[beru]

the weges does have MORE fighting soldiers than normal rank and file and are weak vs good enemys but since most malazan opposers are weak its a effective tactic in RotCG they use a Phalanx vs tCG the sawtooth weges would have been cut down fast if that was the tactic they used...

[Abyss]

Ain't_It_Just_, on Jan 21 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

Speaking of the cavalry charge, Abyss, remember in DG when the Wickans (in one of their fights) swept along the line of 7C peasants and reached out with their blades? Could that be an effective technique, do you think?

Exactly - That was my original point why wedges would be ineffective vs cavalry - you're basically facilitating a mounted opponent's ability to bring his house at a run, stick out a sharp point thing and hit multiple infantry without having to slow down his horse.

A well org'd line or square is a more effective defence against cavalry. That or i suppose having your archers turn them into pincushions before they even get to your footsoldiers.

Of course, then we're into the whole 'armour v arrow debate'...

- Abyss, kills at 'Stratego'...

[D'rek]

I think the idea when fighting cavalry is that the infantry in the wedges have long spears (which they can ground to resist the impact of the horses' momentum), whereas the cavalry are unlikely to each have lances if it's a disorganized tribal sort of cavalry unit. The guys on the tips of the wedges can simply keep to their shields to avoid any swords the cavalry have, while the infantry in the pits of the wedge formation are a mix of long spears and more shields...

[Abyss]

I'm far from any kind of medieval military expert, but if they're going 'hedgehog' vs cavalry, isn't a block just overall better? Because otherwise the poor shmucks on the tips of the wedge are automatically more vulnerable than the soldiers further along.

You can have all the long pointy things you like, but if the rider whacks it sideways and your buddies long pointies are, lets say, two feet back of yours, the rider has enough space to hit you in the face with his sharp pointy thing (or just trample you) and get clear.

I suppose the same problem exists for the soldiers at the corners of a block, but they are still less vulnerable overall as part of a more solid body of infantry.

- Abyss, like Sun Tzu with less vowels...

[Sinisdar Toste]

yeah i agree with abyss, there's no reason to use a wedge against calvary, pikes or not, a square is just superior

[beru]

VS elite (or atleast traind) enmy infantry: Phalanx
VS untraind infantry: Sawtooth weges
VS cavalry: Phalanx

(and for you who doesnt know Phalanx =300 formation)

[D'rek]

The point of the wedges is to entrap the cavalry charge.

While a solid phalanx (or even just ordered ranks) provides better personal defence against a cavalry attack, the mass of horses is going to see a solid wall and naturally want to turn left or right and ride along the wall with few of the cavalry coming into range of the enemy infantry.

On the other hand, the pits and points of the sawtooth wedges means that with no solid wall perpendicular to the cavalry attack, the horses will not instinctively shy from charging towards the formation, and if the riders are a wee bit stupid they will get too close before trying to turn away, at which point the horses will shy from the walls to either side and prefer to continue forward towards the base of the pit (until they get to it and are just confused by being surrounded). Against large numbers of cavalry, this has a potent effect because even if a smart rider tries to disengage early, his buddies to either side might keep him from veering, and so on in a chain effect.

The slightly lower personal defence of the infantry is made up for by actually being able to take down the cavalry instead of having the cavalry just hit and run without losing more than a handful...

This post has been edited by D'rek: 28 January 2009 - 01:00 PM

[beru]

i do see your point and its valid but i would prefer skirmishers to trap the enmy insted of sawtooth weges (wich is a Roman tactik btw) and then charge the trapped cavalry with spear/swordmen. the romans used the sawtooth weges to trap enemy infatry so tight they were unable to get a swing with theri longsword and axses wile the romans who was eqipt with shortsword stabbed at will

[Abyss]

D'rek, on Jan 28 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

The point of the wedges is to entrap the cavalry charge...the pits and points of the sawtooth wedges means that with no solid wall perpendicular to the cavalry attack, the horses will not instinctively shy from charging towards the formation, and if the riders are a wee bit stupid they will get too close before trying to turn away,...
The slightly lower personal defence of the infantry is made up for by actually being able to take down the cavalry instead of having the cavalry just hit and run without losing more than a handful...

I see your point but i wonder if what you're referring to are columns, as opposed to wedges. Leave clear lines between sufficiently broad lines of infantry and the horses naturally head down them and cavalry are thus trapped between lines of pikes.

beru, on Jan 28 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

i do see your point and its valid but i would prefer skirmishers to trap the enmy insted of sawtooth weges (wich is a Roman tactik btw) and then charge the trapped cavalry with spear/swordmen. the romans used the sawtooth weges to trap enemy infatry so tight they were unable to get a swing with theri longsword and axses wile the romans who was eqipt with shortsword stabbed at will

aren't skirmishers typically light troops who engage opposition so they can't disengage while heavier formations roll in?

