Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Medieval armies

- Tue, 30 Sep 2014 02:57:12 EST LQxCuB8k No.53765
File: 1412060232744.jpg -(123959B / 121.05KB, 283x381) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Medieval armies
You are in medieval times, you have full command of an army of your choosing, any type of composition. What do you choose? What is your army

> Main force consists of cataphract type shock cavalry and horse archers
> Light cavalry for distraction and hit and run purposes
> Heavy spearmen to hold the line, readied for hammer and anvil
> Longbow men behind spearmen shooting down ranks
> Cavalry and archer based armies are the best
Edwin Wibblehood - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:21:20 EST 65xCpVfF No.53766 Reply
an army of habsburg cousins to inherit everything without a fight
Barnaby Blacklock - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:53:39 EST V04eJtaa No.53767 Reply
1412085219971.jpg -(257898B / 251.85KB, 720x404) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
An army of sexy Geishas that satisfy my every desire while my empire is protected by divine wind.
Emma Punningford - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:53:28 EST XHBlPQ9a No.53769 Reply
1412088808990.jpg -(22137B / 21.62KB, 248x203) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Wouldn't expect less from you. Gaijin have no appreciation for fine women.
Whitey Hocklechock - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:37:39 EST RmaVKXGL No.53771 Reply
1412098659515.jpg -(126101B / 123.15KB, 604x453) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yeah those nanban probbaly get hard from watching am woman ride a horse! HAHAHAHAHAHA! how Ridiculous!
Lydia Pubberworth - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:51:49 EST NAR5czOU No.53772 Reply
I would create a shock retinue conposed of freed slaves, and oardoned pirates/criminals. They would be absolutely loyal to me.Anything larger than that is too expensive to maintain.

I would expect that my knowledge of terrain and tactics would be sufficient to defeat most enemies with my elite core and levy/militia forces.

The urban militia would supply a decent crossbow infantry. I would deploy tent wires in front of my lines, to trip up enemy cavalry.

Given how long it took to mobilize, i could probably destroy molany enemy contingents before they could properly assemble. Mostly i would use the militia to hold chokepoints and for garrisson/siege duty
Esther Hudgepad - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:04:58 EST WQN5BTKi No.53773 Reply
1412103898453.jpg -(2755B / 2.69KB, 125x125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Psssh until you get shot down by my mass of horse archers and longbow men
Ghengistard - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:09:37 EST Tjppoxkl No.53777 Reply
Depends entirely on the circumstances. For instance one wouldn't want to take and army of heavy infantary into the tundras or an army of horse archers and cavalry into thick a thinkly wooded area. Likwise light cavalry wont be much help if you need to do a lot of sieging
James Sanderridge - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:53:39 EST NAR5czOU No.53778 Reply

I could just bribe them to come over to my side, with the money I saved by not having to field a professional army. My shock retinue has raided and burned your supply train, therefore your soldiers will desert en masse. I've also hidden all the food in the countryside safely in my citadel. Your army wouldn't last a week. I don't even have to offer battle.
David Shakefield - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:44:39 EST 5TX/zVQq No.53781 Reply
1412138679749.jpg -(6888B / 6.73KB, 180x131) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Until my horse arechers cut you off from your citadel and from the front my heavy cavalry reapeatedly smashes you, denying your retreat.
Wesley Pickfield - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:54:27 EST V04eJtaa No.53782 Reply
Why are you guys fighting? You could unite and have an army of freed slave horse archers and pirate/criminal cataphracts.
Hamilton Fengerchure - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 02:11:49 EST EYQ6O056 No.53783 Reply
is it me or is medieval and ancient warfare seem really terrifying

What are good tactics to counter Calvary
Jenny Nickleshit - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 03:16:46 EST Tjppoxkl No.53784 Reply
>muddy terrain or anything that inhibits their mobility
>cavalry of your own,
>Camel cavalry supposedly
>sufficiently protected archers or crossbowmen
>Possibly war elephants.
Beatrice Cranningridge - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 05:31:21 EST URNu6lSZ No.53785 Reply
/his/ has been overrun by gen y babbygamers and their Rome 2 filth
Nell Blackham - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:54:22 EST n72w+kj2 No.53786 Reply
1412175262016.jpg -(106538B / 104.04KB, 622x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I don't think anyone can defeat an entire army of dogs

I've tested this many times in my campaigns and it's uncounterable.

I wonder how come during real history none had thought to implement dog armies. Also screching women can help increase the dog morale from the back ranks.
Fuck Migglewell - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:35:08 EST iT+6Jwr5 No.53787 Reply
Adding light/heavy to everything means you know what you're talking about.
Ebenezer Faggleford - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:32:45 EST V1qsSC7k No.53791 Reply
ah sorry, an army of light habsburg cousins then
Ebenezer Faggleford - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:33:19 EST V1qsSC7k No.53792 Reply
but for real op take it to /vg/
James Sanderridge - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:21:18 EST NAR5czOU No.53793 Reply

My superior knowledge of the terrain, and support from the local populace precludes this. Peasants are going to shank your soldiers the moment they go off to take a piss. You aren't fighting just me, you are fighting an entire nation.

