So what was it like to be a soldier? Well, lets say you’re serving in Caesar’s Gallic Wars. You’ve just marched 40 miles for the third day in a row, and now the old bastard wants you to dig a huge trench, erect a bigger wall, cut down hundreds of trees, and construct fortifications all the way around the unbreakable city of Alesia. And when you’re done with that, you’ll do it again, only longer this time and facing out because there’s a huge army of Gauls coming ready to fuck your shit up if they can. But you build the inner and outer walls in time (big walls. 18 feet high, thick, wooden monstrosities), and when the Gallic army reaches Alesia, you spear ‘em (with your standard issue javelin) to death as they try to overcome the walls, and you’ll probably hop down to mix it up in the muck near the stream you couldn’t really block with your walls. A huge bastard with spikey hair charges you, but your comrade helps you absorb the charge on your fuckhuge shield and then you stab the barbarian, right between his ribs. And when that’s over you steal all his shit and go home because the city of Alesia has starved to death and you get to sack it. And then you get laid. A lot.

Why did it rock? Discipline, Organization, Logistics, Flexibility, Numbers. These fuckers would build a road to your village so they could bring along wonderful siege equipment and then they could have a pleasant walk home after killing you. Oh, and if you somehow beat the first army they sent, another would be along before harvest time to slaughter you then (Italy was fertile enough to support quite a large population, especially in antiquity.). Remember, the Pyrrhic victory is a roman invention.
Well then, why did they ever fail? Primarily, idiotic commanders. The kind who like to march through the thick forest…. Filled with Germans…. Who know the land…. (looking at you, Varrus!) Or the kind who march onto a flat plain to take on an army of horse archers (What were you thinking, Crassus?). Sometimes they just lost, like at the Battle of Cannae, where Hannibal enveloped and destroyed a Roman Army despite huge disadvantages because he’s a tactical fucking genius.

Your turn, /tg/. Talk about armies and war before guns came and changed the game.

If you take away the elves and dwarves and magic stuff, this is what you'd be playing, /tg/. This is where it starts, in the muck with screaming all around you, where a soldier might dream of an elf because that is so much better than the agony of having a big teutonic bastard break your other arm with his pole-axe.

/tg/ Are you not entertained? Are the mongols too grimdark for you? Does OC have no value here anymore? Is this not why you are here?

Or are you here for the gay elf prostitutes?

Bump because I fucking love me some Rome

The medieval soldier, specifically the mid 15th century north-west European soldier, and at that, primarily the English ones in the first half of the wars of the roses (apparently referred to at the time as the 'cousins war'). It can't hurt to be specific.

The main type of soldier during this period of intermittent warfare was what is often referred to as the retainer. These were men who were retained by their lords under contracts of livery and maintenance, meaning that they wore their lords badge and did his work in return for payment. Payment could be in forms other than money, but mostly was in the form of cash.

These men would generally be well provided for in terms of equipment as the culture of the time made a great show of generosity as a virtue, as well as displaying wealth and power through generosity. This, in combination with advances in creation of quality metals and other economic changes since the 1300s, meant that the typical retainer infantryman was surprisingly armoured, often with some form of plate body armour such as a brigandine or breast (and occasionally back) plate. Limb defenses were less common, and gauntlets downright unusual. Mail in this period was far less common, but when used it was mostly in addition to plate armour and mostly in pieces covering the arms, neck (in the form of whats known as a 'standard', similar to the later 'bishop's mantle' but much smaller) and a skirt to cover the groin.

Macedonian Phalanx

Your awesome, brilliant, magnificent general orders you forward, you and your bros have 20ft pointy sticks and impale pretty much anything in front of you. You take the enemies treasure, shake their hands and culturally assimilate them afterwards.

Then you go back to your camp and get it on with your bros, if youre lucky you can get some delicious Alexandercock.

>>12808537
Dude I would actually be balls deep in your thread and I liked reading it, but I gotta go to bed because it's 3:30 a.m. and I gotta catch some sleep and then a bus in 4 hours.

>>12808567
>delicious Alexandercock

I'll give you that on proper terrain and with a decent commander and army (ie, no fuckups) a Phalanx/Shock Cavalry combo was incredibly devastating, and probably the most devastating army composition of the day, but it was hard to use properly (you needed a very skilled commander!) and inflexible in confined spaces like valleys or forests. That's why I'm more of a AncientRomeFag than AncientMacedoniaFag.

Britfag here, English longbowmen fuck your shit up. Im looking at you French Nobility.

>>12808634

I lolled, then I raged.

>>12808537
>mongols
>romans

Sigh

But the French won the war. The English, like Hannibal, could win their victory but they could not keep it.

>>12808620

I very much agree with you, the inflexibility of the Phalanx meant it'd be utterly destroyed in pretty much every scenario after the fall of the Republic, but my uni course (4 years) was entirely on Rome, it got really boring really fast (only so many times you can learn about what constitutes a legion :( ), hence Macedonia fetish.

In an unrelated note, any place for Carthage in this thread? Do you accept the theory that their lightly armed, flexible troops were the inspiration for the professional auxilia employed in Imperial Rome?

