Classical armies versus medieval armies

Derek Pullem said:

Yes - agreed. But I guess the question is whether the ancient armies are stacked against the latter ones with no "modern" upgrades or whether they would use the same tactics but with minor improvements (Bronze armour = steel / iron studs, bows = longbows / crossbows, kontos = lances, stirrups for all)

Click to expand...

That would kind of defeat the question at hand, wouldn't it? If you give both sides medieval weapons, the medievals who are used to them would probably still win.

I think the original question was, if Alexander and his armies would meet a medieval army, both sides being as prepared for each other as Cortez and the Aztecs were in 1519 (i.e. not at all), the battle field being halfway suitable to both sides (i.e. mediterranean climate) who would then win?

And in that case I would still say it is down to mostly luck and unponderables. Some things are clear... hellenic cavalry would not be able to stand against knights, regardless of discipline, due to lack of armor and medieval horses being superior breeds. Medieval archery would probably also be superior to hellenic one for reasons given already. With the infantry, hellenic discipline might go a long way to offset their lighter weapons and the obsolescence of their staple tactic, the phalanx, but who knows what improvisation would be possible? Luck and imponderables again determine the winner...

As for tactics I think no Hellenic commander with half a brain would try "staple" tactics like phalanx and cavalry skirmish against an enemy clad in medieval armor and carrying medieval weapons. They would try to improvise something more suited to holding off a heavy cavalry charge and somehow try fight a more mobile battle (where the heavy medievals are at a disadvantage). On the other hand a medieval commander would see how lightly the Hellenics are armored, and how close their ranks are, and would try to line his knights up for a frontal battle much more directly than he would do if he was facing an enemy with troops similar to his own forces.

People improvise quickly. On Cortez' first attempt to seize Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs were tactically clueless because the Spaniards did not fight by the Mesoamerican rulebook, i.e. they did not try to capture warriors and they did not engage in the usual diplomatic back-and-forth game. They got slaughtered, and missed countless opportunities to trap and kill Spaniards. However when Cortez came back after the Noche Triste for the siege of Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs had already adapted their tactics, did no longer try POW captures instead of straight kills, and had barricaded their metropolis so well it took the Spaniards and their allies months to conquer it.

So who knows, maybe the hellenics can improvise tercio squares on the spot instead of their phalanx? Or launch a Swiss-style charge with lowered pikes to overrun the men-at-arms.

Derek Pullem said:

Which is why the Swiss using identical tactics and practically the same weaponry dominated the battlefield in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries??????

Click to expand...

Totally different things wasn't it?
A pahalanx being a massed fromation that would "sprint" (well move as fast as possible while not breaking formation) towards another body of massed infantry driving their forrest of long pikes into the enemy formation to chock the enemy and break up the enemy formation before going at the enemy with swords. Essentially shock troops.

Swiss pikemen and halbearders being a massed body of infantry who's main job was to provide a defense to heavy cavalry charges and acting as a professional mercenary core to any army. With halbearders also being specially adept at crushing through heavy armour and pulling down riders from their horses with hocks on their weapons.

Only similarity is that they both were employed in massed infantry tactics and were armed with long pointy things.

Boblof said:

Swiss pikemen and halbearders being a massed body of infantry who's main job was to provide a defense to heavy cavalry charges and acting as a professional mercenary core to any army. With halbearders also being specially adept at crushing through heavy armour and pulling down riders from their horses with hocks on their weapons.

Click to expand...

Except of course the Swiss did charge with pike - lined up, lifted them over the shoulders, and walked briskly into the enemy until the enemy broke.

One point though: A classical army is probably going to be larger than a medieval one in most cases.

RGB said:

Except of course the Swiss did charge with pike - lined up, lifted them over the shoulders, and walked briskly into the enemy until the enemy broke.

Click to expand...

Like every single military force equipped with spears, if that is all it takes to say that swiss pikemen = phalanx then so would a mobile schiltron, a svinfylk, a tercio etc be the same thing as a pahlanx. Hell, by that standard phalanx tactics were alive and well in Sweden right up to the 19th century.

