Clash of the Best Historical Armies

[Elfwine]

3. Roman Army during Trajan's Dacian Wars vs. Combined European Armies during the Crusades

Same as above. Trajan's Legions would be completely unprepared for heavy, stirrup using cavalry

No more so than the crusaders would be unprepared for something able to counter it reasonably well, and this ignores the other 90% of the Crusader armies - other than the knights, that is.

Also, and this to the OP: What crusades? The difference between the crusading armies of the First Crusade and the crusading armies of the Sixth Crusade is worth noting.

 

[Flocculencio]

3) Ah, I see. I was given to understand that utilized properly, heavy cavalry could reasonably be expected to eventually break apart any infantry formation.

No- this is why discipline is so important. If infantry can be trained to stand and receive a charge they can break it. It's when the cavalry can make that first break they can drive infantry where they will but infantry that holds the line generally trumps cavalry. This was why the East India Company Armies were so effective in India against armies which were technologically equal (or in the case of some Indian states, superior in terms of artillery). European methods of infantry drill served them in good stead because it gave them infantry that could reliably advance into artillery fire whereas Indian armies at the time tended to invest in training and equipment for their artillery, leaving the infantry as the usual ill disciplined mob.

 

[robertp6165]

I can't beleive people are voting Mongols over the Spanish... Horse archery tactics destroy disorganized cavalry and especially ones as well
organized as the Mongolians horse archers can take down many a force. But the bane of horse archers is men on foot with missle weapons. Musketeers protected from cavalry by pikemen PLUS relatively light cavalry armed with sabers and muskets/crossbows/pistols is a recipe for disaster for an army that relies primarily on horse archers and light lancers; not to mention the spainish having a high degree of organization themselves; which was OTL the Mongols
Main advantage.

Except that...1) the Mongols can put 100,000 men, or even more, in the field, whereas the Spanish armies would be lucky to number half that; 2) the Mongol composite bow significantly outranges the missile weapons carried by the Spaniards, with the exception of cannon, and there are few of those in the Spanish army; 3) the Mongols are commanded by one of the greatest generals in history, Genghis Khan.

The Mongols will deal with the Spanish cavalry the way they did with many enemies in OTL...they'll feign flight and draw them into an ambush where they are exposed to fire from all sides. Once the cavalry are wiped out, they'll barrage the relatively immobile Spanish infantry from beyond musket range until they finally break and run. Once the Spaniards run, they're dog meat.

 

[Arachnid]

No more so than the crusaders would be unprepared for something able to counter it reasonably well, and this ignores the other 90% of the Crusader armies - other than the knights, that is.

Also, and this to the OP: What crusades? The difference between the crusading armies of the First Crusade and the crusading armies of the Sixth Crusade is worth noting.

The idea that Medival armies were a few knights and a mob of undisciplined peasants isn't born out in reality. They were combined arms forces that were just as flexible as Trajan's Legions and considerably more balanced. For starters the Crusaders did have heavy infantry, specifically sergeants-at-arms, who were just as well armed and equipped as legionaries. The Crusaders also have a much stronger ranged element, either crossbowmen or ideally longbowmen. Finally of course they have the hammer in the form of the Knights.

Assuming the Crusader's aren't led by a complete moron like at Agincourt or Hattin your legionary force is going to be softened up by the archers and heavy foot while the knights annihilate the Roman cavalry. Then already having suffered casualties they are going to have to suffer repeated charges to the flanks and rear from the Crusader heavy cavalry. Trajan's boys would be toast.

 

[thrashing_mad]

If the mongols attacked though, I would say that their horse archers would get shot up by muskets, while being unable to charge. Also, somewhat "unfairly" the Spanish would understand what the mongols were doing; while the mongols would not be familiar with the kind of army Spain would field.

16th century firearms were rubbish. They were highly inaccurate, had loong reload times, and their range wasn't so great. They were only truly useful during that period when firing concentrated salvos at tightly packed pikemen formations. Against scattered, fast moving Mongol cavalry they would be totally useless - OTL even though PLC or Russia fielded firearms based armies, (or western style pikemen and 'caracolle' cavalry) they used mostly light/medium cavalry (eg. Cossacks) against tatars up until 18th century. Spanish army composed of slow, cumbersome pikemen formations, ineffective arquebusiers/musketeers, and token heavy cavalry would be crushed by mobile Mongol army (in an open battle at least).

