Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1080573The pilum is a specialized javelin designed to break up shield formations by weighing down shields even when blocked by sticking in them. It wasn't that they killed the enemy (they did - but a lot of armies had various throwing weapons) it was then they wrecked up the enemy shield wall just before contact, giving the Romans the edging in the melee which happened seconds later.

And if ranged weapons are always 'better' - then why did historical armies not go entirely ranged troops before guns? There is no 'best'.

Greetings!

Indeed, Charon. I agree. Their is no one, superior or "best" weapon. The ancient battlefield was a team system of combined arms--just as much as modern armies are. Javelins, spears, swords, daggers, slings, bows--all such weapons were used, and were important. The composition of various armies typically embraced infantry, cavalry, archers, skirmishers, and or heavier spearmen if the infantry was not otherwise equipped with such. At various times, all of these troop types proved absolutely decisive in many victories. Any army that neglected fielding any such forces risked a crushing defeat against opponents that would ruthlessly exploit such a weakness and poor generalship.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Exactly so. It's all about combined arms. Or, more specifically, ancient combat was intransitive in its outcomes, like scissors-paper-rock.

In battle after battle, it was proven that archers could not defeat hoplites or other heavily-armored spearmen with shields. Based on calculations in From Sumer to Rome, something like 95% of arrow hits would be blocked by armor and shields. Assuming a range of 300 yards, and troops marching at quick-time (120 yards per minute), the archers had 2.5 minutes. Archers could fire about 8 arrows per minute - so they'd get 20 arrows fired. If they were on target with all 20 arrows, they might get 1 armor-penetrating hit. If the fight starts at less than 300 yards, if the heavy infantry charge faster...it's worse for the archers.

On the other hand, skirmishers equipped with javelins, called peltasts, could beat heavy infantry, though they couldn't do so while holding ground. At the Battle of Lechaeum, heavily armed Spartans were defeated by Athenian peltasts who would hurl javelins, then fall back, repeatedly. Javelins, as noted earlier in the thread, could make a shield unusable. But peltasts were inferior to arrchers. Archers carried more ammunition with longer range and the peltast's light armor and shields did not provide adequate protection.

Two other types of heavy infantry make appearances: legionaries and phalangists. Legionaries were a hybrid between peltasts and hoplites. They had the armor and shielding as good as hoplites (lorica and shield), but weaponry more similar to that used by peltasts (javelin and sword). They were therefore superior to both archers and peltasts, and on par with hoplites. Phalangists carried long pikes and small shields. They were superior to spearmen and legionaries in direct confrontation, and superior against cavalry, but had less protection from archery as they carried much smaller or no shields.

Most ancient cavalry was light cavalry - essentially mounted peltasts, except even faster being mounted. Some cavalry, such as Macedonian companions, were heavy cavalry and would charge with spear. Heavy cavalry tended to beat light cavalry because they could charge home when the skirmishers approached to javelin range. Heavy cavalry could also defeat peltasts and hoplites, but had trouble against pikemen and some (long- and composite-) archers.

The Scythians and Parthians had horse archers who could defeat both heavy and light cavalry, and peltasts, but were vulnerable to foot archers. To deal with horse archers, the Sassanid and Byzantines developed cataphracts equipped with both bow and lance, and heavily armored. This enabled them to fight as shock cavalry or archery cavalry, and made them very formidable.

Elephants, with armored tusks and spear- and bow-carrying troops on their back, could beat hoplite, phalangist, legionary, light cavalry, and heavy cavalry. They were vulnerable, however, to peltasts and archers.

So the relationships are something like:

GREEK:
Hoplite beats Archer
Archer beats Peltast (and Phalangist, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Horse Archers, Elephants)
Peltast beats Hoplite (and Elephant)

ROMAN, MACEDONIAN:
Legionary beats Hoplite, Peltast, and Archer
Phalangist beats Hoplite and Legionary (and Heavy cavalry)

CAVALRY:
Light cavalry beats Peltast and Hoplite
Heavy cavalry beats Peltast, Light Cavalry Hoplite, and Legionary
Horse Archer beats Peltast, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry
Cataphract beats Peltast, LC, Hoplite, Legionary, Heavy Cavalry and ties Horse Archer
Elephant beats Phalangist, Hoplite, Legionary, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry

I did the best I could to model all of the above in ACKS Domains at War.