I've also paid off an italian mercenary company to attack your homeland, and oblige you to withdrawal.
Isabella Maffingdock - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:14:11 EST AgIsX04R No.53796 Reply
Gee well then I guess the millions of peasants the Mongols managed to oppress & harass just weren't trying very hard...
David Shakefield - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:26:46 EST 5TX/zVQq No.53798 Reply
Jesus you have so much time on your hands, in that case I just create an army of black holes to destroy the universe. Beat that. Let's get real mang, your army would be done son
David Shakefield - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:27:45 EST 5TX/zVQq No.53799 Reply
I have never played rome 2, this isn't about video games so why would I take it there? This is about miliary composition
Nell Grimville - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:02:23 EST aFTiXqGJ No.53801 Reply
Peasants with pikes and halberds because it was good enough to take on and kill a lot of European nobility.
Jarvis Nirringbodge - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:37:53 EST V04eJtaa No.53807 Reply
actually archers never existed in antiquity, it was all a conspiracy by the British to hide the fact that they discovered the rifle right after the fall f the Roman empire and equipped their troops with so called "longbows".
Simon Sebberridge - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:01:52 EST NAR5czOU No.53811 Reply

Sun Tzu would like to have a word with you. In all seriousness, I think I'd win because I'm the only one who even mentions logistics. Logistics is the science of victory.
Lillian Dovinghall - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:58:12 EST 5TX/zVQq No.53812 Reply
1412233092954.jpg -(6070B / 5.93KB, 260x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Until my horse archers take out your logistics
Alice Lightfuck - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 08:33:15 EST 8hSk1rC9 No.53813 Reply
Are your horse archers trained in naval warfare?
Because until recently, while transport down rivers was nearly linear in terms of expense to transport supplies a certain distance, across land it looked like a rocketry equation.
By ton, the majority of supplies was fodder for the animals carrying supplies. To transport supplies further, you needed additional fodder/animals for the animals carrying fodder for the first animals.

Armies that couldn't maintain a supply lines were limited to whatever troop density the land would support. Napoleon exploited the shit out of this by spreading out his armies between battles so they'd both move faster and have a greater area to live off of.
Nathaniel Besslesod - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:20:36 EST awCGDdOZ No.53815 Reply
>an efficient levying or conscription system to make the most out of what population i have, if its small i train the soldiers harder, if its big i recruit more of them.
>weapons like pikes and crossbows that are relatively simple to use effectively in mass formations. If my army is smaller individual soldiers might have to be more versatile and able to function as both missile troops, melee troops or even light raiding cavalry depending on the situation and available resources. If my manpower pool is bigger i train them only to fulfill specialised roles in coordination with other units
>a separate smaller standing army of professional soldiers with better equipment, pay and status who will uphold my reign in peacetime and act as special forces to supplement my conscripted army in wartime. These will include heavy cavalry and horse archers as well as skirmishers and scouts with possibly one unit of elit heavy infantry to hold the center of my battleline.
>almost forgot the possibly most important thing: the above mentioned professional army would include a large, well-trained engineer and logistics corps for sieges, fortification building and securing the supply chain.
Lillian Drendleshaw - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:57:30 EST EYQ6O056 No.53816 Reply

I watched a moving about an English/Anglo-Saxon fighting the Vikings (possibly Danish).

The English (General/King? I forgot) was reading Greek texts and saw a formation. They adopted the formation, basically everyone formed a rectange with everyone facing outwards so all sides/corners were protected. The Vikings couldn't break the formation.

I'm trying to think of the movie and who was involved. It was made during 70's to late 80's I believe. I'm not sure if it was Alferd the Great. One part of the movie, the Viking leader traded his Retarded brother for the Englishmans wife I think.
Edwin Blathershaw - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 13:01:33 EST yQHY8k1F No.53817 Reply
1412269293825.jpg -(2083B / 2.03KB, 105x125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Psssh who needs supplies when I can live from the land and sack small towns? My empire would be so close to my army, I'm not gonna send my army miles upon miles outside of my borders.

> mfw your horses aren't boats either
> mfw I have gained the technology to have horse/boat transformers
Simon Sebberridge - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:12:46 EST NAR5czOU No.53821 Reply

I have conveniently placed warehouses full of ergot poisoned grain along your line of march. Your horses will all be shitting themselves to death in no time.
William Fodgedut - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:37:36 EST R7F+hDRI No.53823 Reply
>Pikes for everyone
>Force battles in rivers,canyons,mountainsides,etc.
>Fuck yo horses nigga, FUCK. YO. HORSES.
Clara Crarringbanks - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:15:04 EST oqdTFM0x No.53824 Reply
> assuming I'd go after your bait
> assuming my horse archers aren't already at the top of said canyon
> assuming you wouldn't trap yourself in a deth pit of arrows

> assuming I don't have slaves to test out food from foreign places
> assuming my men eat grain
> assuming my men eat
Clara Crarringbanks - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:22:28 EST oqdTFM0x No.53825 Reply
> wait I fucked up HORSES eat grain
> Shit It went right over my head
> my army dies
William Fodgedut - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:33:14 EST R7F+hDRI No.53826 Reply
>Implying you know the land as well as I do
>Implying horses can climb as well as people
>Implying horse archers even work outside wide open plains
>Implying I'm not dumping boulders on you
Clara Crarringbanks - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:34:38 EST oqdTFM0x No.53827 Reply
> implying my army doesn't live off the land
> implying I don't have longbow archers
> implying I haven't sent out scouts to know exactly where your army is heading
> implying I wouldn't just cut you off from your march
> Implying your men can catch any of my horses
> Implying my horses wouldn't move out of the way from boulders
> implying.
Samuel Crunderchock - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:51:12 EST V04eJtaa No.53830 Reply
1412301072589.jpg -(192403B / 187.89KB, 1400x773) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
> Main force consisting of infinite medium/light horse archers that only shoot cyanide tipped arrows.
I win the thread.