 

[Rex Romanum]

Also, and this to the OP: What crusades? The difference between the crusading armies of the First Crusade and the crusading armies of the Sixth Crusade is worth noting.

I'm thinking about "the strongest crusading armies". That's also why I choose Trajan's army instead of the other Emperor's.

 

[Elfwine]

The idea that Medival armies were a few knights and a mob of undisciplined peasants isn't born out in reality. They were combined arms forces that were just as flexible as Trajan's Legions and considerably more balanced. For starters the Crusaders did have heavy infantry, specifically sergeants-at-arms, who were just as well armed and equipped as legionaries. The Crusaders also have a much stronger ranged element, either crossbowmen or ideally longbowmen. Finally of course they have the hammer in the form of the Knights.

Sergeants-at-arms are still a minority, not the majority, and maille (to use the spelling a friend of mine who makes the stuff uses to distinguish it from the other sort of mail) expensive. You're not going to have them (the Crusading armies on the whole) fully equipped, you will see that for the Romans.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/crusades/articles/arsuf.aspx

Where's the heavy foot?

This is not a completely worthless rabble, but it's certainly inferior in foot to what Trajan has.

Assuming the Crusader's aren't led by a complete moron like at Agincourt or Hattin your legionary force is going to be softened up by the archers and heavy foot while the knights annihilate the Roman cavalry. Then already having suffered casualties they are going to have to suffer repeated charges to the flanks and rear from the Crusader heavy cavalry. Trajan's boys would be toast.

And of course, the Romans have no counter to archery - oh wait they do. And what heavy foot? Seriously, what heavy foot?

As for charging the flanks and rear - assuming for discussion's sake the crusaders are smart enough to do that (distinctly possible but not a given) - what, the Romans won't guard those?

I'm thinking about "the strongest crusading armies". That's also why I choose Trajan's army instead of the other Emperor's.

Then we need something with reliable figures on Barbarossa's army, because the Third Crusade is my nomination for the strongest force - or maybe the Seventh Crusade, but that was smaller and definitely worse lead.

 

[Arachnid]

Sergeants-at-arms are still a minority, not the majority, and maille (to use the spelling a friend of mine who makes the stuff uses to distinguish it from the other sort of mail) expensive. You're not going to have them (the Crusading armies on the whole) fully equipped, you will see that for the Romans.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/crusades/articles/arsuf.aspx

Where's the heavy foot?

This is not a completely worthless rabble, but it's certainly inferior in foot to what Trajan has.

I agree the Roman Heavy foot will make up a greater proportion of the army and be qualitatively superior to the Crusader foot. However the Crusaders will have some heavy foot who can go toe to toe with the legions.

And of course, the Romans have no counter to archery - oh wait they do. And what heavy foot? Seriously, what heavy foot?

Obviously the Romans have missile troops but like the cavalry the Roman missile troops would be outclassed having shortbows and slings. Which are qualitatively inferior to the Crusader crossbows and especially longbows.

As for charging the flanks and rear - assuming for discussion's sake the crusaders are smart enough to do that (distinctly possible but not a given) - what, the Romans won't guard those?

What I meant is that thanks to the Crusaders winning the cavalry battle they will be able to use their most powerful element where an when the want. In contrast slower legionaries aren't going to be launching flanking manoeuvres. Obviously the legions are going to react, they aren't morons either but on balance it's better to be the side doing the flanking than being flanked.


The Romans do have an advantage in their heavy foot, but the Crusaders have the advantage in cavalry and missile troops and that will carry the day.

 

[bsmart111]

Are we talking the Union Army of 1862 or Sherman or Grants armies of late 1864?
If we are talking the 1864 armies we are talking about armies that could stand against withering fire, accept huge casualties and continue advancing. You are talking about an army that taught the rest of the world how to use railroads (and both repair and destroy them) I don't think the Prussian army had the experience of having to press on after huge casualties that the Union Army did. I don't think the Prussian army had to move the distances that the Union Army showed itself capable of operating over.

