02-14-2003, 01:11 PM
JeffFig - Your views certainly do not irk me, even where I believe they are wrong. And (as you may have guessed) I tend to be a sarcastic person, and this sometimes spills over into my internet discussions. Sarcasm, unfortunately, never translates very well in writing, since even emoticons won't allow you to see my expression (and that is usually a smile - life is too short to be angry).<br>
<br>
So my apologies if any of my comments have offended you in any way. I do tend to enjoy these kind of discussions especially when (as you have done) relevant historical examples are being brought up and some pressure is put on me to justify my statements; otherwise I wouldn't spend as much time on them as I do. (Well: if one would rather that I was working on Imperium... ).<br>
<br>
Just for the record, I'll just go back to the original comment that <strong>did</strong> irk me:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry.<hr><br>
<br>
My point, of course, is that this statement is completely and utterly incorrect.<br>
<br>
In the Ancient period, there is not a single recorded instance of a battle in which archery alone inflicted significant casaulties on infantry. Carrhae - which we have already discussed - is not such a battle. As Plutarch makes abundantly clear, the majority of the Roman losses were suffered in the close-combat were Crassus Junior died, in the confusion resulting from the first Roman retreat (were 4000 stragglers were killed), and in the dissolution of the final retreat.<br>
<br>
In the Medieval period, we of course have the English longbowman who is popularly considered to be the archetype of "devastating archery".<br>
<br>
Here, unfortunately, I get caught in the language, and trying to say a lot of things at the same time in a single sentence. What I should have stated had I been a bit more precise is:<br>
<br>
<em>On the offense: I know of no recorded instance in history where archery fire alone has succeeded in decimating and breaking close-order melee infantry.</em><br>
<br>
Point: None of the episodes you have stated are such cases. Historical evidence disagrees strongly with your suggestion that archery fire could have done so. Two points; one even up to the early 19th century, it still took the threat of melee to rout close-order infantry, two: even the Mongols, the penultimate horse-archer army, relied on close-combat to rout their foes.<br>
<br>
In archery vs archery duels, of course, there is usually a "winner" at some point; the Genoese vs Longbowmen battle is of course one such example (and there are naturally many similar examples). However, this example does not prove that archery fire could break melee infantry offensively - which was the point I was trying to make.<br>
<br>
<em>On the defense: I know of no recorded instance where an archery unit unsupported by significant heavy infantry contigents has succeeded in repulsing an enemy charge</em><br>
<br>
Again, this didn't happen at any of the "Longbow" battles, as far as we can tell from our sparse sources. In fact, the only instances I can think of where archery fire (though always supported by heavy infantry) repulsed an enemy charge without contact are from the Roman period.<br>
<br>
<em>On decimation: There is no good evidence to support that archery fire inflicts heavy (i.e., decimation scale) casaulties.</em><br>
<br>
What evidence we have <strong>for</strong> is of course anecdotal, and you have listed several. In each case, however, there is also a part of the anecdotal evidence that could suggest that the casaulties were inflicted in hand-to-hand combat. In addition to this, we <strong>do</strong> have strong evidence from the statistics recorded for historical battles of the pre-Napoleonic period to suggest that missile fire was by and large ineffective as a means of inflicting disabling casaulties (i.e., those that put a man out of action) and the strongest evidence to support this is that ancient & medieval battles - prior to the rout of either side - only very rarely involved decimation scale casaulties.<br>
<br>
As I stated: This does not mean that archery was not decisive in battles. It does however imply that archery is viewed incorrectly by most people (and modelled incorrectly in most games). Case in point, many (most?) people believe that all of the above three situations that are not only possible, but likely to happen.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure I see the point of your "remove archery from those battles statement". Remove the cavalry from Falkirk, and the outcome would have been different. Remove the English men-at-arms from Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt, etc., and the outcome would have been different. And so...? <br>
<br>
<strong>The Cavalry discussion</strong><br>
<br>
On cavalry, I think you mistake my position. It is very true that at the strategic level, the advantage of cavalry is negligible - I do not think I have claimed otherwise. IMO, it is on the operational level (and small-scale operational), that I believe cavalry has its advantage - primarily because its mobility allows a cavalry force to strike at supply lines and harass an enemy infantry force much more effectively than an equivalent infantry force. It is also at this scale that one can perform the grand-tactical maneuvers that can bring victory in a battle.<br>
<br>
On the tactical scale, however, what is the advantage of cavalry over infantry?<br>
