Moderator: Edi
The Romans?Falcon wrote:Does everyone really think that the Romans, the Europeans, the Chinese, etc...
They didn't change their tatics much when they were getting slaughtered by the Mongols.would have used the same tactics they traditionally used against enemies they didn't traditionally fight? I really think you people are NOT giving midevil europe and especially Rome the credit they deserve.
I've you've noticed there have been a rather large number of these threads, I was attempting a kind of blanket response. Mostly I was just defending Rome again, carry on...ArmorPierce wrote:The Romans?Falcon wrote:Does everyone really think that the Romans, the Europeans, the Chinese, etc...
They didn't change their tatics much when they were getting slaughtered by the Mongols.would have used the same tactics they traditionally used against enemies they didn't traditionally fight? I really think you people are NOT giving midevil europe and especially Rome the credit they deserve.
Like the French adapted against the English? Oops.Falcon wrote:Does everyone really think that the Romans, the Europeans, the Chinese, etc... would have used the same tactics they traditionally used against enemies they didn't traditionally fight? I really think you people are NOT giving midevil europe and especially Rome the credit they deserve.
I always seem to find these posts late... (sigh)Admiral Griffith wrote:Conceded that the dismounted knights can still move around and attack as their armour allows. However, the Chinese still do have crossbows, and IIRC, crossbows can punch through a knight's armour fairly well. Not to mention the fact that Chinese swords were incredibly sharp and were made well enough to block a swing from a large mace without significant damage to the sword. Imagine the effect on relatively flimsy knight's armour, in which said knight can be beat up through by previously mentioned mace.
Or, of course, you just build fortifications, establish your archers and artillery inside of them, and reply with them from the safety of the dirt and pavises.Pablo Sanchez wrote:
No. The efforts of the Europeans were in vain, and anyway infantry were only good against the Mongols as a roadblock; pikemen had no actual ability to inflict harm on the steppe horsemen. The Mongol tactic was to stand off and shoot up enemy infantry with their composite bows, while the European archery used inferior weapons and was mostly impotent to return the favor. When the Western heavy cav attempted to close and engage, the Mongols faded back--until the enemy overextended himself, at which point he was surrounded and cut to ribbons.
Oh, absolutely, but you massively overestimate the ease that the Mongols had in annihilating the Hungarians at the Sajo River. Bela III's deployment was quite intelligent and the Mongols under Subedei barely were able to penetrate it; had that area not been diverted from their attention by the first assaults they might have successfully blocked the Mongol flanking manoeuvre and proceeded to beat them back, or fall back on Buda in good order under the cover of their laager, depending on how badly they handled the Mongols in repulsing them.The Mongols destroyed the two most powerful armies in central Europe without too much trouble and then quartered on the Hungarian plains to graze their horses. At this point, the Khan died, and the Mongols picked up shop and went home, and they did not return. The Polish like to think that their heroic resistance shook Mongol confidence and convinced them to leave, but it was purely political.
In a defensive position in the English terrain, I would not want to be a light cavalry army. Likewise, the Italian communes could muster more than enough troops with pike, crossbow and pavise, which positioned in the passes, on the rivers and in the rough terrain of Italy at the time would easily prevent the Mongols from taking that region.I think the only army which would pose a threat to the Mongols during the middle ages in Europe would be England, with their longbowmen and superior (to France, at least) tactics. And even then, it probably wouldn't be enough.
The western style was never a melee. The western way of war is disciplined shock action, against which nothing can stand and is why it has remained the ideal of western armies. Even knights had a modicum of order in their attacks; it is just the lack of a formal rank structure that causes problems for some authorship.The problem that European armies had was that their equipment had become over-specialized to their own type of fighting. The Western style of in-your-face melee with archery support wasn't necessarily less effective, it was just that their weapons and armor were designed to fight only that kind of battle, all other kinds of war be damned. Against an enemy who avoided close contact until his victory was assured, European armies were all but useless.
Sorry, I had 'Eternal Stalemate' and 'Both Die' options, but they didn't show up for some reason.brothersinarm wrote:chinese primates? glorious battle? Where's the annilate each other option?