I think the Union Army in 1864 was one of the greatest armies of all time (Along with the Soviet Army of 1944-45 and The German army of July 1941 among others)

 

[Arachnid]

Well obviously the Union army was better after 4 years of war than at the start but that standard you should compare it to the Prussian Army of 1870 after it had fought 3 victorious wars in rapid succession. The Prussians had not only smashed Denmark, then Austria and finally France improving all the while but had benefited from the lessons learned during the American Civil War. The Prussian Army of 1870 was superior to the Union Army of 1864 thanks to time marching on, and the Prussian Army of 1860 was undoubtedly superior to the Union Army of 1860.

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

16th century firearms were rubbish. They were highly inaccurate, had loong reload times, and their range wasn't so great. They were only truly useful during that period when firing concentrated salvos at tightly packed pikemen formations. Against scattered, fast moving Mongol cavalry they would be totally useless - OTL even though PLC or Russia fielded firearms based armies, (or western style pikemen and 'caracolle' cavalry) they used mostly light/medium cavalry (eg. Cossacks) against tatars up until 18th century. Spanish army composed of slow, cumbersome pikemen formations, ineffective arquebusiers/musketeers, and token heavy cavalry would be crushed by mobile Mongol army (in an open battle at least).

Have you ever fired a gun or had one fired at you? 16th century guns weren't all that reliable, but there is a reason that they replaced bows... It's quite the myth that early muskets were "useless." if the Mongols concentrated enough to be effective they would be vulnerable to volleys, which would tear them apart.

And they would have a much harder time with Spanish cavalry armed as light lancers as they were themselves or with pistols or crossbows. You have to think of the morale element in all this. Guns are scary, especially "ineffective 16th century ones" because they make a big morale dent, especially in an army with no experiance of them.

 

[Elfwine]

I agree the Roman Heavy foot will make up a greater proportion of the army and be qualitatively superior to the Crusader foot. However the Crusaders will have some heavy foot who can go toe to toe with the legions.

Where's the heavy foot in the forces at Arsuf? It's not mentioned, curiously.

Picked as an actual example of what kind of force Trajan's men are facing where we have a description of the composition and good leadership.

Obviously the Romans have missile troops but like the cavalry the Roman missile troops would be outclassed having shortbows and slings. Which are qualitatively inferior to the Crusader crossbows and especially longbows.

Slingers seem to be damn useful, although I don't have the foggiest idea how they compare to crossbowmen (which is what's relevant here - how the Roman missile troops compare to Crusader missile troops, not if their weapons beat crossbows in a test of the weapons).

What I meant is that thanks to the Crusaders winning the cavalry battle they will be able to use their most powerful element where an when the want. In contrast slower legionaries aren't going to be launching flanking manoeuvres. Obviously the legions are going to react, they aren't morons either but on balance it's better to be the side doing the flanking than being flanked.

Agreed. But it's better still to be the side with a better army, and the crusader army is too lightly armored (on the whole).

The Romans do have an advantage in their heavy foot, but the Crusaders have the advantage in cavalry and missile troops and that will carry the day.

I wouldn't bet on it. The Roman shields are likely to bear up decently to any Crusader missile fire and the issue of heavy cavalry got addressed earlier.


Benjamin XVIII: Especially to horses. Men might stand sudden fear from gunpowder. Horses . . . not so much.

Although I think the Mongols had more than just light horse, that is their main asset, so . . .

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

Except that...1) the Mongols can put 100,000 men, or even more, in the field, whereas the Spanish armies would be lucky to number half that; 2) the Mongol composite bow significantly outranges the missile weapons carried by the Spaniards, with the exception of cannon, and there are few of those in the Spanish army; 3) the Mongols are commanded by one of the greatest generals in history, Genghis Khan.

The Mongols will deal with the Spanish cavalry the way they did with many enemies in OTL...they'll feign flight and draw them into an ambush where they are exposed to fire from all sides. Once the cavalry are wiped out, they'll barrage the relatively immobile Spanish infantry from beyond musket range until they finally break and run. Once the Spaniards run, they're dog meat.

