3/16 inches. I believe the wire is around 0.0253. Its a little lighter than some historical stuff I saw in a museum(which was riveted), which I believe was 0.04 or so. But mine is more densely packed than that stuff.
Oh, mine is shorter than normal too, as I wore it under my shirt when I was a bouncer. That accounts for it being on the light side.
I cant seem to find it. This is annoying.
I’ve always believed that chain was effective against slashing blows but less so with stabbing blows.
We’ve taken no account of the use of Ballistas by the earlier Roman army which were used in large numbers as longer range weapons.
I’d be grateful if anyone knows of any detailed accounts of their tactical use and how much they contributed to the victories.
The invention of the stirrup meant that cavalry could charge infantry knee to knee, and resist the shock of lance impact without being unseated.
I have read that it is unlikely that Roman infantry could resist such charges.
The last nail in the coffin of the Roman Empires was IMO, that being civilised they had designated armies to fight for them whereas their opponents had all males trained from birth as warriors.
So that it was a part of the Roman population fighting virtually the entire population of their enemies.
Their enemies also had the spur of desperation urging them on, the reason they moved west in the first place was because they were driven out by the Mongols, who themselves were fleeing plague in their traditional homelands.
So it wasn’t just a case of the invading hordes out for a bit of plunder.
I think that the later Romans would win by virtue of their improved cavalry.
Um… how did Romans win more often than they lost against other Romans? However you count it, exactly as many of those fights were lost by Romans as were won by Romans, so they were battling .500.
My question is, which side has the time machine that enabled the battle? I’d give the win to them.
Later romans still had ballista’s and scorpio’s, supposidly they had repeating ones at that!
Stirrups don’t mean you have a better seat. Early knights had saddles with a raised rear to take the shock.
The romans did have saddles with four horns, they sat quite secure.
The couched lance technique was most probably unknown though.
Indeed. 50% of Augustus Caesar’s army was non-Roman, supplied by assorted vassals and subject peoples. This included most “Roman” cavalry, many specialty missile troops and a variety of lighter infantry.
A.) The 4th/5th century Romans did not have hard stirrups. The first definitive record of paired stirrups from Europe is from 7th century Avar gravesites. To the best of my knowledge the oft-cited claim that the Huns introduced them to Europe is backed up by neither contemporary documentary nor archaelogical evidence.
B.) Recent studies have downplayed the significance of stirrups to shock cavalry - see in particular this article. Persian cataphracts for instance did just fine without them. Stirrups were very useful for stability - especially in melee and for mounted archers. But they were perhaps not quite the revolutionary item they’re sometimes made out to be.
One thing that is definitely an improvement with stirrups is mounting the horse, while wearing armour.
Before you either needed a leg up from someone or jump on yourself.
It’s doable to jump on. You first land with your belly on the saddle and then swing to the front but the horse can get jittery by the sudden weight of an armoured man, who’s in an akward position to control his mount, lying across the saddle while also carrying shield and spear.
If the 100 AD army was significantly better disciplined, that right there is enough to make up for any technological differences. Remember, the way you defeat an army isn’t by killing all of the soldiers in it: Killing even a tenth of the enemy soldiers was considered an incredibly bloody victory. You defeat an army by demoralizing the soldiers to the point where they cut and run. And the better your discipline, the longer you can hold out before that happens.
On cavalry vs. infantry, shock tatics:
I’ve heard that cavalry, no matter how you train the horses, will not charge a line of disciplined infantry ‘to the finish’ head -on: that is, they will not charge ‘home’ if the infantry simply maintains the line (something that undisciplined infantry will generally not do - the instinct is to run, which is obviously fatal when charged by cavalry). Thus, generally, heavy cavalry beats undisciplined infantry every time. If faced with disciplined infantry, cavalry must manouver to seek the flanks or rear of an infantry line, not seek to break it head-on with shock.
Is this generally true, or do changes in technology vary the situation? (not talking light cavalry armed with bows or javelins here).
Not true. Influenced by the steppe cultures, we see the appearance of extremely heavy cataphracts in the Eastern Roman Empire, the only purpose of which could have been to crush enemy infantry in a head-on charge. The extensive Western European evolution of pikes vs. heavy cavalry throughout the following centuries should leave no doubt that these people were in the business of slamming heavily armored horses directly into massed infantry formations.