I consider there to be key differences.
1. The swiss prioritized defense to cavalry over shock effect to infantry, this is best illustrated by the fact that unlike a phalanx which would have a front, a rear and two flanks the swiss normally moved in rather slow pike squares in which every side was the front side, sacraficing chock for cavalry protection.
2. Swiss pikemen were often equipped with halbierds (the difference between a big spear-axe and a sarissa is not worth pointing out is it?).
3. Unlike in the phalanx the unit did not form a wall of interlocking large shields.
4. Sometimes missle troops would walk within this pike square, fiering continually as it moved (although that is more the signum of a tercio).

Arilou said:

One point though: A classical army is probably going to be larger than a medieval one in most cases.

Click to expand...

How so?

Boblof said:

How so?

Click to expand...

Rome, at least, had a far better infrastructure for raising and maintaining large armed forces than any medieval state.

Registered said:

Rome, at least, had a far better infrastructure for raising and maintaining large armed forces than any medieval state.

Click to expand...

doubtful, they had better chances of orderly movement within the Roman state but outside it they were largely dependent on the agricultural society around them to feed them wern't they? If so they would not have been that fantastically different from medieval armies. And as far as I know that fits pretty well with the army sizes that have been estimated for the Roman era, individual armies rarely exceeded 20k (followers excluded), when they did it should be considered an exception, like the first crusade was for medieval times.

Boblof said:

doubtful, they had better chances of orderly movement within the Roman state but outside it they were largely dependent on the agricultural society around them to feed them wern't they? If so they would not have been that fantastically different from medieval armies. And as far as I know that fits pretty well with the army sizes that have been estimated for the Roman era, individual armies rarely exceeded 20k (followers excluded), when they did it should be considered an exception, like the first crusade was for medieval times.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the point is that 20K was pretty huge for a medieval army too. Numbers are hard to estimate but most medieval armies seems to have been less than 10k. (THere being some exceptions, like the big crusades, of course)

Arilou said:

Yes, but the point is that 20K was pretty huge for a medieval army too. Numbers are hard to estimate but most medieval armies seems to have been less than 10k. (THere being some exceptions, like the big crusades, of course)

Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it, great powers in battle with other great powers rutinely came up with armies of 20k (crecy, agincourt, nancy etc), most conflicts during medieval times however was solved with much lesser means.

Now we must also differentiate between the fiscal ability needed to field such armies and the logistical capability of doing the same.

Most conflicts in the medieval period was between small or even tiny political units, which stands in stark contrast to how Rome was an intercontinental empire, it would be strange if Rome would not have been able fiscally to raise larger armies than political units like the county of Flanders, but I do not see any proof that any single French army could not match any single Roman army which is what counts in this context, they both had about the same logistical limitations.

Boblof said:

Like every single military force equipped with spears, if that is all it takes to say that swiss pikemen = phalanx then so would a mobile schiltron, a svinfylk, a tercio etc be the same thing as a pahlanx. Hell, by that standard phalanx tactics were alive and well in Sweden right up to the 19th century.

I consider there to be key differences.
1. The swiss prioritized defense to cavalry over shock effect to infantry, this is best illustrated by the fact that unlike a phalanx which would have a front, a rear and two flanks the swiss normally moved in rather slow pike squares in which every side was the front side, sacraficing chock for cavalry protection.
2. Swiss pikemen were often equipped with halbierds (the difference between a big spear-axe and a sarissa is not worth pointing out is it?).
3. Unlike in the phalanx the unit did not form a wall of interlocking large shields.
4. Sometimes missle troops would walk within this pike square, fiering continually as it moved (although that is more the signum of a tercio).

Click to expand...

1. When outnumbered by cavalry, Alexanders (and other Greek phalanxes) would do the same - read up on the 10,000 retreating through Persia
2. Swiss halberdiers were only important in the 14th century. Their use declined significantly in the 15th.
3. Alexander's phalanx unlike the hoplite phalanx didn't use a large shield either as you need two hands for an 18ft pike. Best they had as a small buckler strapped on their arm.
4. As already indicated Alexander was experimenting with mixed Pike and Bow units before he died.