If the exact situation you described above happened then they would win. But anyone could describe any situation like that, I could describe one were the Mongols do something retarted and end up in trouble too.

As far as the bow is concerned. Have you ever fired a bow? That "twice the range" stuff is crap, except under ideal conditions and even then it's hard to pull off. I know that the Mongol horsemen were excellent at what they did, but hitting a target from the back of a horse with a bow is hard, and not achievable at the supposed "max" ranges of a certain kind of bow. I fired recurve bows at targets at fifty yards and could manage after four months of training everyday to consistently hit the bullseye... Standing in one spot, in nice weather, and NOT being shot at by a gun and NOT on the back of a horse.

The numbers is a good point though :0

My point is that it would come down to location and objectives. If the Mongols had to take a certain place, they might end up in trouble in say the alps. If the Spanish are in totally open terrain they would probably also be in trouble.

To be honest I was just sniffing some Mongol fanboyism and felt the need to adress it

 

[Elfwine]

The Mongols don't have to hit individual targets, firing enough arrows at a mass of tightly packed Spaniards will hit something.

Not to mention that four months of training is nothing compared to what the Mongols have.

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

The Mongols don't have to hit individual targets, firing enough arrows at a mass of tightly packed Spaniards will hit something.

Not to mention that four months of training is nothing compared to what the Mongols have.

The Mongols have indeed made extensive use of their bows and would not need to be hitting individuals. The Spanish don't need to hit individuals either, just pull the trigger and watch Mongols horses freak out and run.
I'm happy to admit their are situations in which the Mongols could win, but they aren't guaranteed a victory against an enemy with a 300 year tech advantage, that's all.

And I wasn't comparing myself to them, just pointing out that people tend to hand wave "the Mongols could do it!"

 

[Elfwine]

The Mongols have indeed made extensive use of their bows and would not need to be hitting individuals. The Spanish don't need to hit individuals either, just pull the trigger and watch Mongols horses freak out and run.

Which, at close enough range, would indeed be a problem - especially as from what I understand of steppe horse archery tactics (as distinct from say, how the Byzantines made use of horse archery to support their main force), they're used at closer than maximum range.

I'm happy to admit their are situations in which the Mongols could win, but they aren't guaranteed a victory against an enemy with a 300 year tech advantage, that's all.

And I wasn't comparing myself to them, just pointing out that people tend to hand wave "the Mongols could do it!"

Agreed on both. The Mongols were good, but they lost battles even without a tech disadvantage. With it, they're going to have to come up with something better than "lol we have horse archers and u dont".

 

[Vingilótë]

Slingers seem to be damn useful, although I don't have the foggiest idea how they compare to crossbowmen (which is what's relevant here - how the Roman missile troops compare to Crusader missile troops, not if their weapons beat crossbows in a test of the weapons).

AFAIK, crossbows are definitely superior to slings. There's simply magnitudes greater in force, and I'm almost certain they have a much better range. However, I think that Roman slingers would almost certainly be more highly trained than Crusader crossbowmen.

 

[Elfwine]

AFAIK, crossbows are definitely superior to slings. There's simply magnitudes greater in force, and I'm almost certain they have a much better range. However, I think that Roman slingers would almost certainly be more highly trained than Crusader crossbowmen.

And the rate of fire issue comes in as well.

I'd certainly take a crossbow over a sling from what I know, but it would be kind of amusing to watch the crossbowmen of say, Richard's army, be picked off by the slingers.

Crossbows have a somewhat longer range than longbows and hit harder, but their confrontations tended to favor the faster firing weapon.

 

[Flocculencio]

However, I think that Roman slingers would almost certainly be more highly trained than Crusader crossbowmen.

That's a rather large assumption. IIRC mediaeval crossbowmen tended to be military professionals and often formed mercenary corps units of their own.

 

[Vingilótë]

That's a rather large assumption. IIRC mediaeval crossbowmen tended to be military professionals and often formed mercenary corps units of their own.

My understanding is that the proliferation of mercenary crossbowmen took place nearer to the end of the Middle Ages. So not so for, say, a First Crusade army, but possibly for a Sixth Crusade army. Well, maybe slightly later than that.