But the cavalry of antiquity were (usually) not those heavies, but the less expensive and more agile light cavalries, whose purpose was skirmishing, fast strikes on the rear, and most of all, chasing down routers and preventing an enemy force from reassembling. Very, very important, that last one. This was so important that even the middle period Romans, who did not like cavalry much at all, had their own squadrons. As for why we don’t see the appearance of heavy crushing cavalry earlier during antiquity, who knows. We don’t see the use of personal crossbows either, even though it’s a sure bet the Romans knew how to build them and would have benefitted from their use.
I dunno. Is the ‘only’ purpose of heavy cavalry to crush disciplined infantry in head-on charges? No doubt it could crush undisciplined infantry well enough.
Also, I always thought the main business of pikes was to counter other infantry - the famous “push of pike”. While obviously no horsemen would charge directly into a mass of pikemen, having a mass of pikemen wasn’t necessarily inspired by direct competition with horsemen, per se.
It’s purpose is to crush infantry, “disciplined” or not. Consider the cost of heavy cavalry. It’s crippling. Each single horseman (knight) needs attendants, multiple horses. Each horse must be fed, watered, & has its own attendants. For every knight you field you may have 4-5 other men that exist solely to get that man onto his horse and fighting. For what possible use? Not a scout or a skirmisher, that you can do at a fraction of the cost with ponies and peasants. Lug baggage train around? Chase routers? Nah. There’s only one reason to go through the enormous expense of breeding, training and armoring a massive warhorse, not to mention his rider. They were actually being used. Used enough that these men could afford to go roving around as mercenary bands and pay for their own upkeep and then some.
I would say the main purpose of a pikeman is to get an uneducated peasant with a cheap weapon to kill an educated knight and/or his very expensive horse. The peasant cost me a single loaf of bread to bring to battle, the knight cost my opponent a hundred loaves of bread. I make this happen enough, I win the war. Polearm v. polearm happened of course, but there’s no real economic advantage there, if your pikes are engaged with other pikes you’ve screwed the pooch bigtime. Now you’re just meat grinding. As with many things in war, it has a romantic charm inversely proportionate to its effectiveness.
That’s just the point - I can think of many stategic uses for heavy cavalry other than the romantic (but I suspect, rare) direct charge into disciplined, formed infantry.
Also, disciplined infantry was rather uncommon until modern times; the ancients had it, certainly, but it did not really make its reappearance on the battlefield until Renaissance times - and undisciplined infantry was, indeed, easy meat for heavy cavalry. Thus, your medieval knight was quite useful militarily, though less so if he ran into truly formidable infantry (they won at Hastings, but it was a close-run affair against Saxon hausecarls).
More significantly, especially for a nomad army, a force that can deliver the “killing blow” to infantry once its discipline has cracked under incessant attrition by your light cavalry showering 'em with arrows for hours. This is what happened, for example, to the Romans under Crassius.
Having a force that can crush light cavalry like tin cans if you are clever & lucky enough to manouver your light-cavalry enemy into a place where they cannot simply retreat. This explains, for example, some startling victories by the first crusaders.
The problem with this is it sorta guts your theory above. If all one had to do was have cheap pikemen to eliminate the threat of heavy horse, what use your expensive heavy horse?
I suspect that once disciplined pikemen made the scene (and pikes required dicipline to use - they were only useful in formations), the heavy horse was relegated to being part of a combined-arms affair by successful generals.
Largely because the Saxons lost their discipline. The Norman cavalry charged the shieldwall and was shattered. The Saxons then chased after the retreating cavalry, and without the protection of the shieldwall were vulnerable to Norman counterattack. If the Saxon army had not tried to pursue the fleeing Normans but instead stayed in position, they probably would have won the battle.
That’s a good point, though in all fairness the Normans deliberately tempted the Saxons to charge by making ‘false retreats’ - Harold’s nobles should of course have held them in check.
Though again, the point being that heavy cavalry generally could not simply ride down disciplined infantry, unless they were able to crack that discipline somehow (the Normans also famously used bow-armed skirmishers to torment the shield-wall for this very purpose at Hastings - hence the arrow-in-the-eye that, allegedly, did for Harold).
Edit: also, lacking cavalry, there is generally no easy way for infantry to strike back. Only in rare strategic circumstances can a purely infantry army decisively defeat cavalry.