>>12808554

These men formed the core of large armies, but the common soldier was a different prospect. When large numbers of troops were needed, those involved would send out commissions asking for troops from the settlements in their control, where men would muster and be inspected, with their equipment and abilities noted in muster rolls, of which several survive. It seems that people would bring equipment they could not use or too much, probably expecting it to be redistributed to those who needed it and be payed for this in turn. It seems that when possible, only the better men were selected (as finances available were very limited), but necessity for simple numbers must have prevailed at points.

Throughout the wars of the roses the archer was in a state of decline as fewer were available to hire, but when they were hired they received a notably better amount of pay. Foreign ambassador's letters note a general state of being impressed on just how well equipped English infantry was, with every archer apparently having a helmet and jack (a many layered fabric jacket form of armour) in addition to their bow, arrows and usually a sword and buckler (a small shield). Other apparent favorite weapons of the English were the Bill (a polearm derived from the farming tool of the same name), the pollaxe (for nobles at least, often referred to as just an axe or battleaxe) and the large bladed spear known by the moniker of 'Ox tongue' for its similarity in shape.

The problem I'm finding with your thread is that it requires to much research beforehand to be conducted properly. Romans? Cool. Army strategies, composition, advanced tactics? I don't know any of that stuff!

>>12808692
>implying the Hundred years war ended with the english being invaded by france

Pretty sure England was England and France was France.

I was always under the impression that Carthage used Mercenaries as much as anything else, being essentially the TraderJews of the Mediterranean (seriously. Carthaginians were a semetic people, like the Jews and Arabs and similar. Its hilarious once you realize this, and also that they were renowned bankers)

Let us also remember the Swiss Pike scourge, which was essentially a phalanx that would charge you.

>>12808719

Normandy was English at the time

>>12808734

Very true, the Carthaginians were extremely rich and could afford mercenaries, theres a theory floating around that the Sacred Band inspired the Auxilia

>>12808719

Not quite. Some territories in France had been under English rule for nearly 300 years. Also, the French later lent troops to Henry VI's queen (who was French, Henry being in the Tower of London at the time) in her bid to retake England and then form an alliance with France to take on Burgundy. Her attempt ended in defeat at the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471, which whilst some time after the end of the Hundred Years War, was just one of many French incursions into England (with the others mostly being raids on the coast.)

>>12808767
>Normandy was English at the time

That has nothing to do wit.... Nevermind. What I meant was, comparing England and France to Rome and Carthage is stupid because the outcomes are nothing alike.

Ok we need an EgyptGuy, GreeceGuy, GaulGuy, ParthianGuy, and SeleucidGuy in this thread immediately. Also a bunch of other guys to take the middle ages and run with that. And DEFINATELY some crazy MongolGuy, he conquers the world because Subotai was the single most brilliant commander in the history of warfare.

>>12808783
>Not quite.

Yes quite. You've shown you have knowledge of english and french struggles, but the point was england was not successfully invaded by france because the french are pansies.

>>12808813
>Mongols
>brilliance

No.

>>12808331
Wait Hanniball is a tactical genius? I can see it now:
"Commander Terrentius! Commander Terrentius!, we have their celtic infantry on the run" "Ahh very good, I can see our javelins sticking out of their dirty flesh from here." Terrentius was sure victory would come. "Soon all those Carthaginians will be dead Ha!" But wait what was that! that hill... no it could not be... there never was a hill. The hill concealed a war elephant. "What! no this cannot be, it must of taken a tactical geni- HAAAAAAAAANNNNNNIBAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!!!"

>>12808761
And before that, the Swiss halberd scourge that later had to be combined with the longspear so that they didn't just get run down by heavy cavalry when outside of favourable terrain.

The norman invasion of england was a french invasion.

>>12808734
And of course they were genocided by a superior Indo-European people, much like the Jews

>>12808818
Seconded.

Far too much mongol fellating goes on, its like its replaced the samurai myth thingy.

>>12808841
Assuming you're referring to >>12808719

Once again, it was talking about the aftermath of the hundred years war. And seeing as how William was an enemy of the French king, I can hardly consider his invasion a French one.

>>12808818

Subotai was the single most successful commander in the history of warfare. He commanded an army that conquered almost all of asia. On horseback!

Now the Mongol Empire fell into the same problem Alexander's did after he and the last great Kahn died, but that doesn't mean he's not brilliant.

>>12808813
>Rome Total War

Oh boy!

>>12808884

No but it does mean far too much gets attributed directly to him and they myth of the unbeatable horse archer, rather than the conditions under which his army was able to do such, and the subordinates which actually did most of the work.

>>12808884
Oh god what the hell am I reading? Alexander fought real armies with the odds against him. Genghis, and all his bastard spawn, just focused constantly on cowardly lightning attacks against unsuspecting enemy armies. The mongols were shit tier when forced to fight a real army on the field. Plus, there's the fact that Alexander DIDN'T MASSACRE EVERY DAMN CITY HE CONQUERED. Wow real fucking great empire you got there mongols. How many civilians did you have to kill in order to ensure your little garrisons could maintain order? 50 million total? 100 million?

