. They didn't think defeat in that war would be an end to their culture and way of life. If they knew that from the beginning, the Gallic Wars might have looked very different.
For example, siege of Antioch, First Crusade, AD1098. Why did Christian knights win the battle outside the walls? Because they had the high morals because of the supposed holy lance that pierced Jesus's side, because they had nothing to loose and everything to win so they fought like mad and retreat wasn't an option and because they had a vision in their minds, an oath they had to keep. Muslims didn't have that much on stake in that battle and when pressured, they broke. If they stood and fough they would envelope the Crusaders and defeat them, even though casualties would be high for them. But they could retreat and fight another day, Crusaders would starve to death if they didn't win that battle.
Since we are on RAT, everybody here would be familiar with Gallic Wars and Ceasar. :wink: Why did he win all those battles against Gauls? I think his aproach to that war was far more important than roman weapons and equipment. He went to war to conquer the Gaul. Gauls realized much to late that he Ceasar is fighting a total war against whole Gaul, not just certain tribes and they united to late. They didn't think defeat in that war would be an end to their culture and way of life. If they knew that from the beginning, the Gallic Wars might have looked very different.