But seriously the amazing thing about military history is how competent commanders where able to improvise and use whatever they had at their disposal and accomplished mindblowing victories. Not about building your perfect army with infinite resources in a vacuum.
Nigel Snodway - Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:03:00 EST xqx+yw8D No.53835 Reply
Yeah pretty much, there are so many historical examples where a superior army was defeated by an inferior one.
Oliver Wirringwell - Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:20:46 EST NttA5IGM No.53838 Reply
Yeah yeah I know, I was just curious about what people would choose though on open terrain. It all comes down to how well you lead your army and the creativeness of your tactics (like Alexander at Gaugamela) but oh well fun thread

> Implying my army can even fight anymore
> That asshole poisoned all my horses

Hamilton Settingwut - Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:55:18 EST Wj8/8UNG No.53839 Reply
1412358918065.jpg -(44849B / 43.80KB, 604x483) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
In an open terrain:
Masses of highly trained horsemen with bows and melee weapons.
Wave after wave of men at my disposal.
Green terrain:
Fucking highly skilled tree-climbers EVERYWHERE!
Jarvis Worthingstock - Fri, 03 Oct 2014 17:02:40 EST g+0/y0fh No.53842 Reply
I think what you actually wanted is to and a bunch of yellow lists and use implying a lot.
Henry Brindletick - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 00:37:40 EST URNu6lSZ No.53883 Reply
implying anyone here could actually lead any of these armies
Jarvis Nugglekitch - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:57:45 EST CjzndUkC No.53892 Reply
>Burn, destroy, poison or steal food supply for animals and horses
>Same for foods of the armies attacking you

You're cavalry will be having a fun time starving to death while my troops only grow stronger. Although, this is a long term plan and could take a while, eventually you'll have to fuck off to find food.
Nigel Duttinglock - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:32:39 EST GOJZ7Lve No.53893 Reply
Eh my army would just go back to my kingdom and gather more supplies, readying for the second invasion. Like I said my army would stay close to my borders
Reuben Wallyden - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:37:59 EST NAR5czOU No.53894 Reply

They said the same thing to Alexander, until he killed them all.
Wesley Brimmleworth - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:47:36 EST iT+6Jwr5 No.53900 Reply
>Hundreds of war elephants
>Steppe cavalry archers riding the elephants
>Thousands of Tony Jaas to protect the elephants
>Standard bearers with flags for signaling (I'm guessing it's tough to signal with hundreds of elephants sounding like drums and horns).
Clara Cledgedale - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 20:23:58 EST GOJZ7Lve No.53903 Reply
Yeah but we know from the Romans how easy it is to beat a phalanx now, Alexander ain't got shiieeet

>> 53900

All you need is the Tony Jaas
Edward Crollerworth - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:20:04 EST V04eJtaa No.53904 Reply
>how easy it is to beat a phalanx now
When they where fighting Macedonians it was not easy at all. They almost got their ass kicked.
Hannah Poffingdidge - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 01:27:46 EST Ih7kcOnL No.53905 Reply
They almost did, but almost isn't good enough. And later they crushed anyways. Once the Romans perfected anti phalanx tactics, it was easy going from there.
Molly Blatherstone - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:13:06 EST NAR5czOU No.53907 Reply

They actually lost the first three times they went up against a phalanx. They simply won by having more reserves, that King Pyrrhus decided it would be easier to fight the Carthaginians instead and left Italy.
Charles Cropperbury - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 03:43:29 EST +R6lddky No.53909 Reply
Phalanx's can easily be outflanked. They won because they outmaneuvered the Phalanx
David Penkinham - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:39:07 EST CH/qiIEF No.53915 Reply
This is not a video game thread you fucking idiots of this board, this has nothing to do with video games or any video game at all. This is about military composition. You fucking faggots. Yes this is the OP.
Molly Blatherstone - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:07:42 EST NAR5czOU No.53924 Reply

A phalanx is just a single tactic in a well balanced force. The Makedonians simply threw unsupported pike levies into the fray. The Epirotes used a balanced strategy, with elephants, cavalry, and hoplite detachments to counter manipular tactics. History demonstrates that when used correctly, hellenistic tactics are at least the equal of Romans. The Romans won out by being a citizen army, they had such massive reserves even losing hundreds of thousands of men could be sustained. No other contemporary nation had that capacity, outside of Sassanid Persia.
Hamilton Packleridge - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:14:54 EST V04eJtaa No.53925 Reply
1412734494501.jpg -(109748B / 107.18KB, 640x529) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Pike Phalanx was such a good formation that it actually made a comeback hundreds of years later during the musket era. too bad it was eventually replaced by the bayonet.
Hedda Messlefuck - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:05:34 EST +R6lddky No.53936 Reply
I'm in no way discrediting the phalanx, it's an amazing and effective tactic/formation. Eventually the Romans did figure it out though after thousands of men died
Barnaby Giffingkodge - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:10:49 EST EpgP2obO No.53939 Reply
I wonder how it could be replaced with the bayonet.
It's much too short if the cavalry attacks with lances.
William Candledog - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:58:47 EST NAR5czOU No.53940 Reply

That's why lancers continued to be used effectively, after the introduction of gunpowder. Early level gunpowder weapons weren't the greatest.

The Romans used tactics as inflexible as the phalanx. (Indeed their original army was a hoplite wall.) The flying wedge is one famous example. They just never stuck to the same tactic, and flexibly adapted to their enemy, and the terrain. The tactical innovations of Pyrrhos would be forgotten after his death. The Hellenes had no reservoir of battlefield theory. The other Diadochi were slow to adapt, because their main enemies were eachother.

Individuals, Pyrrhos, Hannibal, etc. were more than capable of countering Roman tactics. But the Romans never relied on geniuses. They had them surely, but their army was a functioning organism, capable of surviving even mediocre leadership through the experience of their soldiers, and the exceptional junior officers. At Kynoskephalae, a single Tribune was able to detach his forces and hit the Macedonians in the rear, winning the battle.