I thought, and again i'm operating on ignorance here, that a phalanx or square was used against say, longsword and battleaxe swinging goths, because once they were in tight, the shortswords came into play better. (see also the opening of Gladiator - goths throw themselves against the rows of infantry, get pummled by arrows, then once they're engaged, cavalry comes in behind and beats the crap out of them) Why send a wedge out where the barbarians can come at them from more angles?

In RCG Laseen made good use of the otherwise lightly armed crossbow skirmishers to basically pound the hell out of the separatists and Guard without directly engaging them. (the Prairie Dogs... good name). Both opposing forces had to advance under heavy crossbow fire to engage Laseen's otherwise arguably inferior but dug in forces. And if they tried to engage the skirmishers, the light troops just got the hell out of the way, then resumed shooting.

Now switch to trained infantry v trained infantry. In RG, when Tavore lands her army at the end (not the marines, the rest of the 14th) they face a dug in and generally well trained Letherii army. Malzan armour trumps Letherii weaponry and Malazan's general attitude trumps the recently conquered Letherii, so they basically march in and kill alot. Admittedly there isnt much description but from what there is, Tavore sends in a long series of lines to basically run right over the Letherii.

- Abyss, ...now planning a holy war...

[Seguleh 1st]

a skirmisher troop is, as far as i know, a troop mainly armed with short range missile weapons, such as light crossbows or throwing spears (there are the romans again), which are used for hit-and-run tactics upon heavier and therefore slower enemies, and to lure those into the range of your own heavier forces. there are cavalry skirmishers too, the huns were famous for those, you know shooting at the enemy whilst galopping at full speed in the opposite direction

Seg 1st, not only warrior, but tactician too

[D'rek]

Abyss, on Jan 28 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

D'rek, on Jan 28 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

The point of the wedges is to entrap the cavalry charge...the pits and points of the sawtooth wedges means that with no solid wall perpendicular to the cavalry attack, the horses will not instinctively shy from charging towards the formation, and if the riders are a wee bit stupid they will get too close before trying to turn away,...
The slightly lower personal defence of the infantry is made up for by actually being able to take down the cavalry instead of having the cavalry just hit and run without losing more than a handful...

I see your point but i wonder if what you're referring to are columns, as opposed to wedges. Leave clear lines between sufficiently broad lines of infantry and the horses naturally head down them and cavalry are thus trapped between lines of pikes.

Either way, I think. I would imagine wedges allows you to take the enemy down bit by bit as the pit gets narrower and narrower, while columns provide more depth for entrapment. Columns are what the Nemil used against the Trell...

[beru]

my tactic only works if the enemy have poor cavalry or you have good skirmsihers. but it works you cant get a good cavalry charge at spread units

[Onos]

Seguleh 1st, on Jan 28 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

a skirmisher troop is, as far as i know, a troop mainly armed with short range missile weapons, such as light crossbows or throwing spears (there are the romans again), which are used for hit-and-run tactics upon heavier and therefore slower enemies, and to lure those into the range of your own heavier forces. there are cavalry skirmishers too, the huns were famous for those, you know shooting at the enemy whilst galopping at full speed in the opposite direction

Seg 1st, not only warrior, but tactician too

That was how columns were used, since they then allow the skirmishers a place to squeeze through. So as mentioned above to weaken and lure in opposing troops to deal with your fresh troops in tight formation.

The MONGOLS were crazy effective against (stupid) charging european knights as well as infantry.

This post has been edited by Onos: 02 February 2009 - 06:20 PM

[Abyss]

I may utterly ignorant here but when did hun archer cavalry ever face armored euro-knights? At most, the huns faced the roman empire, which would have been primarily infantry, and chariots i suppose.

If you mean generally that a light mounted force with bows will run circles around heavily armoured knights waving big poles, then i agree. It would come down to whether the knights armor (and their mounts' armor) is sufficiently heavy to withstand an arrow, especially a broad tip from a composite bow like the hun used.


- Abyss, ....notes wikipedia is my friend...

[Tapper]

Abyss, on Jan 29 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

I may utterly ignorant here but when did hun archer cavalry ever face armored euro-knights? At most, the huns faced the roman empire, which would have been primarily infantry, and chariots i suppose.

If you mean generally that a light mounted force with bows will run circles around heavily armoured knights waving big poles, then i agree. It would come down to whether the knights armor (and their mounts' armor) is sufficiently heavy to withstand an arrow, especially a broad tip from a composite bow like the hun used.