>>12808867

Look, the Mongols were wildly successful. This is not some bullshit "samurai are awesome" made up idiocy, the Mongols went out and conquered shit. Were they unbeatable? HELL NO! With the right terrain, the right preparation, a few hundred men could have slaughtered thousands of Mongolians.... except, with Subotai commanding, they never got into those "fuck we're all going to be slaughtered and we can't fight back" situations. Now the Mongols did after he died, of course, but not while he was alive.

Also for the record the Katana is one of the shittiest swords and if I could take any other sword I would. Actually, no; give me a pole arm.

The most important part of any battle, especially ancient ones, is force cohesion. Equipment, fighting styles and terrain mattered much less than how well a force fought together and how it resisted being routed. This was the key to any ancient military force.

Take the Mongols. They had been using the same tactics and equipment for generations (mostly generic horse nomad stuff), and changed very little during the formation of their empire. So why did they go from an obscure nomadic tribe to rulers of the largest land empire in history?

The answer is cohesion. Ghenghis Khan made the Mongols the most tightly knit military force anywhere on Earth. Leaving a man from your unit behind was punished by execution. The term "Mongol hordes" is misleading because it is plural. It was not a collection of individuals. It was more like one very large person.

This is how 90,000 Mongols killed 500,000 Chinese soldiers in one battle. They were fighting individuals. The only military able to stand against the Mongols were the Mamluks, who were like Mongols but better.

Cataprachts here. Fuck your coach Romans.

>>12808841
I thought that the normans were norse who settled that bit of northern france?

Is anyone else thinking of the Lord of the Rings movies?

Or are they a terrible example?

>>12808898

Would you rather I use the term Pahlava? Parthian was the roman term for the state that consisted of Persia and the middle east east of the fertile crescent. There was also a bactrian greek-style state there for a while, in about modern day pakistan.
Rome Total War is the arcade version of history. I happen to prefer the real thing.

>>12808970
Not really. Some portion of the nobility would've been ethnically of scandinavian descent, but they spoke a french language and had a french culture and such.

>>12808956
Mamluks couldn't save Bagdad.

>>12808969
The Eastern Roman Empire had those things too.

>>12809010
What about catapracht chariots?

The Chinese had some pretty hardcore armies. Different playbook when it came to tactics and strategies, different views on war, and it is a shame that they never independently adapted firearms on the level of those that came about in the west, otherwise contemporary military strategy would be very different.

Middle eastern armies... actually, I liked the way the Berbers/Arabs fought at sea after the conquest of Muslim spain. Quickly come up with skiff, demand surrender, if that failed toss firepots and zoom out. They weren't too shabby on land either, as they eventually took down the Byzantines, although it took a while. Light infantry/cavalry was present, yes.

>>12808921
On plains or steppes, though, how do you beat horse archers without horse archers of your own? Longbows? But then you can't pursue... and they will steal your supplies if you try.

Not trolling, I literally have no idea how you would go about beating a mildly competent horse archer army without your own horse archers before gunpowder. Maybe crossbows? Pavise shields would be rather handy....

The Hussite wars of 1419 to 1434 were one the defining points of late medieval warfare.

5 successive crusades were beaten back from Bohemia, initially under the command of the undefeated Jan Žižka, who started the war with only one eye, and fought his later battle blind. The distinctive features of this war are centered around the Hussites themselves, their opponents being fairly typical mounted nobility and infantry forces. These features that made the Hussites a distinct and highly successful force came from the original soldiers being peasantry, with farming tools and most importantly wagons. The wagonburg, that is a fort made of wagons (as seen in many westerns) was when combined with a highly skilled leader with an eye (well, before he lost it) for terrain and a bundle of cunning, a highly effective defense against the key weapon of the time: heavy cavalry.

The key to the wagonburg as a successful tactic was not just people fighting from protected positions, but use of large amounts of gunpowder weapons in the form of small cannon, along with every other ranged weapon available, right down to children armed with slings. this enabled the Hussites to break up and demoralize attackers and then to swiftly counter with light infantry, typically armed with spears, flails and other polearms. as the war dragged on the Hussite could add increasingly high quality equipment (much of it looted from the invading armies) and greater support from nobles in Bohemia, so that they gained a notable cavalry force of their own, which they used to ride out from the wagonburg and counterattack. Infantry with polearms remained an important element throughout the wars, and eventually their greatest weapon was their reputation, leading to opposing armies fleeing before combat even commenced in several cases.

>>12809113

Well, they are technically light cavalry, but also archers. So, if you could somehow lure them close enough to take a charge from heavy cavalry, probably screening the Heavy Cavalry charge with your infantry until they got close, it might work. So, Macedonian shield and sword formation.

>>12809088
Could you go more in depth about how they fought war differently? Cuz I've always thought it didn't make any sense that China didn't go conquer the world in one of their many golden ages before Europe got to it first.

>>12808884Now the Mongol Empire fell into the same problem Alexander's did after he and the last great Kahn died, but that doesn't mean he's not brilliant.

Except they got through their problem, it lasted for generations after their deaths.