<br>
You suggest that it's mobility allows it to strike much more swiftly than infantry; I would contend that for battlefield mobility <strong>discipline and training</strong> is much more important than whether a unit is mounted or not. In fact, I would suggest (in the expectation that you will probably find one or two examples ) that there is no "cavalry" victory due to mobility that one can find, where a well-trained infantry force could not have done the same.<br>
<br>
Cannae is a subject of discussion in itself; there are people who have studied the battle much more than I have who would disagree strongly with your suggestion that the cavalry charge was the decisive factor (it was a contributing factor, certainly, but decisive... the Africans have that honor, I believe.).<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In absence of a threat to their rear and without being routed the Romans would have been defeated due to being outflanked but very probably would have made it back to their fortified encampment along a clear line of retreat.<hr><br>
<br>
Considering that retreating from a defeat is - bar none - the most difficult military operation of all, I seriously doubt it. One of the advantages of cavalry over infantry is of course in the pursuit.<br>
<br>
At Adrianople, we have a case of the <strong>operational</strong> mobility of cavalry being decisive. Had a unit of equivalent infantry turned up on the Roman flanks instead of a unit of cavalry, the result would most likely have remained unchanged.<br>
<br>
You use the example of Hastings as one where cavalry had an advantage of infantry. I would suggest that with the fyrd being disordered and on open ground, infantry would have served just as well at defeating the Saxons as the cavalry did. The whole feigned flight and then turn on the enemy thing is as old as Chaeroneia at least (where the Macedonian phalanx performed exactly the same maneuvre as the Normans at Hastings). Again, we find that disciplined infantry is capable of essentially the same battlefield maneuver as cavalry.<br>
<br>
For shock value; I am not convinced that this is really true. It takes disciplined/good morale infantry to stand up to a cavalry charge, but it simmilarly takes disciplined/good morale infantry to stand up properly to an infantry charge.<br>
<br>
IMO, the mobility that allows cavalry to be decisive is only as good as their training and the capability of their leaders; and as many battles have shown (Ilippa and Pharsalus are good examples; Poiters is another), disciplined heavy infantry is just as efficient in this role. In fact, the training of the cavalry is much more important than their mobility - consider how (in)effective the numerically superior - but untrained -Celtic cavalry was in their many recorded battles.<br>
<br>
Of the tactical advantages of Cavalry on the battlefield have over infantry, I can see only one significant: the fact that Cavalry can run away from infantry and that the opposite is not the case. This of course means that infantry need only be defeated once by cavalry, whereas infantry can not really defeat cavalry. To balance this, though, it is (IMO) almost impossible for cavalry alone to defeat an equal quality infantry force.<br>
<br>
<strong>Going back to archery:</strong><br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In summary my contention is that archer disordering enemy infantry and reducing their morale IS ‘decimating enemy infantry.’<hr><br>
<br>
Ah - but now you are changing your position significantly. I do not agree with your use of the word "decimation" for what you state, but I am fully in agreement with the idea that the purpose of archery is to disorder enemy infantry and reduce their morale. Where I think we do disagree is the point to which archery fire could reduce morale; namely, I do not believe that archery fire was capable of routing an enemy force on its own.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>because heavy infantry, particularly Roman heavy infantry, do not normally rout from attack of enemy heavy infantry.<hr><br>
<br>
This statement I found a bit funny. Do you want me to start citing examples to prove that this is the case? We can start with any number of hoplite battles...<br>
<br>
In any case, we have gone wildly off-topic, and of course considering so many different topics that it will take us many, many hours to even reach resolution on one of them.<br>
<br>
Someone asked what I believed were the determinants in Ancient/Medieval combat: my answer would be Leadership, Discipline and Morale. Regardless of the infantry/mounted/missile configuration, those armies that had the advantage in those three factors are the same armies that usually won battles in history.<br>
<br>
Interestingly, there is a survey: "On the Production of Victory: Empirical Determinants of Battlefield Success in Modern War" by Rotte and Schmidt, which reaches exactly the same conclusion based on an empirical evaluation of battles fought from 1600-1973. While their study should be taken with a certain grain of salt, this is particularly interesting since this is a period of <strong>huge</strong> revolutions in military technology, much more significant than e.g., the difference between a longbow and a crossbow at Crecy or the difference between horse archers and legionaries. In spite of this, they find the main determinants to be those three: Leadership, Discipline (which allows surprise) and Morale.<br>
