That Iron to late medieval age pre-gunfire armies would fair more or less equal against each other on the battlefield, regardless of era.
Last edited:
Q: Does this passage reflect a reality when talking about pre-gunpowder armies?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
That Iron to late medieval age pre-gunfire armies would fair more or less equal against each other on the battlefield, regardless of era.
No, I don't think so.
That Iron to late medieval age pre-gunfire armies would fair more or less equal against each other on the battlefield regardless of era.
RousseauX
Donor
No
That Iron to late medieval age pre-gunfire armies would fair more or less equal against each other on the battlefield regardless of era.
As in Hannibals army at Cannae versus the British army at Crecy or a similar example? Or that you could take say an Assyrian army at the start of the Iron age and pit it against a Crusader army and they would be easily matched? In a word no. But in more detail the mere material that an army uses for its weapons has very little bearing on the technology, the tactics, the organization, the doctrine, and the situation. Saying all pre-gunpowder armies are equally matched is like saying any two wooden warships pitted against one another would be equal. You would ignore thousands of years of development and advancement, as well as myriad examples of precisely the thing you say is so being proved completely false.
That Iron to late medieval age pre-gunfire armies would fair more or less equal against each other on the battlefield regardless of era.
Take for example Alexander and his Macedonians versus the Persian armies. Both were of the same era, but one had better tactics and organization and so achieved victory. And then the Macedonian style armies of the Diadochi successor states which fought the Roman legions in the republican period. The Mongol armies versus the world, and the Arabs before them. All show armies which constantly improve and adapt to make use of new tactics, technology, and ideas versus those a step or two behind using the tactics of the last generation.
Lets take the most extreme example I mentioned prior, an Assyrian army versus a Crusader era one. Assyria at its height possessed around 300,000 men, while the first crusade involved roughly 70,000 Christians, I am using Christians as reference because I lack good sources on Muslim army sizes, now its unlikely both forces would ever bring their entire forces to battle at one place due to the need to defend supply lines and garrison various positions and fight elsewhere. So lets say 25,000 Christians face 100,000 Assyrian troops.
Who would win? Well barring any surprise attack or ambush, if both sides clashed in well ordered lines I would say that the crusaders would win. And that it would be an outcome that would happen nine times out of ten, though not without difficulty. This is because the crusaders have better technology and tactics despite being outnumbered.
It's not necessarily "later is always better", I think - I am not sure if a 1st century Roman army vs. a 8th century Lombard army necessarily favors the Lombards so much they can guarantee a win - but the differences between a 1st century Roman army and a 8th century Roman army are pretty meaningful.
I think size does matter as well. Size permits better organization and just power. Though a leaderless horde madly charging will be inferior to a well led smaller force within reason.
Yeah. Size seems like something not necessarily steadily improving with the date - I'm not sure either 1st or 8th century Romans can easily support 50,000 men in one place, but it does seem to have generally favored later era forces as generally from better organized and larger states.
So a phalanx had a 50/50 chance against Welsh longbows? I get that gunpowder is much more of a force multiplier then anything before it, but there's much less ridiculous ways of making that argument.
Isn't this a "You're approaching me" fight? I'm guessing that the phalanx can't get close enough to make a difference here?
Also, Mongols... wrecked many other armies larger than they were due to superior tactics. Armament and tactics matter.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. "They don't have guns, we don't have guns, therefore it's even" is criminally naive.
Well, actually the Welsh had been beaten and conquered by the English. 😜
But the English armies of the Middle Ages were not just the longbowmen just as the Macedonian army was not just a phalanx. In both cases strength was in a combination of the numerous components which had to be deployed properly. Weaponry on its own was rather secondary to the organization and tactics and a part of the success was in a skillful use of the systematic weaknesses of the opponent’s military system.
When the English archers had been left without protection you have Bannockburn and Patay and during some of the battles of the Wars of the Roses they demanded that the knights dismount and protect them out of fear to be massacred. By the time the Mongols reached Europe a big part of their army were the tribes subdued on their way West including Kipchaks of the Volga steppes (and these Kipchaks on their own had been routinely beaten by their sedentary neighbors). So only a part of the army would have the “Mongolian” bows and even these bows were not uniform in their quality. Not to mention that at least half of the troops conquering the Northern China and majority of those conquering Southern China were Chinese. So all these “famous” bows were just good instruments, not some wunderwaffe allowing to win the battles just by its own merits.
One may argue that in the late MA the most effective weapon was infantry pike because it was the main weapon of the Swiss infantry that had been routinely kicking the s—t out of all opponents. But then, again, what was a victory formula for the Swiss and then landsknechts, was routinely failing for the Scotts. The wrong pikes? 😂
I think we're splitting hairs here. Both of us understand that it's a combination of equipment, training, planning, terrain and other things that lead to victory.
For a better analogy, perhaps the video's author is suggesting that Boudicca had a 50% chance at Watling Street, just because the Romans didn't have guns?
No, I think what he's saying is relatively clear: that a good army is a good army is a good army, regardless if it happened to originate in 100 ad or 1000 ad. The difference in weapons tech was small enough despite the large gap in times to be a deciding factor.
The question is, is that belief correct and why or why not if disagreeing?
I think he's mistaken in emphasizing the 'iron weapons' bit when he brings up bronze age armies, but I've made a similar argument elsewhere. The differences in technology between a classical army and a medieval one are going to probably be outweighed by who has superior numbers, the better commander, advantageous terrain, better organization, discipline, morale, tactics, and so on. A bow is only as strong as the man holding it, after all, and that's not something that meaningfully changed over the period, nor is man's stomach for danger, which in the final analysis is what decided every one of these battles.
Weren't some weapons designed specifically to try to get around certain armor advancements?
And armor advancements made to response to the weapons currently being used (as far as technology permitted). I'm not sure how well a Roman legion under an average commander vs. a 15th century English army with an average commander is going to fare, even if Julius Caesar would beat Edward II (14th century if we're being fussy).
"Discipline and tactics and leadership (and morale and terrain and...) are important" is timeless, but that doesn't mean that weapons and armor changing is of little importance.
"Discipline and tactics and leadership (and morale and terrain and...) are important" is timeless, but that doesn't mean that weapons and armor changing is of little importance.
Last edited:
Yes, and vice-versa. So for instance, if you were to take say full plate armor from the 1400s and put a force wearing that up against a Roman legion, what are the Romans even going to do? This is a force who wear armor that longbow arrows just bounce off of. And their horses are also wearing barding. The Gladius and Pilum can do literally nothing to them.
The English slaughtered them just fine with normal swords and daggers once their ranks were disrupted. If nothing else, Roman swords, daggers, and javelins can thrust through eyeslits and into groins and armpits protected by mail instead of plate. And there are likely to be far more Romans on the field than whatever medieval army you care to pick, so they can afford to let their first battle line get beat up if it disrupts enemy formations and leaves them vulnerable to a counterattack.
That's assuming that one side has the advantage in discipline or tactical IQ; a semi-disciplined warband with steel chainmail has much more than 50/50 odds against a comparable semi-disciplined warband in their birthday suits.