- Abyss, ....notes wikipedia is my friend...

Romans did, to my knowledge, not employ chariots in battle Chariots are really a very poor unit when compared to cavalry.

The punch from a composite bow should not be underestimated, however. It can be absolutely lethal, and once a rider and horse are equiped with enough armour to withstand all but a lucky shot, well, you can be sure they can't catch lightly armoured missile cavalry and tire faster under the weight, so we have a stalemate at best, and a few lucky shots thinning the knight's ranks. I'd say the light horse win, also because the number of knights is/was quite limited.

However, John Keegan (who is the most imminent military historian of our time) wrote a rather lovely piece about Agincourt in The Face of Battle, in which English longbow and armour piercing arrowheads took on french heavily armoured infantry and cavalry - and his conclusion was that armour piercing arrows did not win the day there.

The Mongol hordes employed roughly the same tactics (skirmish on horse) against the westernish Russian dukes, as did the Turkish tribes under Saladin during the crusades, both with considerable success, and both against armoured western style knights.

[beru]

i have to say... you underestimate the compositbow... it can shot TROUGH a 1,5 cm thick wood wall at 100m and the romans dident employ riding fortreses (the medival knight) they had cavalry with eater chainmail or the logria segmenta (a banded plate armor that gives the soldier flexebilety and protecton) no fullplate tank cavalry or infantry (do note that the infantry was exstreamly good versus archers due to a large shield)

and the romans of the late empire had chariots... alltho with a scorpion (a cind of balista) mounted ot its back

beru: read to much

[Tapper]

beru, on Jan 30 2009, 01:21 AM, said:

i have to say... you underestimate the compositbow... it can shot TROUGH a 1,5 cm thick wood wall at 100m and the romans dident employ riding fortreses (the medival knight) they had cavalry with eater chainmail or the logria segmenta (a banded plate armor that gives the soldier flexebilety and protecton) no fullplate tank cavalry or infantry (do note that the infantry was exstreamly good versus archers due to a large shield)

and the romans of the late empire had chariots... alltho with a scorpion (a cind of balista) mounted ot its back

beru: read to much

The problem isn't the punch or reach from the composite bow. It's being able to aim it well enough from horseback to hit vitals. Once you start firing in archs or en masse, accuracy is inevitably lost (its exchanged for covering a zone) and the slopes and roundness of plate armour then allows arrows to be deflected, so the range at which you can do enemies harm is at most half of those 100 meters.

If ranged warfare was so superior that lightly armoured, highly manoeuverable units could rain down death and destruction from 100 meters and forever stay out of the range of shock units, then everyone would have employed them in considerable numbers and would have schooled their elite over time in the same way, like the Mamluks did.

Chariots with a ballista mounted on it are basically mobile field artillery, not a weapon to break enemy ranks with in a charge or compete with cavalry for that, nor are the archery platform that the Hittites, Egyptians and other middle eastern people employed them for. I'd recommend reading J.K. Anderson, Ancient Greek horsemanship for the evolution of cavalry, if you're interested, he does a pretty good job of explaining this evolution and the needs it has, albeit dedicated to ancient Greece (and Macedon & Thessaly, which both employed shock cavalry). The problems of developing the right breed of horse to provide a decent cavalry horse are still the same, though, no matter where you go.

In a nutshell: there's a tendency to replacing the chariot with a single man on a horse in history for reasons of efficiency.

Tapper, university-educated historian

[beru]

cool to meet (atleast dessgus) with a historian! im only 17 but have that career in mind for myself

and tho i see your point in mongol warfare you mainly rode in sircles in front of the enemy (see canteberian sircle) and you were traind from before you could stand to ride. they are described to be able to hit small targets in full spead (side ways). and the big problem with the chariot is that its limited to open terain (try driving in a wood and you (you not refering to you tapper) will understand)

[Onos]

Abyss, on Jan 29 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

I may utterly ignorant here but when did hun archer cavalry ever face armored euro-knights? At most, the huns faced the roman empire, which would have been primarily infantry, and chariots i suppose.

If you mean generally that a light mounted force with bows will run circles around heavily armoured knights waving big poles, then i agree. It would come down to whether the knights armor (and their mounts' armor) is sufficiently heavy to withstand an arrow, especially a broad tip from a composite bow like the hun used.


- Abyss, ....notes wikipedia is my friend...

Yeah, i meant mongols and not huns. The mongols would charge in and engage, then turn tail and flee. The knights thinking they just won would pursue the mongols for 3-5k. By this time the knights horses would be quite tired. At which point the mongols would surround the knights and kill them to a last man.