At Pydna, the Romans could not get under the pikes, or beat them down, so they retreated slowly, staying ahead of the spear wall. What a fantastic and complex maneuver during a battle that at that point, they were outnumbered and losing, badly. They kept this up long enough, that the phalanx broke down, as they maneuvered through broken terrain, and the Romans won the battle, by sheer will.

One time the Makedonians resorted to such cheap tactics as camping Thermopylae. They were driven back with losses of over ten thousand, compared to only two hundred Romans.

For fun viewing:


I'd like to see how Ragnar Lothbrok would have countered the flying wedge. Probably by not engaging in battle.
Sidney Goodson - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:03:11 EST EYQ6O056 No.54135 Reply
How would you counter the wedge?

I suppose by not engaging in battle and find a method to break it up?
James Serringmerk - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:22:16 EST 6sQxP29R No.54136 Reply
Counter charge with your own wedge? Hopefully your cavalry is better. Or arrow them down.
Rebecca Fuckledog - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 02:46:39 EST NAR5czOU No.54139 Reply

Any heavy infantry formation is easily countered by light troops, who do not engage in close melee. The courage of the Celtoi worked against them. They expected their initial charge to carry the day. A saavy general would have deployed light troops, breaking up the Roman formation, and ruining their shields with javelins. Furthermore they could have flanked them through the forest, as at Teutoburg, but instead chose to fight them on open ground.

The wedge is a great tactic if one can predict a frontal attack exactly. It was used infrequently, however, and the Romans typically employed a layered battle array. In this instance the Roman commander correctly guessed that the enemy would not attempt a flanking motion, and lacking numbers, threw his entire force into the the fray. This is an enormous gamble, as there is no reserve to shore up any breach, if a portion of the line were to break, or an envelopment threatened.

If you mean to defeat a wedge head on, try a phalanx. That at least should be interesting.
Lillian Nammerville - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:03:11 EST 6sQxP29R No.54144 Reply
You would have to be suicidal to charge a phalanx head on
Angus Chicklewill - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:36:55 EST Bdzonphm No.54206 Reply
Fuck all y'all. I'm talking a trade-based economy with a neutral kingdom married into every royal family nearby. I like to call it the "bang wenches, marry off heirs" strategy. Keep everyone dependent on my goods, have vassals, allies, and mercenaries fight all my battles for me while I rake in the cash and fuck bitches.

Maybe a big navy so I can blockade your ass if you try and get cute.
Cornelius Nusslelod - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:38:25 EST bA6fKg3x No.54207 Reply
Until my army starts rampaging your lands and trade
Rebecca Gannertit - Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:01:15 EST EpgP2obO No.54246 Reply
1415329275147.jpg -(142505B / 139.17KB, 821x603) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
What's the best way to fight offensively against horse archers on their steppes ?
Rebecca Goodgold - Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:18 EST NAR5czOU No.54247 Reply

A. Bribe a rival tribe to raid them.

B. Send smallpox laced blankets.
Sidney Sizzlebanks - Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:26:17 EST NtPAkO27 No.54248 Reply
1415337977461.jpg -(1248552B / 1.19MB, 2304x3072) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Charles Hendledat - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 23:02:27 EST lNqcYHoi No.54259 Reply
The thundering roar of cannon and the burning stench of musket. Thousands of arrows flying through the air from skilled horse archers who've been riding and doing archery since they were children. Waves upon wave of agile, shrewd lightly armoured but fearsome and adept swordsmen and cavalry pouring in from the near East and North Africa. Berbers, Turks, Arabs, black Africans, Persians, tribes from the Caucasus mountains. Heavily armoured European mercenaries and/or Christians knights who simply wish to serve the mighty Sultan.

We would storm Europe. From Granada to Rome to Constantinople to London, Berlin and Moscow, all in the name of Allah. However, we would not leave a trail of bloodshed and horror behind. We would defeat our foes honourably in battle, accept their submission and happily integrate their peoples and cultures into ours - always appreciating and understanding the marvellous history, art and science Europe has given to the world. Only the treacherous, the merciless, cruel and villainous would truly suffer. Together, we will create a new world. A world where East meets West. A civilization that would propel humankind further than ever before.

This is how I play nearly every Total War campaign
Hamilton Sembledidging - Sun, 09 Nov 2014 10:51:44 EST JJ9xRcIY No.54261 Reply
Get out, this is not a conversation about video games. This is a conversation about army composition.
Eugene Cubblenodging - Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:22:21 EST SAulef67 No.54263 Reply
Because everyone here is not basing their armies off video games theyve played or history documentaries theyve watched.
James Gabbleson - Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:18:10 EST CJfGCqmW No.54266 Reply
Well it's pretty easy to base it off of common sense and knowledge. If you study battles like Cannae, Zama, Hastings, Agincourt, Marathon, Gaugamela, Waterloo, Pydna, Most battles fought by the Mongols, Hattin, Tours, Red Cliff, Sekigahara, etc... then it teaches you a lot.
Ebenezer Clingerlidge - Sun, 23 Nov 2014 16:29:06 EST fB4pjOhe No.54355 Reply
Armies don't matter. What matters is a strong economy to have a large population, cheap but deadly weapons, good logistics and sound strategy. Sure, you might lose some battles but you will win the war. To elaborate:

>Muskets overtook longbows not because it was particularly better, but because any retard could hold one and become a deadly machine, while longbows required a decade of training.
>Hannibal blew the fuck out of the Romans and pillaged the Italian peninsula for years. The Romans ran him out of resources and Roman buildings are still standing while Carthage is a pile of dust.
>More soldiers died of poor hygiene, hunger and cold than weapons. Good logistics reduces attrition. Too many examples to name.
>Prussians, despite having the most drilled infantry of the time, got blown the fuck out by Bonaparte, because he knew how and where to fight them.
Lillian Turveywill - Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:46:10 EST 5hZVu2Yj No.54363 Reply

>Muskets overtook longbows not because it was particularly better, but because any retard could hold one and become a deadly machine, while longbows required a decade of training.