>>12808981
>bactrian greek-style state

Pretty sure you can just call them Bactria. Or the Kushan empire.

>>12809150
Except they didn't, because the mongol empire was a loose collection of tributary states nominally swearing allegiance to the Yuan dynasty in China.

>>12808973
Nobody? Nobody at all?

>>12809132
>china
>why didn't they conquer the world

You need to stop playing so much EU3

Alexander used exactly the same strategy as the Mongols for conquering cities, towns and civilizations.

All who surrender will be spared; whoever does not surrender but opposes with struggle and dissension, shall be annihilated!!!

>>12808696
The makedonian phalanx was pretty much flat out superior to the roman heavy infantry on the field. The flexibility of the manipular system was more or less irrelevant faced with an immovable block of troops. The Roman conquest of the various succesor kingdoms was to some extent attributable to their superior strategic mobility but that had relatively little to do with their tactical manoeuvrability.

>>12809113
>Mongols are the Best!
>most of the land they conquered was empty steppeland

>>12809181
Nope. The mongols didn't offer terms of surrender. The persian empire was not depopulated by alexander's conquests. Asia still is suffering the effects of depopulation by the mongol conquests.

>>12809183
Agreed. It was also much more expensive. It was also much harder to train soldiers to do. So while Alexander would have rumbled the Roman maniples, he wasn't around to do the job. Or train the troops. Or.... whatever.
>>12809185
Agreed. But steppeland is great grazing territory! Good for horses, don't you think?
>>12809179
You seriously don't find this question interesting? My guess Europeans just culturally looked outward for expansion/progress and not every culture does that.

>>12809088
>they eventually took down the byzantines

Have you actually read a history book or did you just hear it second hand from someone you know?

>>12809132

Certainly, although in what age in particular? Are we talking in comparison to Rome, or in comparison to Medieval Europe?

Generally speaking, they made heavy use of crossbows, eventually inventing the repeating crossbow, although that's more of a niche weapon. They switched from levies to professionals fairly early on. Infantry forces were fairly flexible, and most of the pros carried both crossbows and close range weapons. Conscripts were still used, and with simple to learn crossbows, but the core of the armies were elites. Cavalry was utilized, including mounted archers. Eventually, they got the recurve bow,

As opposed to medieval Europe, China picked up on the idea of maneuver warfare rather quickly, but psychological tricks were very popular. Lots of feints, psyche warfare, morale lowering and boosting operations. Military intelligence had a much greater emphasis. In Europe it wasn't until Italian conroi picked up on the idea of putting your opponent into a position in which he could die or surrender that maneuver war got big in Europe.

>>12809223
>You seriously don't find this question interesting? My guess Europeans just culturally looked outward for expansion/progress and not every culture does that.

NOOOOOOOOO I don't actually. Because I know why they didn't.

Europe was the good lands in the far west

China+Korea and Japan are the good lands in the far east

Europe was dominated by shitty little kingdoms fighting each other and needing resources to fight

China was one big fat empire that was relatively solid most of the time

America was only 3000 miles from europe, but it was 6000 from china doesn't really compare to europe or japan in terms of seamanship

China is most of the good lands in the far east. There's also little Korea and isolated Japan.

Finally,

To the east of China there was sea
To the west there are mountains
To the south are jungles
To the north are deserts

There was nothing worth conquering

>>12809185
>Mongols are the Best!
>most of the land they conquered was empty steppeland

>LOL empty steppeland
There were people living there faggot. In quantities comparable to europe
also
>LOL China
>LOL Khalifates

>>12809240

Have you read a history book? I mean sure, the Bulgars assaulted Byzantium as well, and the fourth crusade fucked up Constantinople, and Belisarius's conquests were aborted and just became a costly military adventure that further strained the economy, but feh.

Yes, the Caliphate took over the lands that belonged to Byzantium... well, the Turks technically, although they considered themselves to be the Caliphate, although their authority was not recognized universally, they were the strongest ones claiming the title... ever read Islamic history?

>>12809251
That makes sense.... you'd think that the Europeans would have figured out this whole maneuver warfare thing earlier, what with their taking prisoners (and then ransoming them for lots of cash!) like a chivalrous dude policy.

>>12809223
I agree you pretty much need professional soldiers for a sarissa phalanx (whatever about hoplites) but the Romans did fight in phalanxes in the early republic, and they did have a professional army during the imperial period. It would've been perfectly possible for them to adopt the sarissa, they just chose not to.

I mean, the had their reasons, of course; they adopted the manipular system during the samnite wars where they were pretty much fighting the ancient equivalent of guerillas, and the celtiberians and such probably weren't great at heavy infantry. And it's probably harder to march holding a sarissa than a couple of pila.

I just don't like people assuming that because the Romans won the wars, their individual soldiers must've been superior to their enemies. That's not how it works.

>Mixing up Roman Armies with Medieval Armies

Oh /tg/ I expected better

Spear and Shield


/thread

>>12809266
Well that makes sense. Why didn't you just say that to begin with?