Quote from: amacris;1080664Exactly so. It's all about combined arms. Or, more specifically, ancient combat was intransitive in its outcomes, like scissors-paper-rock.

Which is why the Romans got destroyed by horse archers the few times they faced them - they didn't have NEARLY enough archers of their own (the only way to beat horse archers if they have room to run), and the steppe archers literally fired themselves dry from outside of pilum range and then just rode away.

Greetings!

You know, I think it is pretty interesting how Alexander the Great and his vaunted Macedonian Army stands out. Certainly, the horse-archers of the Scythians, the Huns, the Persians--were all very formidable, and proved themselves to be a strong match for any army, of whatever composition, at the time.

Except for Alexander the Great. The Greek and Macedonian forces suffered some strong casualties, but the salient fact remains that once Alexander the Great really set to the task and got going leading a campaign against the horse-tribes of Central Asia--he crushed them. Three years of fighting, Alexander led special columns of cavalry--his Comanions, plus recruited light cavalry and hore-archers--on operations day and night against the Horse Tribes. he had a special elite force of infantry that trailed along as a sort of anvil force, whereupon Alexander would have the infantry hold the horse archers, as his own cavalry forces encircled them, and crushed them. When they managed to get away--Alexander continuously pursued them, while also sending out flanking force, to corral them; meanwhile, also sending in raiding forces of cavalry to strike at the Horse Tribe's villages and encampments. Alexander had men, women, children and animals killed in a ruthless campaign, that finally resulted in the Horse tribes getting on their knees before Alexander the Great. Noble women and such were offered as wives and slaves in submission to Alexander; all the chieftains promised to serve him loyalty; they all begged for mercy from Alexander the Great.

The campaign was necessary to secure his northern flank as he had panned and initiated his campaign into India once the Horse Tribes Campaign was concluded, in victory.

I don't think anyone else ever achieved the kind of victory against Horse tribes like Alexander the Great did. Even the Mongols swept the Chinese, the Muslims, the Indians, the Europeans, all were crushed on their knees by the Mongols.

As Alexander proved over a thousand years previously, he would know how to deal with the Mongols as well, and defeat them, as he did with the Mongol's forebears of Central Asia and Persia.

It's especially interesting to me, that even centuries after Alexander the Great, you had all of these other forces, the Romans, the Persians, the Franks, the Goths, other Europeans, the Muslims, and so on--all pursuing formations and tactics that Alexander would have laughed at them for using. And yet, none of them ever had the good sense to ask, "Gee, how did Alexander the Great deal with fast-riding, always elusive Horse Archers?" Alexander and his official historians--he had teams of them--wrote all of this stuff down, as they campaigned, during and immediately after the years of Alexander's death in Babylon, all by 200 BC. Centuries, many centuries, before many of these other nations were dealing with trying to fight against hore archers.

All the while, they opposed the horse archers and died in their multitudes, because no one was willing to humble themselves and learn from Alexander the Great.

You even see this stuff later on, when the Heavy Cavalry of the day--was crushed by Heavy Pike Formations mixed with Heavy Infantry and Crossbowmen, as fielded by the Swiss and some German provinces. It was they that really spelled the end of the dominion of cavalry during the Middle Ages, and ushered in a renewed supremacy of Heavy Infantry, especially combined with Heavy Pikemen. Well, again, no surprise. That's exactly what Alexander the Great was doing 1800 years earlier, you know? Aleander used his Heavy Phalanx mixed with Infantry as a backstop, with cavalry hanging in the wings to pursue and crush the enemy leaders. Alexander had no worries facing enemy heavy cavalry. He knew exactly how to make their lives hell and send them packing. Strange, it took the rest of Europe until Agincourt in 1300's AD and 1450-1500 AD to essentially rebuild the Phalanx, using plate-mail.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I wouldn't get too excited believing the propaganda of Alexander "beating" the Skythians. Notable that after the battle of the Jaxartes, he didn't cross the river or advance into their territory at all. Sounds more like a draw than a resounding victory.

When you read the memoirs of German Generals from the world wars, or the American Generals from Vietnam, you'd think they'd won. Their tactics and strategy were, of course, brilliant.