Musket armies were often smaller than their competitors for their first couple centuries of existence largely because gunpowder was extremely expensive to produce and required a great deal of infrastructure dedicated solely to the production of gunpowder. Additionally poorly trained mobs of musketmen tended to fair worse than poorly trained mods of spearmen since simply learning how to properly load a musket to the point where you could load in reliably under stress could often take weeks. The muskets relatively short range effective range and poor accuracy also meant that poorly trained troops armed with muskets tended to either spread out or clump together in a mass both of which made them relatively easy for just about any other force to defeat them. The idea that muskets allowed mass armies of half-trained mobs to suddenly spring forth from the ground has no real basis in reality. The biggest factors in the muskets success was that these very disadvantages required a much more centralized state than had really existed in Europe since the height of the Roman Empire to provide the infrastructure need to make the large quantities of gunpowder needed for an army. It also brought about the professional standing army as levies or semiprofessional forces could not provide the the discipline or unit cohesion needed to make the musket work and the main weapon on a battlefield. Only a force of trained drilled men could provide that.

>Prussians, despite having the most drilled infantry of the time, got blown the fuck out by Bonaparte, because he knew how and where to fight them.

This point is rather silly because it is based more on the Prussia and France of the Seven Years War than that of 1806. The fact is that at the twin battles of Jena and Auerstadt the armies particularly at Auerstadt where the forces basically collided with each other victory was largely decided by the fact that the French army simply reacted better to events. Time and again French regiments and Battalions reacted quicker or held out longer than their Prussian opponents. This was on a small unit level and had little and often nothing to do with higher command strategy and everything to do with the fact that the French Grande Armee was simply a more effective fighting force than the Prussian army.
Cyril Ganderstid - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:22:27 EST URNu6lSZ No.54367 Reply

I'm pretty sure the Prussian military had been stagnating for a while as well. Their cutting edge reforms from the 7 Years War were well and truly showing their age against Napoleon's methods. Infantry wasn't even the be-all of warfare in that era either. Prussia was known for its powerful infantry but they were realistically a regional power that was so militaristic it was basically the weakest of the significant powers in Europe. France on the other hand had the economy and population to muster and re-muster larger armies with much more balanced proportions.


Muskets didn't just appear overnight either. It wasn't until the start of the 18th century and the two major European wars leading up to and continuing through the turn of the century that muskets became so dominant amongst the infantry. For the previous few centuries when the musket concept was gaining traction it was actually the arquebus that infantry were using and pretty much the only reason anybody ditched the crossbow for the unwieldy, unreliable, extremely low fire-rate and expensive firearm was because it could penetrate pretty much any armour which by the time of their introduction had become advanced enough that crossbow bolts were decreasingly useful.

It wasn't some centuries after the arquebus was first used amongst formations of infantry (Spanish Tercio was the most successful) that the firearm concept was developed enough to replace all other infantry ranged weapons, and even longer still until the bayonet concept was a suitable replacement for the pike - and even that was ultimately inferior since it had less reach and you could easily damage the gun - the concept took on because it meant all the soldiers on the battlefield could fire ranged weapons rather than splitting infantry into two specialisations (the latter of which was semi-catered for with the bayonet)
Fucking Funningkit - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 02:20:42 EST VnQOwfR3 No.54470 Reply
1418455242654.png -(70264B / 68.62KB, 300x291) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Interesting thread OP. It's too bad you didn't give us a setting as that'd really change my mind but from anywhere pretty much? Ok h-here I go.

Army of horsemen with short spears, sharp pointed thick metal shields and grappling hooks. These spears have very thick handles and the shield can be attached to the spear then, secured to the horse by the rope and its harness can actually be used as a plow and shovel.

The strategy is simple. My horsemen can till the battlefield beforehand, putting in entrenchments and even begin setting up fields for crops in the event of a long siege. These horses are all farmhorses either levied or stolen from local peasant towns, given warhorse training and set to purpose.

Once the tilling begins, the horses are set to graze and the horsemen begin digging entrenchments, lining the outside with staked barricades and palisades. The thick shield can be secured at a different angle to the spear haft and it becomes an ax for chopping palisade stakes.

The formation for battle is very simple. Once the entrenchments are dug in, they are filled with pitch either made on site from burning lumber or brought out to battle. This will create terrifying burning moats around my army, essentially making a movable temporary fortress.

Some of the trenches will not be filled with pitch. Instead they will be filled with supplies further dug into the earth to protect them from spoilage and looting, then protected by my second class of soldiers. These soldiers are archers with longbows trained to fire as a group in dynamic patterns with the aid of a spotter. All archers are trained as spotters so if the spotter falls, any one of them can take his place. Essentially the spotter gets behind a large shield with a crescent lip at the top and a thick helmet. His task is to shout orders to the archers. AIM 4th QUADRANT, UP 45 DEGREES. The archers will all aim by a system of quadrants assisted by the shape of the trench, which will be formed as a half circle and separated into sections marked off by numbered sticks. Their bows line up with these with notches which help them make calculated shots within a degree of difference. Basically so long as the spotter stays alive and someone can take his place fast enough if he dies, the archers can lob volley after volley at the enemy without ever having to be visible to them. Optimally there will be double trenches, so the first one can be filled with pitch then the one behind it will be filled with archers. The benefit of this is it obscures even vision of the trench. The enemy archers will have a hard lobbing trebuchet shot accuretely into the trench because it will be obscured by a thick wall of smoke. All archers also have thick shields protecting them, which they must fire around. This is a little added protection against incoming projectiles and can be used to seal a tunnel if a trench is overrun, until it can be taken back or the tunnel's escape route can be used to evacuate.