>>12809251
>China picked up on the idea of maneuver warfare rather quickly

Contrary to popular belief, maneuver was an integral part of medieval european warfare, but due to the organization this was mostly on a small scale (there are surviving books which detail cavalry tactics and various ploys involving terrain and other elements of the army and so on) as whilst armies were typically divided into 3 segments or 'Battles', command had to be left to the leaders of each section as the structure and system for greater co-ordination past the initial deployment and plan, simply didn't and in all likelihood couldn't exist.

The Italian form of war by maneuver was pretty much entirely centered on their culture and its method of warfare through mercenaries, who quickly realized that both victory and defeat were bad for profits. This ended quite solidly when France invaded in 1494 as they were not playing by the same rules.

crossbows helped against steppe nomads

a general under Han Wudi said "Barbarians of all directions fear the crossbow"

>>12808707
Pretty much this.

>>12808828
Gee, those guys look so damn... jolly.

>>12809339

I fail to see how that refutes what I am saying. Circa? Still later than China. The only date I heard was in 1494, after being invented by the italians. It was picked up and polished off even further by Frederick later on, although everyone in Europe was herp derping over Napolean's retarded concept of total war.

>>12808537

>gay elf prostitutes

I wish.

>>12809300
Oh goodness no. I've always figured: 1 roman vs 1 gaul = 1 dead roman. 100 romans vs 100 gauls = 10 dead romans, 100 dead gauls.
Soldiers in formation fought as a unit. Now the romans dug like moles so they'd win any digging or road building competition, but some sort of "ONE GLADIUS vs ONE PIKE' duel thing just makes no sense.

>>12809223
Ancient China looked down on pretty much every other culture. They thought they were the best, and had nothing to gain from going off and wailing on savages. Why invade someone if there is nothing to gain?

>>12809322
Because the idea that anyone could conquer the whole world in olden times is so silly that you deserved a stern rebuke.

>>12809368

And yes, before you point it out, Frederick came before Napolean, but many of the things he said were ignored by everyone but the Prussians and thus the Germans in the face of derp total war.

No one has yet mentioned sparta...

>>12809414
Why was total war derp again?

>>12809411
The idea that anyone could conquer the world in ANY time period via force is silly.

>>12809282
My god you're defensive. Are you angry because you realized the stupidity of your earlier statement? Oh and I suppose that being "the Caliphate" makes the Turks the same thing as the Arabs? Nevermind that they didn't even claim the Caliph title until after Byzantium had already fallen, and they claimed the title Roman emperor long before that.

>>12809444

The word usually used is "Arabicate" or "Islamicate". Yes, the Ghazi of the Turks claimed to be the heirs to Rome, just like contemporary Russia and Byzantium, and they eventually claimed to be Caliphs, although I'm pretty sure they were saying that kind of thing already, just among themselves. I don't recall the exact date, but I remember them closing off Jerusalem some time during the crusades...

Saying "Turks" or "Arabs" or "Muslims" regarding anything in the Middle East is riddled with flaws, primarily because everyone there was fairly cosmopolitan. The leaders may have been Turkish, but the force was likely a mix of Arabs, Turks, Kurds, and anyone else they could find. Religiously, they were likely mixed, but predominantly Muslim.

Turkish leadership among the Ottomans incorporated Roman, traditional Ghazi, and elements from the Caliphate.

>>12809430

Because you created a legion of enemies for yourself, and set yourself up for massive devastation during times of war, as became apparent during the 30 years war.

byzantines-especially pre-manzikert.

strong medium infantry (referenced specifically as hoplites by leo the wise) backed by skirmish infantry and cavalry. they were a powerful shock force and well able to win wars alone. but the real battle winner was the cavalry-the famous cataphracts, who used mixed formations of lancers and archers to utterly devastating effect. this combined arms force, in the hands of an emperor who could trust his commanders, was effectively invincible in its day and age. hell-even the defeat at manzikert was primarily because diogenes was betrayed by his generals; but for that he could have forced an (admittedly bloody) vitcory.

>>12809411
You can't conquer the world in a day. But in a hundred years.... not everyone has to bow to you, but if your ships are in all the harbors, if your language is spoken in every port, if your cultural output is the hottest new thing on the block.... you may as well rule the goddamn world.

And this is why America rules. /thread /ohgodexplosions

>>12809421
Because the spartans were pretty derp about war. "hur lets focus entirely on heavy infantry so we get destroyed by a few assholes with spears that we can't catch"
>>12809430
Rome: Total War: Derp because they made the Egyptians look like something out of the Mummy, and thats only the first of many crimes.
Europa Barbarorum, a good if very spergtastic mod, tries to bring the realism.

>>12809380
Okay I'm not quite sure if I'm disagreeing or not here. I was saying the roman manipular legion was tactically superior on the battlefield against most light-to-medium-infantry-based armies out there (gauls, germans, etc) but inferior to the makedonian-style sarissa phalanx + heavy cavalry armies. Some guy earlier on seemed to be implying that Scipio's army would've beaten Seleukos's or whatever, which I think is pretty much wrong.

I was being hyperbolic reducing to one-on-one duels to show the silliness of assuming that the Roman conquest of the Hellenistic world relied on one legion lining up against one phalanx.