Do you even know how the Chinese swords were made? I doubt it from your posting. The smith would take a plate of metal, hammer it down as thin and straight as he could, fold it over, and repeat the process until he was rewarded with an extremely sharp, durable sword. Trust me, if it can't cut plate armour, it'll at least do as well as a large mace.HemlockGrey wrote:When I was visisting Britian this summer, I went to Warwick Castle, where I proceeded to watch a man don plate armor, pick up a halberd, run and skip, battle for twenty minutes, all without becoming the least bit exhausted.
Further, the other man's broadsword failed to make so much as a dent on his armor. Having seen Asiatic swords up close, I am highly doubtful of their capability to penetrate plate armor.
The Green Destiny isn't real, you know. We are aware that that the Chinese made good swords. That doesn't mean they can cut through metal plate. And they will not do as well as a large mace. Swords are balanced completely wrong for bashing.Admiral Griffith wrote:Do you even know how the Chinese swords were made? I doubt it from your posting. The smith would take a plate of metal, hammer it down as thin and straight as he could, fold it over, and repeat the process until he was rewarded with an extremely sharp, durable sword. Trust me, if it can't cut plate armour, it'll at least do as well as a large mace.HemlockGrey wrote:When I was visisting Britian this summer, I went to Warwick Castle, where I proceeded to watch a man don plate armor, pick up a halberd, run and skip, battle for twenty minutes, all without becoming the least bit exhausted.
Further, the other man's broadsword failed to make so much as a dent on his armor. Having seen Asiatic swords up close, I am highly doubtful of their capability to penetrate plate armor.
No it won't. Cutting swords do not do well against armor. No army in history has ever used them for that purpose. They are too light. A mace works because it's heavier, and more of its mass is concentrated at the head, where the striking point is.Admiral Griffith wrote:Do you even know how the Chinese swords were made? I doubt it from your posting. The smith would take a plate of metal, hammer it down as thin and straight as he could, fold it over, and repeat the process until he was rewarded with an extremely sharp, durable sword. Trust me, if it can't cut plate armour, it'll at least do as well as a large mace.HemlockGrey wrote:When I was visisting Britian this summer, I went to Warwick Castle, where I proceeded to watch a man don plate armor, pick up a halberd, run and skip, battle for twenty minutes, all without becoming the least bit exhausted.
Further, the other man's broadsword failed to make so much as a dent on his armor. Having seen Asiatic swords up close, I am highly doubtful of their capability to penetrate plate armor.
The Mongols would be far more difficult to catch by surprise than the Magyars.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Given proper conditions (Like those the Emperor Otto the Great engineered at Lechfeld against the Magyars), the armoured lancer can totally annihilate light cavalry.
?Oh, absolutely, but you massively overestimate the ease that the Mongols had in annihilating the Hungarians at the Sajo River. Bela III's deployment was quite intelligent and the Mongols under Subedei barely were able to penetrate it; had that area not been diverted from their attention by the first assaults they might have successfully blocked the Mongol flanking manoeuvre and proceeded to beat them back, or fall back on Buda in good order under the cover of their laager, depending on how badly they handled the Mongols in repulsing them.
I doubt that the Mongols would cross the Alps, anyway, and I do have faith in the Italian's ability to threaten a horse army.In a defensive position in the English terrain, I would not want to be a light cavalry army. Likewise, the Italian communes could muster more than enough troops with pike, crossbow and pavise, which positioned in the passes, on the rivers and in the rough terrain of Italy at the time would easily prevent the Mongols from taking that region.
Except a formation of pikes with enough iron to stand its ground.The western style was never a melee. The western way of war is disciplined shock action, against which nothing can stand
The current way of war is more closely related to that of the horse peoples.and is why it has remained the ideal of western armies.
Unfortunately, the tendency for the uncontrolled charge is a rather large weakness against such an army as the Mongols.Even knights had a modicum of order in their attacks; it is just the lack of a formal rank structure that causes problems for some authorship.