The spotters will situate themselves in front of the burning trenches, usually in front of another smaller trench. The trench formations will be very complex but this does not need to be done if I have the high ground. Only if I am at a disadvantage with my enemy on elevation. If I have elevation the spotter can take position on a pinnacle above most of the smoke and battle and deliver orders by using a flag system which is relayed by a second spotter in the trench to the entrenched archers.

So what do the horses do once they are behind the burning trenches? My horsemen get on them and begin moving in patrols, coming out from around to the front of the trenches in a scythe formation, cutting into the enemy force and then retreating behind the trench while the archers fire consistent volleys. They will carry very few things with them when cutting out in front and are trained to swing the grappling hooks at enemies and rip them away from their formation, dragging them behind to be either knocked to pieces, stabbed or trampled by the other horsemen. These grappling hooks are very heavy and very sharp. Being hit with one is about a 50% chance of being hooked and just getting hit with it can knock a poorly armored man out. Thick, heavy knights are especially vulnerable to this, their cumbersome armor has a lot to hook onto. They can be ripped from their horse and dragged away. Any soldier my horsemen hook from the rest of the army is dragged back behind my line, where they will be stripped of their weapons and armor and swiftly executed if being dragged has mangled them. If not they will be enslaved.

Half of my horsemen will carry burning bolas, Saint Anthony's fire, flaming spears and other burning projectiles. The tactic is to come charging at full speed out from behind the burning barriers, unleash burning hell on my enemy, drag away a few of them screaming for their lives and then retreat behind the burning trench, which will issue volleys of arrows at any brave enough to chase after their hooked comrades.

Hopefully the tactic would be terrifying enough to get quick surrenders.

If not, my horsemen will be on the lookout for unoccupied gaps in the front line. On the next pass, horsemen will begin digging more trenches on these gaps while the archers rain hell. The advance will be very slow, like watching the hour hand of a clock ticking by, but it will advance. As my horsemen drag the enemy behind our line, if we get hungry enough we can begin eating the enemy, making sure to throw the remains of our dinner at them on the next pass.

I think this tactic would work frighteningly well.

Turning it into a siege would be simple. Make the trenches into a ring around the sieged city, put my army outside the ring and then make a second ring outside my army. Run horsemen patrols outside and inside the ring in a well timed fashion. This keeps enemy forces at bay and mutilates anyone emerging from the sieged city. Eventually they will starve and I will be well fed by the attempts to rescue the city from any outside aid.

Essentially macro tactics will be slow strangulation of the enemy, while micro tactics would be fast, brutal hit and runs designed to bring back supplies supplemented with precision volleys of entrenched archers.
Fucking Funningkit - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 02:32:44 EST VnQOwfR3 No.54471 Reply

Now for how I'd kick the shit out of my own army with another army.

The horsemen are riding workhorses essentially, not warhorses. They aren't chargers meant to be jumping and kicking their way through groups of enemies. They are strong and the men riding them are strong, this is why the grappling hook thing works so well but they aren't as fast as a purebred warhorse, which is why they also assault with flame projectiles to increase the element of surprise and buy time for entry and egress.

The solution, provided I have not caught them during the process of entrenchment, will be to use light horsemen on warhorses armed with long spears, firebombs and leather. No other troops at all. On the first pass, the horsemen will charge but my spearmen will actually charge ahead of them. They will round the trench before the archers can reliably hit them, the spotter thing, while giving a great advantage to controlled volleys, will not be quick enough to reliably bring down a quick moving pack charge of light horsemen. The fast horsemen will sprint ahead of the slow ones, behind the trench, toss their firebombs into the archer trenches then come up behind the slower, strong horsemen, throw any remaining firebombs and spear them. The grappling hooks will be a problem but if the first swing of the lasso can be dodged, the long spear beats their short hefty spears.

Actually shit, they also have that thick shield.

Fuck the long spears, give them just bows and firebombs. When they drop the bombs and round the corner again, they fill the horsemen's horses full of arrows out of range of the hooks. Then sprint back for more bombs and burn the fuck out of the now dismounted tough bastards.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 07:15:24 EST /+tLisk/ No.54472 Reply
>simply learning how to properly load a musket to the point where you could load in reliably under stress could often take weeks.

It's not rocket science.. It's just putting gunpowder and a round ball inside a barrel.
Nigger Blackgold - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:59:12 EST 30u9hAuV No.54473 Reply

Have you actually done any research?

That shit had like seven steps. Off the top of my head, I remember that first, you had to tear open the cartridge of gunpowder with your teeth. THEN you poured the powder in, then you poured your ball in, then you had to ram all that home with a ramrod. I'm sure I'm missing a step or two, as well.

Those muskets were notoriously fiddly, as well. There are stories of people fucking up a lot with them. Guns were found fully loaded and unfired, showing a total breakdown in the firing mechanism.
Nigger Blackgold - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:04:59 EST 30u9hAuV No.54474 Reply


Let's say you're on a Line Infantry-era battlefield.

It's muddy as hell. Smoke fills the battlefield. Everyone is screaming and yelling and crying like a bunch of maniacs. Balls of lead are flying around you like raindrops in a spring shower. Huge cannonballs dive into the ground nearby, throwing waves of dirt all over you.