And certainly if they admit they lost, well it was all someone else's fault.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1080573The pilum is a specialized javelin designed to break up shield formations by weighing down shields even when blocked by sticking in them. It wasn't that they killed the enemy (they did - but a lot of armies had various throwing weapons) it was then they wrecked up the enemy shield wall just before contact, giving the Romans the edge in the melee which happened seconds later.

And if ranged weapons are always 'better' - then why did historical armies not go entirely ranged troops before guns? There is no 'best'.

Did you actually read your statement?  'Before guns'?  You know why the rifle took the place of the sword, spear, bow?  Because of how powerful and easy it is to use.  Five minutes and you had an entire battalion trained with firearms.  That alone makes it superiour to almost all other weapons that needed YEARS to be good at, which is the spear, sword and bow.  Before then, the simplest weapon to train your army troopers in was the SPEAR.  Not because it was inherently superiour, but because it was EASIER to train your pikemen in a group.

But rifles brought long range AND ease of training, making it the superiour weapon to choose, which is why every single modern army uses a variation of the rifle.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1080687When you read the memoirs of German Generals from the world wars, or the American Generals from Vietnam, you'd think they'd won. Their tactics and strategy were, of course, brilliant.

And certainly if they admit they lost, well it was all someone else's fault.

You'll see this same thing in a corporate meeting too. If something works, my boss takes the credit. If something doesn't work, then obviously my people didn't implement it correctly.

Quote from: Kiero;1080686I wouldn't get too excited believing the propaganda of Alexander "beating" the Skythians. Notable that after the battle of the Jaxartes, he didn't cross the river or advance into their territory at all. Sounds more like a draw than a resounding victory.

Greetings!

LOL! Yes, well, the sources are what they are, true? There's no evidence that the Horse tribes started wars with Alexander again after his three-year campaign against them. Absence of counter-evidence makes a pretty strong support for the Greek historian's testimony. Furthermore, the sources record that there were intermarriages, ceremonies, and treaties of peace and alliance. Now, it is certainly tempting and reasonable to assume some level of propaganda and exaggeration--but in later records, there is testimony that Alexander had augmented his armies as he marched into India with powerful regiments of horse-archers from Central Asia. In fact, such Central Asian horse archers were brutal and ruthlessly effective in aiding Alexander's campaigns into India, fighting fierce Indian armies, which fielded hundreds of terrifying war elephants against Alexander. Alexander won those battles as well--although sources explain that Alexander was so impressed with the valiant elephants that he changed his army forces again, and incorporated regiments of armoured war elephants into his forces as well. Such lends weight to the source's credibility that Alexander had gained a decisive victory against the Horse tribes, because of all of the evience that they embraced peace, and alliance--but also supported Alexander's armies by contributing tens of thousands of such horse warriors to Alexander's war machine. That doesn't seem to be the actions of someone--or a people in this case--that viewed Alexander as a hated enemy. Later archeology and ethnographic studies also show that Alexander the Great is viewed throughout much of Central Asia as a mythical hero, and the greatest warlord and king. Furthermore, interestingly--there were Greek Kingdoms that rose in strength and prominence throughout Central Asia and the Indian bordrlands which reigned successfully--with a great loyalty from local peoples--for several centuries *after* the death of Alexander the Great. Perhaps such also adds further evidence that Alexander the Great did in fact achieve not only a great victory against the Horse tribes, but also impressed them with his rulership and Greek culture that successfully formed the foundation for a synthesis of the two cultures and royal kingdoms which prospered together for centuries afterwards.

Interesting stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1080687When you read the memoirs of German Generals from the world wars, or the American Generals from Vietnam, you'd think they'd won. Their tactics and strategy were, of course, brilliant.

And certainly if they admit they lost, well it was all someone else's fault.

Greetings!

LOL! Very true, huh?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1080696Greetings!