Lechfield only succeeded because the Germans were able to achieve surprise and trap their enemies against a convenient terrain feature. The Mongols have far better reconnaissance and better commanders than the Magyars, and it would be difficult to trap them so.The only way to defeat armies of the western type is to outmanoeuvre them or to overwhelm them by sheer numbers. Certainly the Mongols were capable of the first and did so repeatedly in the less conscripted terrain of eastern Europe, but in Western Germany, in the regions around Lechfeld, it had already been demonstrated that the heavy charge of feudal lancers could cut a light cavalry force to ribbons -- And even the French or Frederick II or both together succeeding in this against the Mongols is not impossible.
Oh, good, and if he hits 1 degree off angle it will snap in half. It's too thin and there's not enough force in the blow to do anything to plate mail.Do you even know how the Chinese swords were made? I doubt it from your posting. The smith would take a plate of metal, hammer it down as thin and straight as he could, fold it over, and repeat the process until he was rewarded with an extremely sharp, durable sword. Trust me, if it can't cut plate armour, it'll at least do as well as a large mace.
Since you seem to have a bad case of MOB (Mystical Oriental Bastard) syndrome, I'll explain how good quality European/Middle Eastern swords were made. Even the Vikings knew how to make layered steel weapons, and they are well before the high Medieval period.Admiral Griffith wrote:Do you even know how the Chinese swords were made? I doubt it from your posting. The smith would take a plate of metal, hammer it down as thin and straight as he could, fold it over, and repeat the process until he was rewarded with an extremely sharp, durable sword. Trust me, if it can't cut plate armour, it'll at least do as well as a large mace.
I'll concede this point on the basis that I don't know enough about the topic to disprove it.Graeme Dice wrote:Since you seem to have a bad case of MOB (Mystical Oriental Bastard) syndrome, I'll explain how good quality European/Middle Eastern swords were made. Even the Vikings knew how to make layered steel weapons, and they are well before the high Medieval period.Admiral Griffith wrote:Do you even know how the Chinese swords were made? I doubt it from your posting. The smith would take a plate of metal, hammer it down as thin and straight as he could, fold it over, and repeat the process until he was rewarded with an extremely sharp, durable sword. Trust me, if it can't cut plate armour, it'll at least do as well as a large mace.
Damascus blades, which were made in India and distributed through Damascus were made from a piece of high-carbon steel folded over and over again. The folding causes carbon to leave and you get alternating layers of hard and soft steel. You can acid-etch it to get nice wavy lines if you want it to look good. Enough of the impurities got hammered out to make it a durable sword.
Toledo swords were made by cold-forging hard high carbon steel and soft low carbon steel together, then folding them repeatedly. These end up being more flexible and tougher than Damascus blades.
Conceded again on the basis that I don't know anything that can disprove it. Well, at least not yet, anyways.Perinquus wrote:No it won't. Cutting swords do not do well against armor. No army in history has ever used them for that purpose. They are too light. A mace works because it's heavier, and more of its mass is concentrated at the head, where the striking point is.
Japanese swords were even better made than Chinese ones, and the Japanese never used them for that. On the battlefield, against heavily armored opponents, the Japanese used the yari (a triangular headed spear), the naginata (a kind of halberd), and the bow. Against armored opponents, the sword was strictly a weapon of last resort.
I'm sorry, but wtf is Green Destiny? And I mistakenly exaggerated the bashing ability of the sword. Perhaps more like a metal bar? The fact remains that you can theoretically bash with them. And they work well enough against unarmored foes. If all that's left for the Chinese to fight is the plate-armoured knights, it's not gonna last very long after that.Raxmei wrote:The Green Destiny isn't real, you know. We are aware that that the Chinese made good swords. That doesn't mean they can cut through metal plate. And they will not do as well as a large mace. Swords are balanced completely wrong for bashing.
Perhaps Kuan Yu's Qing Long Yan Yue Dao (Green Dragon, Moon chopping sword...we Chinese have a way with names...)?Admiral Griffith wrote: I'm sorry, but wtf is Green Destiny?