In the middle of all of this, you have to load and fire your musket until your officer gives the signal for you to stop. This could be the situation for hours at a time.

I reasonably doubt loading a musket would seem super easy at that time.
Nigger Blackgold - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:07:17 EST 30u9hAuV No.54475 Reply


If I were around during Line Infantry times, I'd want to be in an Artillery post, or a Cavalry post.

Being a Cavalry soldier would be kickass, but The Charge Of The Light Brigade comes to mind.

In general, being a cavalry soldier could turn really badly for you in rare occasion.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:17:07 EST /+tLisk/ No.54476 Reply

>Have you actually done any research?

I worked in a star-fortress museum and shot a few muskets & cannons back then. Participated in some displays etc.

>That shit had like seven steps.

It's not like every step was complicated.. And it varied per musket. Early days you had to first put the powder in a measuring cup before pouring it, later on it became pre-packaged and you could just pour it in without measuring.

So basically;

1: Get powder cartridge from your bag
2: put little bit inside the (don't know english name, flint mechanism?) and the rest down the barrel
3: put bullet inside
4:get your rod out and push it in nicely
5: prepare to fire

Sure it would be best if you knew all this by muscle memory, but for militia it would really only take a few days to be kinda competent in it. And if you give them a good officer with experience it shouldn't be too big a problem.

>Those muskets were notoriously fiddly, as well. There are stories of people fucking up a lot with them. Guns were found fully loaded and unfired, showing a total breakdown in the firing mechanism.

That's mostly manufacturing error, not operator.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:22:49 EST /+tLisk/ No.54477 Reply

>This could be the situation for hours at a time.

I doubt 1 unit of inexperienced soldiers would last for hours on the front line. pikemen or musketmen..

>I reasonably doubt loading a musket would seem super easy at that time.

I think without training pretty much nothing would be super easy? Whether it's loading a musket or holding a pike formation.

Now you're not talking about loading muskets anymore but about drilled Vs. Undrilled.
Nigger Blackgold - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:27:44 EST 30u9hAuV No.54478 Reply

Well then, General, as your XO, let's say you issue orders for your hypothetical militia to engage a professional enemy force of combined cannon, infantry, and cavalry, as most musket-era armies were equipped.

We will assume you also have a token force of gunners and horsemen.

When your militia infantry regiment comes into contact with the enemy, would 'close enough' do it, or would your entire regiment fall apart after a few volleys and start routing?

I am aware that militia have fought off professional infantry regiments before, so I'm not saying it would be impossible. If you had an advantageous terrain, such as the high ground, forest to conceal your militia, or if you surprised your enemy with an ambush, you would most likely win.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:14:40 EST /+tLisk/ No.54479 Reply

Again, you're not talking about loading muskets.

Of course they wouldn't hold. Your argument was that you couldn't teach someone how to wield a musket within a week or 2. My argument was that you could.

Teaching someone to hold the line, that would take a lot longer. But whether you give them muskets or bows/axes/pikes wouldn't matter.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:03 EST /+tLisk/ No.54480 Reply

Also, try teaching someone proper melee techniques within a few days. You'll be really disappointed. More so than if you're teaching them the easy arts of reloading a musket.
Frederick Pozzlefuck - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 14:09:08 EST 5hZVu2Yj No.54481 Reply
Just about every first hand account I have read regarding soldiers going into battle for the first time in the 18th and 19th centuries mentioned how many soldiers in quickly raised regiments panicked when reloading their muskets when under fire with the most common occurrence being that they would forget to pull out the ramrod and ended up firing it towards the enemy. It is much harder to fuck up a spear so badly that you would end up launching it towards the enemy. A soldier who is shit with his weapon is still infinity more useful than a soldier who's weapon no longer functions.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:07:15 EST /+tLisk/ No.54482 Reply

And how many bowstrings would snap, how many soldiers would trip during a charge, how many grenadiers would accidentally drop their grenades?

There's not a lot of info about battlefield blunders *before* the rifle age so there's not really material to compare it to.

>It is much harder to fuck up a spear so badly that you would end up launching it towards the enemy.

No, but if you have no idea how to stab with it properly they would just yank it out of your hand or catch it under their foot.
Lydia Dallydick - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:18:46 EST /+tLisk/ No.54483 Reply

And at least they stayed! Compared to for example the peasants in the German peasant war that's already a huge improvement.
Ebenezer Cizzlebanks - Sun, 14 Dec 2014 00:33:10 EST 6Qg4KHtW No.54484 Reply
>A soldier who is shit with his weapon is still infinity more useful than a soldier who's weapon no longer functions.

uh, bayonettes?
Faggy Pittgold - Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:53:51 EST URNu6lSZ No.54485 Reply

Sword/melee technique requires a lot of finesse and definitely aren't something you can cram in 2 weeks before your first battle but realistically neither are muskets and associated tactics. It would probably take 6 months of drills for a fresh infantry regiment to be properly trained for battle. But it would take years of training and conditioning for a knight to reliably expect to beat other experienced knights under otherwise equal circumstances.

That said "blunders" weren't a big deal before muskets. When armies came to rely on infantry armed solely with muskets/bayonets the tactics needed to be followed through as properly as possible or their fighting was just plain ineffective. Its like a classical-era phalanx except instead of a mere physical manoeuvre that must be maintained you're concentrating on reloading and firing what's at best an unreliable weapon while explosives and bullets are flying at and around you and your comrades.

I'm absolutely certain every battle involving European knights (or peasantry for that matter) would have been a complete mess on a tactical level. There wasn't a whole lot to warfare of that era other than closing the gap and mashing at each other in a confused melee. But the tactics and the weapons fully incorporated the chaos; all tactics involving melee fighting accept that there will be chaos.