<br>
Well - enough ramblings for now. Must get back to work. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 2/14/03 2:38:03 pm<br></i>
<br>
So my apologies if any of my comments have offended you in any way. I do tend to enjoy these kind of discussions especially when (as you have done) relevant historical examples are being brought up and some pressure is put on me to justify my statements; otherwise I wouldn't spend as much time on them as I do. (Well: if one would rather that I was working on Imperium... ).<br>
<br>
Just for the record, I'll just go back to the original comment that <strong>did</strong> irk me:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry.<hr><br>
<br>
My point, of course, is that this statement is completely and utterly incorrect.<br>
<br>
In the Ancient period, there is not a single recorded instance of a battle in which archery alone inflicted significant casaulties on infantry. Carrhae - which we have already discussed - is not such a battle. As Plutarch makes abundantly clear, the majority of the Roman losses were suffered in the close-combat were Crassus Junior died, in the confusion resulting from the first Roman retreat (were 4000 stragglers were killed), and in the dissolution of the final retreat.<br>
<br>
In the Medieval period, we of course have the English longbowman who is popularly considered to be the archetype of "devastating archery".<br>
<br>
Here, unfortunately, I get caught in the language, and trying to say a lot of things at the same time in a single sentence. What I should have stated had I been a bit more precise is:<br>
<br>
<em>On the offense: I know of no recorded instance in history where archery fire alone has succeeded in decimating and breaking close-order melee infantry.</em><br>
<br>
Point: None of the episodes you have stated are such cases. Historical evidence disagrees strongly with your suggestion that archery fire could have done so. Two points; one even up to the early 19th century, it still took the threat of melee to rout close-order infantry, two: even the Mongols, the penultimate horse-archer army, relied on close-combat to rout their foes.<br>
<br>
In archery vs archery duels, of course, there is usually a "winner" at some point; the Genoese vs Longbowmen battle is of course one such example (and there are naturally many similar examples). However, this example does not prove that archery fire could break melee infantry offensively - which was the point I was trying to make.<br>
<br>
<em>On the defense: I know of no recorded instance where an archery unit unsupported by significant heavy infantry contigents has succeeded in repulsing an enemy charge</em><br>
<br>
Again, this didn't happen at any of the "Longbow" battles, as far as we can tell from our sparse sources. In fact, the only instances I can think of where archery fire (though always supported by heavy infantry) repulsed an enemy charge without contact are from the Roman period.<br>
<br>
<em>On decimation: There is no good evidence to support that archery fire inflicts heavy (i.e., decimation scale) casaulties.</em><br>
<br>
What evidence we have <strong>for</strong> is of course anecdotal, and you have listed several. In each case, however, there is also a part of the anecdotal evidence that could suggest that the casaulties were inflicted in hand-to-hand combat. In addition to this, we <strong>do</strong> have strong evidence from the statistics recorded for historical battles of the pre-Napoleonic period to suggest that missile fire was by and large ineffective as a means of inflicting disabling casaulties (i.e., those that put a man out of action) and the strongest evidence to support this is that ancient & medieval battles - prior to the rout of either side - only very rarely involved decimation scale casaulties.<br>
<br>
As I stated: This does not mean that archery was not decisive in battles. It does however imply that archery is viewed incorrectly by most people (and modelled incorrectly in most games). Case in point, many (most?) people believe that all of the above three situations that are not only possible, but likely to happen.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure I see the point of your "remove archery from those battles statement". Remove the cavalry from Falkirk, and the outcome would have been different. Remove the English men-at-arms from Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt, etc., and the outcome would have been different. And so...? <br>
<br>
<strong>The Cavalry discussion</strong><br>
<br>
On cavalry, I think you mistake my position. It is very true that at the strategic level, the advantage of cavalry is negligible - I do not think I have claimed otherwise. IMO, it is on the operational level (and small-scale operational), that I believe cavalry has its advantage - primarily because its mobility allows a cavalry force to strike at supply lines and harass an enemy infantry force much more effectively than an equivalent infantry force. It is also at this scale that one can perform the grand-tactical maneuvers that can bring victory in a battle.<br>
<br>
On the tactical scale, however, what is the advantage of cavalry over infantry?<br>
<br>
You suggest that it's mobility allows it to strike much more swiftly than infantry; I would contend that for battlefield mobility <strong>discipline and training</strong> is much more important than whether a unit is mounted or not. In fact, I would suggest (in the expectation that you will probably find one or two examples ) that there is no "cavalry" victory due to mobility that one can find, where a well-trained infantry force could not have done the same.<br>
