12-07-2015, 09:56 AM
Don't make it so easy for yourself ;-)
You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't understand warfare without looking at the social, psychological and economical background. As a thought experiment it's nice to just imagine to let armies travel in time in meet each other. But both of them wouldn't have developed the way they had under the circumstances the other one had to face.
Just imagine a whole Roman legion dropped off somewhere in Norway during the Early Middle Ages. Before reaching a place to supply enough food for them or treasures to pay for several thousand men one part of the army would have deserted, one part would have starved to death and the rest would have fallen quickly to hit and run tactics of vikings eager for the loot and slaves the now ill disciplined and demoralised army presents.
Or are you suggesting the viking raiding parties should play by your rules and present themselves on an open ground to the far superior numbers and tactics the Roman legion presents. Me and my vikings don't think so.
Beyond that:
Medieval nobles didn't start training at the age of sixteen. Many would have seen several battles by then.
Roughly speaking plate armour was a thing of the Late Middle Ages and gunpowder played a certain role in this period of time. So plate armour doesn't matter.
Why is the Forth Crusade a good example for a lack of knightly discipline? As far as I know they even managed to conquer Constantinople :-P Or are you suggesting that plundering is a sign of a lack of restraint? Plundering a conquered city was common practice in the Middle Ages and Antiquity. Or do you want to say that the shift of strategy from Jerusalem to Constantinople is a sign of said lack of restraint? In this case we should start arguing about comparing medieval and ancient morality. I'm not sure if the Roman army would win this argument ;-)
You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't understand warfare without looking at the social, psychological and economical background. As a thought experiment it's nice to just imagine to let armies travel in time in meet each other. But both of them wouldn't have developed the way they had under the circumstances the other one had to face.
Just imagine a whole Roman legion dropped off somewhere in Norway during the Early Middle Ages. Before reaching a place to supply enough food for them or treasures to pay for several thousand men one part of the army would have deserted, one part would have starved to death and the rest would have fallen quickly to hit and run tactics of vikings eager for the loot and slaves the now ill disciplined and demoralised army presents.
Or are you suggesting the viking raiding parties should play by your rules and present themselves on an open ground to the far superior numbers and tactics the Roman legion presents. Me and my vikings don't think so.
Beyond that:
Medieval nobles didn't start training at the age of sixteen. Many would have seen several battles by then.
Roughly speaking plate armour was a thing of the Late Middle Ages and gunpowder played a certain role in this period of time. So plate armour doesn't matter.
Why is the Forth Crusade a good example for a lack of knightly discipline? As far as I know they even managed to conquer Constantinople :-P Or are you suggesting that plundering is a sign of a lack of restraint? Plundering a conquered city was common practice in the Middle Ages and Antiquity. Or do you want to say that the shift of strategy from Jerusalem to Constantinople is a sign of said lack of restraint? In this case we should start arguing about comparing medieval and ancient morality. I'm not sure if the Roman army would win this argument ;-)
Florian D.