The musket predates the bayonet
A Wizard - Mon, 07 Sep 2015 21:16:48 EST b0Z6XbnQ No.56106 Reply
1441675008322.png -(211292B / 206.34KB, 850x850) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Back in the good old days, every member of the clan had a long fuckin knife, and we all knew how to use it. -.- It was our favorite toy.

A strong society is an armed society. In an armed society, there are no peasants.
Beatrice Tillinglock - Mon, 07 Sep 2015 22:59:40 EST Evi2rzk7 No.56107 Reply

>Firing your ramrod at the enemy

Imagine being on the receiving end of this. Your buddy next to you gets hit and you see that it's part of the enemies own fucking firearm sticking out of his chest. They just shot parts of their weapon at you with their own weapons.

If you didn't know any better you'd think they were either desperate or full-fucking crazy and were in for a tough fight.
Nathaniel Brookfoot - Tue, 08 Sep 2015 11:47:13 EST 9r7dranS No.56109 Reply
I'd just hire Swiss peasants with halberds. Then when it looks like I'm winning I'd try to get another big battle so a lot of them die and I don't have to pay that much.
Betsy Henkinfoot - Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:52:08 EST b0Z6XbnQ No.56110 Reply

They'd just leave you to die in that situation though.... or ask the other side to pay them.
Lillian Dungergold - Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:00:38 EST 46Ivwr3B No.56115 Reply

>mfw you were a thrall in a past life and don't even know it.
A Wizard - Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:55:54 EST b0Z6XbnQ No.56117 Reply

I remember my past lives.

Most of the time I was a traveling salesman who would rant a lot, when not doing the crazy stuff. ._. Now I get to rant online! Progress!
Jenny Bagglehet - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:58 EST VvcaoJPx No.56139 Reply
I know this is way to technical but and army like that would have a crazy hard time fighting in the middles ages, it would be slow without discipline, the Calvery would get detacthed from the infantry causing gaps, and the whole thing would be cost prohibitive and not work well against other army's of the period. I'm just wanted to analyze that army but I do like the creativity
Faggy Ponningtack - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:11:41 EST ksHjgU2D No.56141 Reply
All light cavalry and horse archers. The steppes of Asia will quake before my might.
Jarvis Claystock - Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:29:27 EST 46Ivwr3B No.56174 Reply

At the battle of Pydna, which is what we were talking about, yes. The Macedonians the Romans encountered were a far cry from the Macedonians of Philip and Alexander.

>The two centers engaged at about 3pm, with the Macedonians advancing on the Romans a short distance from the Roman camp. Paullus claimed later that the sight of the phalanx filled him with alarm and amazement. The Romans tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success. Roman officers began to despair. One 'rent his garments' in impotent fury. Another seized his unit's standard and threw it among the enemy. His men made a desperate charge to recapture it, but were beaten back despite inflicting some casualties. Unable to get under the thick bristle of pikes, the Romans used a planned retreat over the rough ground.

>But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion, being forced over the rough terrain. Paullus now ordered the legions into the gaps, attacking the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At close quarters the longer Roman sword and heavier shield easily prevailed over the Macedonian Kopis and lighter armor of the Macedonians. They were soon joined by the Roman right, which had succeeded in routing the Macedonian left.

>Seeing the tide of battle turn, Perseus fled with the cavalry on the Macedonian right. According to Plutarch, Perseus' cavalry had yet to engage, and both the king and his cavalry were accused of cowardice by the surviving infantry.

>An elite unit of the phalanx, a 3,000 strong Guard unit, put itself on higher ground, but was cornered there. The unit fought to the bitter end, with almost every man killed.

>Perseus later surrendered to Paullus, and was paraded in triumph in Rome in chains. He was then imprisoned. The Macedonian kingdom was dissolved, many inhabitants deemed to be anti-Roman were enslaved and sent to Rome, much of its land parcelled out to Roman colonists (ex-legionaries) and Roman allies, its government replaced with four republics. In time, these were also dissolved, and Macedonia became a Roman province.
A Wizard - Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:18:01 EST /HWjT0P7 No.56179 Reply

The thing about this, is that in Philip's and Alexander's armies, there would had been a division or two of skirmishers who run about flinging a few javelins and then are used to fill the gaps when a heavier division can't keep it's footing and needs a moment to reform. Further, they had light cavalry to stop maneuvers like the one mentioned below.
Clara Nullerdudging - Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:35:32 EST 46Ivwr3B No.56180 Reply

>The Romans had placed the two legions in the middle, with the allied Latin, Italian and Greek infantry on their flanks. The cavalry was placed on the wings, with the Roman right being supplemented by 22 elephants.

>The phalanx took up the center of the Macedonian line, with the elite 3,000-strong Guard formed to the left of the phalanx. Lighter peltasts, mercenaries and Thracian infantry guarded the two flanks of the phalanx, while the Macedonian cavalry was also most probably arrayed on both flanks. The stronger contingent was on the Macedonian right, where Perseus commanded the heavy cavalry (including his elite Sacred Squadron), and the Thracian Odrysian cavalry were deployed. However, other sources state that the cavalry did not participate in the fight, as there was a strike against Perseus by the nobles.

They had literally every element they needed, but the nobles took a dive.
A Wizard - Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:53:15 EST /HWjT0P7 No.56181 Reply

Hmm, well, the Macedonians were known for talking shit to the Thracians, and the Thracians well known for saying "Fuck you, we quit. Let's go raid the neighbors."

But here's the reason they lost. They sent their main force in first, against a legionary army. You don't do that, and they should had known better.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.