>>12808652
I know its a late post but I felt this needed to be posted

>>12808696

It went far beyond that, my friend. Even the widely-used Gladius, the Legion's primary close-in weapon, and their heavy shields were supposedly derived from the Iberians, who had been heavily influenced by Carthagnian colonization.

One could say that, where the Greeks begat the idea of a standardized combined-arms military, the Carthaginians furthered that idea of a complex, mixed force, while the Romans focused almost entirely on perfecting the simple infantry force.

A fool could successfully lead a Legion where he would have no chance at controlling a Greek or Carthaginian one.

/tg/ - /k/

>>12809482
Since I do intend to make a wargame out of ancient war shit one day, this is a good place for it.
>>12809480
Again, agreed. The Roman army used what worked and was nearly uniform. And this is why they succeeded. The few times they had to go up against true nasty heavy shit, like cataphracts or phalanx infantry, they cheated. They gave the local levies slings, 1 lb lead balls to hurl, and let em loose.
Better a swiss army knife in a thousand pinches than a thousand tools each fitting one specific pinch.

>>12809480
Pitched battles involving only legionaries with no auxilia support was pretty damned rare, you know. And the Makedonians weren't considered Greeks at the time - the Greeks "proper" weren't huge fans of combined arms unless you count a couple of psiloi no-one ever gave a fuck about. And the main skill a Carthaginian commander needed was the ability to convince his troops they'd eventually get paid.

>>12808734
TraderJews is still the best joke in this thread. Although that Crecy bit comes close for "FUCK YEAH" ness.

>>12809466
Ohh, my good fuck. I hate you guys. And i hate all those poorly educated fucks that only cnow that english had bowmet at battle of Crecy, but act like they actualy understand what realy happened there and making some judgements.

>>12809576
Seems to me it was about killing from a distance, not close up and 'noble' anymore..... at least, thats what I got from the comic.

Captcha: uninican legis. Appropriate.

>>12809612
Ohh no, idea of this comic and many other people that are talking about Crecy is 'lol longbowmagic killing knights and do not ofraid of anything' bows were used for along time befor that battle and after, but they werent able to render knights obsolete. And longbows werent main reason of french defeat at Crecy.

>>12809612
The English army wasn't all that much less noble-heavy than the French one. And professional soldier was a fairly middle-class job, to use a gross anachronism. And longbows weren't all that big a deal compared to arbalests and such. And the "English" soldiers were fairly likely to be Gascons or whatever, and to speak French. And many, many other stupid ahistorical things. But it's a comic so I'm not sure why that guy's so bothered about it.

>>12809655
Im bothered right because of this comic and other things hordes of retards getting wrong idea about knights and their usefulness. And then post their annoying opinions about this stuff, i usualy ignore this stuff and do not give a shit, but this comic somehow affected me.
While i happen to hold some knowledge ower this subject, because im kind of english medieval military geek.

>>12809655
I agree with you and I'm not on the whole "longbows are gamebreakers" bandwagon but I think it would rattle quite a bit to be pelted with arrows in full armor. I'm sure it at least disoriented the dudes in plate.

>>12809717
Yeah, the comic is pretty retarded/offensive/whatever, having a proletarian Englishman being a revolutionary marxist and yet somehow not guillotining the Black Prince. But, you know, at least there aren't shitting dicknipples or loli generals involved. It could be worse.

Christ you guys... you grognardy bastards.

I want to read more about the materials used in ancient warfare. When steel started to predominate? Where and how the weapons were produced?

>>12810069
The thing was, they had 'steel' but we'd hardly call it that. Some iron deposits had more carbon in them, certain forging techniques can slip a little carbon into the steel (folding, essentially. blargh, stupid Japan has shitty iron so they have to fold. Not so with iron from spain).

But the problem was volume. Not every person in an army could have a mail shirt, cuz a mail shirt was bloody expensive. So a lot of people brought their own armor, much like knights would later. The roman army eventually changed policies and issued chain vests to whatever jerk joined up and went through training, so they were OMGLEETHAX cuz they had access to a LOT of iron for armor making. And weapon making.

Oh, and it is more complicated than that. A lot of romans wanted to redistribute land to the poor so they could afford their own armor again without costing the state but a lot of rich buggers in the senate were making money off of massive slave farming schemes (using up all that precious state land) so they opposed this. And this resentment boiled and bubbled and there were a few civil wars fought over the whole thing.

>>12810288folding, essentially. blargh, stupid Japan has shitty iron so they have to fold. Not so with iron from spain).

seriously is it possible to discuss history without SHITSUCKS GOOKSWORDS about japan

>>12810301

Well.... I went through a shameful, brief phase of katanafellation, so I kind of need to make up for it.

Also they really did have crappy iron. Really shitty.

>>12810288
I am actually interested in the economy behind military production. Who "owned" the smiths and mining operations?

Now for something else: the transition from lorica hamata to lorica segmentata; improvement or simply a cheaper replacement?

>>12810370
Landowners owned the smiths, bought the raw materials, sold the products for profit. One senator got obscenely rich by inventing the military industrial complex, and would constantly agitate for war against this or that so he could sell some product.