Fornadan said:

I would guess the biggest advance from classical to medieval times to be in fortifications and siegecraft.

Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't think so. The Romans obviously had very advanced siege equipment and tactics. They even included "field artillery" into their later armies.
And with respect to fortifications, Roman style fortifications and medieval castles both had their advantages and disadvantages. However, the scale was vastly different, a typical medieval castle had a couple of hundreds attackers and defenders, a Roman legion's castle was housing up to 5000 soldiers.

Derek Pullem said:

1. When outnumbered by cavalry, Alexanders (and other Greek phalanxes) would do the same - read up on the 10,000 retreating through Persia

Click to expand...

It could be done yes, but it was not something that greek solders trained for or something that was widely done.

Derek Pullem said:

2. Swiss halberdiers were only important in the 14th century. Their use declined significantly in the 15th.

Click to expand...

Yes, pikes came to be considered better for repelling cavalry, halberds were however still popular in other roles in medieval armies.

Derek Pullem said:

3. Alexander's phalanx unlike the hoplite phalanx didn't use a large shield either as you need two hands for an 18ft pike. Best they had as a small buckler strapped on their arm.

Click to expand...

True.

Derek Pullem said:

4. As already indicated Alexander was experimenting with mixed Pike and Bow units before he died.

Click to expand...

So?

The qestion as I see it is how far do you want to stretch the defenition of the word phalanx. Would a napoleonic square be a phalanx? a schiltron? anything involving pointy stabby things?

Kerry said:

I certainly wouldn't think so. The Romans obviously had very advanced siege equipment and tactics. They even included "field artillery" into their later armies.
And with respect to fortifications, Roman style fortifications and medieval castles both had their advantages and disadvantages. However, the scale was vastly different, a typical medieval castle had a couple of hundreds attackers and defenders, a Roman legion's castle was housing up to 5000 soldiers.

Click to expand...

That's actually an argument to some extent *against* the romans. A medieval castle could dominate a large tract of land with a relatively small garrison, which is what you want in these kinds of things.

In my inexpert opinion, I think if we're talking about a battle of the same number of troops on even ground, the medievals win--at least, if we're considering the Hundred Years War medieval--the heavier armor, the horse breeds, the stirrups, the improved bows give them too big a technological advantage. (With seminal Renaissance figures Giotto and Dante dead before it began and Florence's cathedral dome raised before it ended, I think it's questionable). The Romans would have a better shot at Charlemagne's Franks, though.

On the other hand, if you plunked a medieval kingdom in Germania during the reign of one of the strong 1st or 2nd century emperors, I'm not so sure the Romans couldn't have waged war successfully against it. They had the infrastructure and economy to support larger numbers of troops in the field for longer periods than any medieval kingdom, and far more disciplined and professional troops. I still don't think they'd conquer a late medieval proto-renaissance kingdom because of the huge number of castles they'd need to starve out, but earlier medieval kingdoms weren't as heavily fortified. And I doubt even a late medieval kingdom would conquer the Empire at its peak.

Actually...

Tactics and equipment develop through an endless exchange of measures and countermeasures. It might happen, from time to time, that a stage far left behind in this tug of war would actually prove very competitive against later developments.

If we consider a Roman Legion at the height of Roman Military prowess, from say 100 AD, i would confidently expect them to rout...

*Just about any medieval army of similar or somewhat greater size. They had the discipline to stand their ground against charging heavy cavalry (like Parthian Cataphracts) so knights would have no easy time against them. And knights would make up only a minor portion of the medieval army, not enough to offset the massive superiority of the Legionary over virtually all other medieval combatants.

*Any pike- and shot army of similar size, assuming that the Legionaries are familiarised with gunpowder weapons and know their effect, otherwise the surprise and superstitious fear might easily break them.

Yes, really.