<br>
Cannae is a subject of discussion in itself; there are people who have studied the battle much more than I have who would disagree strongly with your suggestion that the cavalry charge was the decisive factor (it was a contributing factor, certainly, but decisive... the Africans have that honor, I believe.).<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In absence of a threat to their rear and without being routed the Romans would have been defeated due to being outflanked but very probably would have made it back to their fortified encampment along a clear line of retreat.<hr><br>
<br>
Considering that retreating from a defeat is - bar none - the most difficult military operation of all, I seriously doubt it. One of the advantages of cavalry over infantry is of course in the pursuit.<br>
<br>
At Adrianople, we have a case of the <strong>operational</strong> mobility of cavalry being decisive. Had a unit of equivalent infantry turned up on the Roman flanks instead of a unit of cavalry, the result would most likely have remained unchanged.<br>
<br>
You use the example of Hastings as one where cavalry had an advantage of infantry. I would suggest that with the fyrd being disordered and on open ground, infantry would have served just as well at defeating the Saxons as the cavalry did. The whole feigned flight and then turn on the enemy thing is as old as Chaeroneia at least (where the Macedonian phalanx performed exactly the same maneuvre as the Normans at Hastings). Again, we find that disciplined infantry is capable of essentially the same battlefield maneuver as cavalry.<br>
<br>
For shock value; I am not convinced that this is really true. It takes disciplined/good morale infantry to stand up to a cavalry charge, but it simmilarly takes disciplined/good morale infantry to stand up properly to an infantry charge.<br>
<br>
IMO, the mobility that allows cavalry to be decisive is only as good as their training and the capability of their leaders; and as many battles have shown (Ilippa and Pharsalus are good examples; Poiters is another), disciplined heavy infantry is just as efficient in this role. In fact, the training of the cavalry is much more important than their mobility - consider how (in)effective the numerically superior - but untrained -Celtic cavalry was in their many recorded battles.<br>
<br>
Of the tactical advantages of Cavalry on the battlefield have over infantry, I can see only one significant: the fact that Cavalry can run away from infantry and that the opposite is not the case. This of course means that infantry need only be defeated once by cavalry, whereas infantry can not really defeat cavalry. To balance this, though, it is (IMO) almost impossible for cavalry alone to defeat an equal quality infantry force.<br>
<br>
<strong>Going back to archery:</strong><br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In summary my contention is that archer disordering enemy infantry and reducing their morale IS ‘decimating enemy infantry.’<hr><br>
<br>
Ah - but now you are changing your position significantly. I do not agree with your use of the word "decimation" for what you state, but I am fully in agreement with the idea that the purpose of archery is to disorder enemy infantry and reduce their morale. Where I think we do disagree is the point to which archery fire could reduce morale; namely, I do not believe that archery fire was capable of routing an enemy force on its own.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>because heavy infantry, particularly Roman heavy infantry, do not normally rout from attack of enemy heavy infantry.<hr><br>
<br>
This statement I found a bit funny. Do you want me to start citing examples to prove that this is the case? We can start with any number of hoplite battles...<br>
<br>
In any case, we have gone wildly off-topic, and of course considering so many different topics that it will take us many, many hours to even reach resolution on one of them.<br>
<br>
Someone asked what I believed were the determinants in Ancient/Medieval combat: my answer would be Leadership, Discipline and Morale. Regardless of the infantry/mounted/missile configuration, those armies that had the advantage in those three factors are the same armies that usually won battles in history.<br>
<br>
Interestingly, there is a survey: "On the Production of Victory: Empirical Determinants of Battlefield Success in Modern War" by Rotte and Schmidt, which reaches exactly the same conclusion based on an empirical evaluation of battles fought from 1600-1973. While their study should be taken with a certain grain of salt, this is particularly interesting since this is a period of <strong>huge</strong> revolutions in military technology, much more significant than e.g., the difference between a longbow and a crossbow at Crecy or the difference between horse archers and legionaries. In spite of this, they find the main determinants to be those three: Leadership, Discipline (which allows surprise) and Morale.<br>
<br>
Well - enough ramblings for now. Must get back to work. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
[url=http://"http://www.fenrir.dk/"]Imperium - Rise of Rome[/url]</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 2/14/03 2:38:03 pm<br></i>