Lorica Segmentata provides slightly less overall protection (easier to slip a dagger in, see) with the upside of being super easy to repair/replace on the move. Better a little sheet with a hole punched in it that a tiny iron ring....

An army consisting entirely of the citizens of the state. Armed in the most expensive armor and armed with a spear and sword. Trained to fight in formation and hold the line, even against overwhelming odds.

Pictured destroying the poorly equipped and poorly trained rabble of the East.

>>12810482
>>12810425
First is greek and for a while roman way, second is post-marian roman way.

Yeah go too far east and they all but pressganged you into the army.

>>12808652
>Britfag here, English longbowmen fuck your shit up. Im looking at you French Nobility.

Frenchfag here, being the prime force of heavy cavalry in Europe and the terror of the fat italian cities.

Oh, see this? These fortificatins ruined City-States and Nations as far up north as Sweden. Guess why they were build? Because they were afraid of me. Enjoy your Ireland.

>I am actually interested in the economy behind military production. Who "owned" the smiths and mining operations?

Depends on time&place. In the region of the Agean sea, the army bought its arms and armour in the cities, out at the Frontrier in Germany&Great Britannia they manufactured it themselves. Those were the extremes anyway.
Economy in Rome apparently changed from regular mass-manufacturing to small-scale production after the slave revolts too, apparently.

how about stuff like the Russian army which was pretty much impossible to fight in Russia, everyone who tried to invade them ended up facing this strategy: fall back and burn/destroy all resources that you can't take, by the time they reached any major city or military position they would undergo at least one winter and no matter how many Russians killed there will always be more

>>12810710
Someone recalls the original purpose of this thread.
I weep.

The pre-Marian soldier supplied his own equipment and served as light, heavy, hoplite, or cavalry depending on how much money he had. The state never controlled production because it didn't need to supply weapons or armor.

>>12810621

fuck yes starforts, so awesome

(not pre-gunpowder though)

>>12810710
In the case of the Napoleonic wars, yes. Because the Russians got crushed in early battles and had no other option.

Oh it sucks to be russian nowdays.

>>12810755
actually since the have so much land and people that's what they do for almost every invader who didn't invade near or around winter (those people almost all died anyway) and has been guaranteed to do this pre Peter The great since there military dies at like a 3:1 ratio in good circumstances back then

>>12810802
Enjoy your novgorodian steel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgmsjezMC7c

>>12810710
Invading any large nation is usually a really bad idea. Even a place like Brazil would be hell to subdue.

Romethread time. Gonna post shit about Roman customs. Maybe you'll get some ideas.
"City Guards" don't properly exist. There's kind of a neighborhood watch scheme in the poorer parts of the city, but its a protection racket as much as anything else. Still, wariness of strangers is a way of life - and if you steal something and are seen, they will chase you.
People don't go around wearing togas. Those are for formal things at the Curia, Senate, or Courts. Business is done in tunics. Nobody goes around wearing armor in the city unless they are looking for trouble.
The roads in Italy proper are pretty good. You probably won't get robbed.
Assassination? Assassination.
The local protection racket is actually a religious shrine to the lares and penates of the crossroads. No one is sure why.

Gladiatorial combat was more about the spectacle than anything else. But if it was depraved and possibly violent, the romans put it on as a show for the plebians. Any citizen could come to the colliseum. Men and women could sit together in the hippodrome - chariot races were serious business.
Chariot races weren't teams, they were colors. Red blue yelow prolly black or white i forget. Maybe green. colors would change between races for the same racer.

>>12811517
Green

>>12808652

To be honest, the effectiveness of the English Longbowmen has little to do with the Longbow part and almost all to do with the English part.

The longbow would be a "Self bow" or "Bow", of a single wooden construction. You couldn't keep it strung continually else it would lose strength, and by all means it was vastly inferior to the composite bow which could be used to the same effect with far less training/physical strength and with a smaller arrow (the large, heavy arrows of the longbow being the principal source of it's Armor piercing & lethality).

But the Longbow would be vastly cheaper to produce and equip a large number of men with, which is what the British did (Azzizes, or edicts, which were decreed to demand a certain expectaiton of equipment from militiamen/sergeants from around the mid 13th century start to demand the -upper- echelons of the infantrymen to train and use a bow, although the real Longbow era begins in the 14th century).
The Composite bow gave the world the Turkish Empires, the near millenia long dominance of the horse archer (Be he light or heavy) in the Middle East, the Mongol Empire, the Parthian and Sassanian Empires which were the martial equal of Rome.

The Longbow gave two infamous victories over the French in the 100 years war and scattered usage throughout English scuffles and civil wars. The peers to the English in using the longbow include:
1) The Dark ages & Early medieval Welsh
2) The Dark ages Vikings
3) Sub-Saharan Africans
4) Turko-Slavic woodsmen from the steppes of Russia.