Rate and volume of fire at this time would not have been enough to stop the legion's charge and up close, the legionarie's pila would break up the pike formation, and their heavy swords, scutum and armour would simply slaughter their opponents who had only a light sword, no shield and most often no armour.

And even as late a unit as a Napolonic war brigade of similar size to a Legion, well, it probably would win because of the losses caused to the legion by massed musket and cannon fire before they got close. But it would take heavy losses in he ensuing melee, and even then, might just loose because of morale collapse.

I think the edge in discipline and tactics of the ancient army would make them beat just about any medieval force.

Sure, the medieval cavalry would easily beat almost any ancient cavalry, but then what? The nobles would charge head on into the closest ancient pahalanx/square/whatever and get slaughtered. The medieval infantry, even if armed with superior weapons (which I doubt, they usually had no standard weapons and fought with whatever they had) would be no match for the discipline and cohesion of their ancient counterparts.

Also, it depends what kind of ancient army we consider here. For example, the Macedonian cavalry would have no chance against knights whatsoever. However, Persian heavy cavalry would surely fare better, while Byzantine cataphracts would probably beat the knights due to way superior tactical flexibility and versatility (they could act as mounted archers if needed, etc).

Another thing is leadership. Ancient armies actually had tactics and generals able to change them after the battle started, adapting to conditions. Quite different from the medieval leaders, whose only tactic was "I charge 1st, the rest follow me" and who lost all control over their army once the battle started.

There are of course exceptions, like the medieval Mongols, who would have probably beat easily any ancient army.

Rate and volume of fire at this time would not have been enough to stop the legion's charge and up close, the legionarie's pila would break up the pike formation, and their heavy swords, scutum and armour would simply slaughter their opponents who had only a light sword, no shield and most often no armour.

Click to expand...

Didn't the spaniards try training "legionaires" against a pike-and-shot army and found out they weren't really effective? (Better to just have *better* pike-and-shot than the enemy)

EDIT: I suspect *any* kind of field artillery, especially grapeshot, would be quite devastating against a legion, btw.

dragos03 said:

I think the edge in discipline and tactics of the ancient army would make them beat just about any medieval force.

Sure, the medieval cavalry would easily beat almost any ancient cavalry, but then what? The nobles would charge head on into the closest ancient pahalanx/square/whatever and get slaughtered. The medieval infantry, even if armed with superior weapons (which I doubt, they usually had no standard weapons and fought with whatever they had) would be no match for the discipline and cohesion of their ancient counterparts.

Also, it depends what kind of ancient army we consider here. For example, the Macedonian cavalry would have no chance against knights whatsoever. However, Persian heavy cavalry would surely fare better, while Byzantine cataphracts would probably beat the knights due to way superior tactical flexibility and versatility (they could act as mounted archers if needed, etc).

Another thing is leadership. Ancient armies actually had tactics and generals able to change them after the battle started, adapting to conditions. Quite different from the medieval leaders, whose only tactic was "I charge 1st, the rest follow me" and who lost all control over their army once the battle started.

There are of course exceptions, like the medieval Mongols, who would have probably beat easily any ancient army.

Click to expand...

The crusaders did experiment with horse archers too (and switching between them, IIRC) so it's not as if the idea was completely alien.

Also, I think you overestimate how much any commander, even in ancient times, could control a battle once it started (as opposed to pre-planning something)

Arilou said:

Didn't the spaniards try training "legionaires" against a pike-and-shot army and found out they weren't really effective? (Better to just have *better* pike-and-shot than the enemy)

Click to expand...

The rodeleros were very effective against the Aztecs and Incas, however

But they were pretty helpless against European horsemen.

That said, they weren't legionnaires. The were sword-and-bucklermen.

As for legions stopping pike and shot: thin wooden shields and chainmail do jack-all against bullets. All that extra 1st century gear isn't going to help them at all. They can't rotate troopers out of battle safely, they can't weather shooting behind their shields, in fact, they're not even going to really get to throw their pila without getting seriously disorganised first.