LOL! Yes, well, the sources are what they are, true? There's no evidence that the Horse tribes started wars with Alexander again after his three-year campaign against them. Absence of counter-evidence makes a pretty strong support for the Greek historian's testimony. Furthermore, the sources record that there were intermarriages, ceremonies, and treaties of peace and alliance. Now, it is certainly tempting and reasonable to assume some level of propaganda and exaggeration--but in later records, there is testimony that Alexander had augmented his armies as he marched into India with powerful regiments of horse-archers from Central Asia. In fact, such Central Asian horse archers were brutal and ruthlessly effective in aiding Alexander's campaigns into India, fighting fierce Indian armies, which fielded hundreds of terrifying war elephants against Alexander. Alexander won those battles as well--although sources explain that Alexander was so impressed with the valiant elephants that he changed his army forces again, and incorporated regiments of armoured war elephants into his forces as well. Such lends weight to the source's credibility that Alexander had gained a decisive victory against the Horse tribes, because of all of the evience that they embraced peace, and alliance--but also supported Alexander's armies by contributing tens of thousands of such horse warriors to Alexander's war machine. That doesn't seem to be the actions of someone--or a people in this case--that viewed Alexander as a hated enemy. Later archeology and ethnographic studies also show that Alexander the Great is viewed throughout much of Central Asia as a mythical hero, and the greatest warlord and king. Furthermore, interestingly--there were Greek Kingdoms that rose in strength and prominence throughout Central Asia and the Indian bordrlands which reigned successfully--with a great loyalty from local peoples--for several centuries *after* the death of Alexander the Great. Perhaps such also adds further evidence that Alexander the Great did in fact achieve not only a great victory against the Horse tribes, but also impressed them with his rulership and Greek culture that successfully formed the foundation for a synthesis of the two cultures and royal kingdoms which prospered together for centuries afterwards.

Interesting stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There was no single nation of "Central Asia", but myriad tribes, each themselves composed of groupings around specific lords who could only keep their riders as long as they were successful. I think you are greatly overestimating any notion of collective feeling amongst the horse tribes.

That some lords were willing to serve with the Makedonians for plunder says nothing about how they felt about one group of people (the Skythians were in decline) being defeated in one battle. Never mind that many of the other peoples - Sauromatians, Sakans, etc were rivals or even enemies of the Skythians. Whatever agreements Alexander made with the Skythians were irrelevant to other peoples not party to them.

The "tens of thousands" of riders is not a big deal, there were hundreds of thousands of them roaming the steppe.

The Seleukids and other successors in the east faced constant raids by the steppe peoples, often only staved off by hiring those same riders to patrol their borders for them. That doesn't suggest any sort of long-term settlement of affairs on the borderlands after one battle.

Quote from: amacris;1080664ROMAN, MACEDONIAN:
Phalangist beats Legionary

I think this is the only one I'd quibble with. Weren't the Legionaries able to outmaneuver sarissa phalanx (2-h pike, small or no shield), much the same way they could outmaneuver hoplite phalanx (1-h spear, big shield)? And sarissa phalanx with small or no shield was surely more vulnerable to the pilum.

Quote from: SHARK;1080672You know, I think it is pretty interesting how Alexander the Great and his vaunted Macedonian Army stands out. Certainly, the horse-archers of the Scythians, the Huns, the Persians--were all very formidable, and proved themselves to be a strong match for any army, of whatever composition, at the time.

Long before Alexander - the Assyrians trounced the Scythians several times with virtually no cavalry of their own. (I've actually heard the argument that they were the last dominating infantry focused army from Asia until the 20th century. There were a lot of good armies after that - but they were all cavalry focused.)

They had a ton of archers paired up with giant wicker shields as the bulk of their force (Some soldiers literally had a giant two-handed wicker shield), with some heavy spearmen units mixed in to keep the cavalry away. Actually - it feels like the focus of their army was a way for infantry to deal with horse archers.

Weren't the Assyrians charioteers, like the original Persians? Granted that's a small number of their elites, not their entire force.

Quote from: S'mon;1080716I think this is the only one I'd quibble with. Weren't the Legionaries able to outmaneuver sarissa phalanx (2-h pike, small or no shield), much the same way they could outmaneuver hoplite phalanx (1-h spear, big shield)? And sarissa phalanx with small or no shield was surely more vulnerable to the pilum.

Your points are not unreasonable. I gave the nod to the phalangists because the toughest battles that the Early Romans had were against pike-armed troops, and they lost many of them. On open ground in straight combat the legionaries tended to be overwhelmed by the phalanx. But it's true that the manipular formations were more maneuverable, and could break up and outflank the phalanx at times, as well as do better on rugged ground. So I think I give a slight but not decisive edge to phalangists with terrain or generalship allowing for a legionary win. But I could be wrong.