Regarding China, the reason for their not attempting conquest was a mixture of cultural and geographical. The Chinese hit upon a winning system of governance really, really early, and, during their golden ages, China was really, really stable. They were protected from outsiders on all sides by natural barriers, and from internal unrest (mostly) because of their system of Confucian bureaucracy. Now, that's not to say there was no unrest, because that's a damned lie, but rather that the Chinese mindset and Chinese traditional system of governance was such that stability took priority over all other considerations. Furthermore, because the power of the Chinese nobility was broken pretty early, you didn't have large groups of armed men prowling around looking for glory and conquest, but rather a standing national army that played a more defensive role. All this success and the manifold natural resources of China led them to believe that nothing else was worth conquering, that the Middle Kingdom was the center of the Earth, and that anyone beyond the borders of China was subservient to the Chinese Emperor. This last point was so self-evidently obvious that the need to enforce the claim was a ridiculous idea.

Now, I'm not exactly a Chinese history buff, but I'm pretty sure that's all mostly correct. I'd appreciate it if anyone actually familiar with ancient Chinese history could chime in and correct me.

>>12812273
Not a huge historian when it comes to Chinese history but that sounds about right form what I've read. The Chinese were pretty boss at one point and probably were capable of reaching Africa before the Europeans. If I remember a book I read right, before their decline their ships did just reach Africa but then they didn't bother exploring it more. China basically went all internal and ignored the rest of the world and then eventually economically fell apart compared to Europe.

sup /tg/ Its this sort of detail that makes worldbuilding interesting.
Captcha: Scelosch CONSUL FUCK YES

>>12810425
Segmentata provided more protection but less coverage. The economics of plate are weird- it is cheaper but more complicated to produce than chain, since you need sheets of quality metal, which takes alot of specialized industry. That's why the late empire probably abandoned it- the process of making it was far more complicated than the process of making mail.

Segmentata was also easier to fit to an individual rather than mail- much easier to tailor straps instead of riveted mail. Repair in the field is kind of a wash- as
long as you had the spare rings, pins, a small anvil, and rivet set tongs, you can repair mail fairly easily. Plate, if pierced, would be a much harder fix.

>>12809717

It annoys the shit out of me that heavy cavalry, particularly heavy European cavalry, gets shit all over by so many people. The reality is that we talk about battles where armored cavalry lost because they tend to be the exception for most of the medieval period, rather than the rule.

Steel (at least in post roman Britain and onwards for a good thousand years, which is my rough frame of knowledge) in weapons was generally limited to the edges of blades in the form of a hard steel edge welded onto a softer, lower quality center. The difficulty in producing weapons grade steel (not too brittle, not too soft and so on) meant that this was the most economical use of it. Manufacturing techniques steadily advanced to the point that some time in the 1300s, using water mills to provide power for regular and constant air flow into forges, the conditions were far more regulated and steel was far easier to produce en-mass.

This allowed for the rise of plate armour made of continuous plates rather than multiple small plates, though the latter as a form of armour continued on as it was easy to make and old armour could be recycled to create the plates required. In weapons it allowed the proliferation of swords as a sidearm used by the majority of soldiers, or at least very large daggers (some surviving examples have 20 inch blades) and other implements. The rise in amount and quality of armour also lead to the rise of the halberd and similar polearms.

>>12808973
for some reason, even though I haven't watched the Two Towers in like 4 years, the Uruk-hai are still the default medieval army in my head.
They just were portrayed so well, even if they were significantly different from the book versions.

>>12812918
It annoys the shit out of me that heavy cavalry, particularly heavy European cavalry, gets shit all over by so many people. The reality is that we talk about battles where armored cavalry lost because they tend to be the exception for most of the medieval period, rather than the rule.

This is actually a rather good point. I can't name five battles won by well executed heavy cavalry charge yet know many of the exceptions that are amazing in how they defeated heavy cavalry, like Courtrai, Sudomer, Morgarten, Agincourt and so on.

>>12813395
I can think of all of two off the top of my head- Hastings and Carrhae. And Hastings doesn't really count because William's cavalry wasn't true heavy shock cavalry. I'd count Carrhae- the horse archers broke up the Roman formation, but the legions were shattered by the Cataphracts.

It's funny- I can think of a lot more battles in the ancient world where cavalry was decisive than I can in the medieval world, but I know they're out there.

>>12813395
Thinking about it a bit more, the Baltic crusades saw quite a bit of successful shock cavalry charges. Grunwald comes to mind.

>>12813800
>Grunwald

Crusader armies, while a varied assortment spanning at least 200 years, must have been something else in their time. Suicide mission would be one term I'd use if I didn't know that they actually accomplished anything; six princes who, if I were a peer of theirs, would call fucking crazy for marching on a target a couple thousand miles away.

These guys had any number of troubles on their trip, most didn't even make it to Outremmer. They get there and start taking cities, fighting off opponents both established and larger, and what do you know they actually win.

From what I understand, the armies were primarily the houses of the ?six? princes who went. European heavy cavalry, chain armor, and the crossbow are the key military factors in any victory they won.

Soldiers life?
My two brothers and five friends, who I started this journey with, are all dead. Some from raids by the seljuks, the others starved. Jerusalem is within sight, and if my relations could see it now they would weep with joy despite the sorrows of their journey and end. To be so close to the land where Christ died for me, it eases my fears of dying for him.

Secularists need not apply.