Yeah, I think you’re kind of homing in on “disciplined” like it’s some sort of absolute quantifiable game attribute. I know in Total War games some units get flagged as “disciplined” but in the real world guys getting pointy shit shoved at them from the back of a heavy weighted destrier representing christ-only-knows how much kinetic energy are going to have diverse reactions to the immediate threat of death and crippling injury. The laws of physics don’t endow gruff veterans with extra hit points or keep their bodies from being pulverized after their ankles snap backwards like rotten twigs. I don’t know what to say other than “discipline” reduces casualties from routing by hopefully reducing the frequency of the routs; in opposed battle, it is less meaningful. They either break on charge or don’t, you’ll have no reliable way of knowing if they will break until you charge them. Maybe only half of them run away, unlike in simulations. If most of them do break and rout you may lose a few horses and riders but you’ll have victory at an overall low cost. If they don’t then look at the bright side: that’s alot fewer horses you’ll have to feed tonight. But “discipline” isn’t neatly quantifiable in the real world like it is in a wargame. You’ll find out the hard way, for both sides.
Crassus’ men were broken by heavy cav charges directly into their massed infantry formations interspersed with arrow fire. And the Parthians weren’t nomadic.
Really useful when they charge, cripple or kill 50 guys and open a hole in the pike line, actually. The evolution is pretty clear. Frontal attacks reduced as pikes lengthened. Artillery starts to break up the lines, horse begins to concentrate more on flanks again, pike square becomes more common in response. It’s an arms race. But none of it was necessary if horses wouldn’t charge into massed infantry, which is your original point that I hope has been dispensed with by now.
Horses will definitely charge into an infantry mass. Yes. They will. And they don’t know the difference between the front and the back, because they are horses. That’s what you asserted, and the historical record undeniably controverts it.
Quick correction before pedants descend: the Parthians had nomadic origins (everyone does) and nomads were common in their Empire but they weren’t the Mongols or the Alans or anything. They were Hellenized, & settled to a large degree.
Fascinating discussion, glad to see this kind of thing come up.
One note on discipline: I believe by 400AD Honorius had Stilicho commanding his armies and discipline was much improved. I think more than anything it all depends on the circumstances of the battle, and the motivation and morale of the troops. You can nit-pick the details of their equipment back and forth but in the end I don’t think any one aspect of either side’s outfitting matters nearly as much as motivation and morale. Stilicho was a brilliant commander, but so was Trajan. Tough call.
I’m not thinking in terms of wargames, but in terms of the anthropology of warfare.
When I use the term "disciplined’, I mean a difference in kind, not quality. The difference between (say) a Roman army of the early empire, and German tribesmen they were fighting.
Heh, I think it is you who is being a trifle pedantic here. My statement was that this would be especiallt important to nomad armies, not that the Parthians were themselves nomads. Point being that the Parthians used a style of military quite similar to that of your typical nomad - heavy and light cavalry - which is no surprise, as they were of nomadic origin themselves and their main enemies were nomads.
And Crassus’s men’s discipline was cracked by the absolutely typical nomad-type tactic of destroying the discipline of his troops with showers of arrows, followed by heavy cavalry charges when the “stung” troops attempted to move out of their defensive formation to chase off the light cav. - either in “tortose” formation, or using what cavalry they had.
No, you are mis-stating. My point was that horses would not charge into massed, disciplined infantry. Also, this was not my original “point”, but my original “qusetion”, and I have yet to see any evidence to answer it in the negative - aside from assertion.
So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that horses will charge disciplined, unbroken infantry; in all of the battles described so far, cavalry has beaten infantry by one of the following:
The infantry breaks ranks to chase them, either spontaneously or tempted by a “false retreat” (Hastings);
The infantry’s discipline is broken by prologed helplessness in the face of an arrow storm - attemps to shoo away the tormentors are crushed by heavy cav (Carrhae).
What is missing so far at least is an example of a battle in which heavy cav beats disciplined infantry via pure frontal assault - simply charges them down, without attempting to tempt them out of line, using missile troops to break them up, etc. If the “historical record undeniably controverts it” - and it may, I dunno - surely examples of this are easy to find?
Yes, but equipment does also play a role in morale.
As a legionary in segmentata I feel pretty darn protected and would do things I wouldn’t when wearing mail. From the opposing side, even as a cataphract I would be intimidated by all those nasty points on a steady pike phalanx, outreaching my lance. Now if my lance was longer than those in the phalanx…
And yet you are virtually inundated in evidence that trained horses WILL charge unbroken infantry, period. What do you think the horses did? Stopped mid-charge and conferred amongst themselves? “Hey Bubba, that pike line looks really disciplined, let’s go find some arbalesters, maybe chew up some grass?” The fact that the targetted troops are disciplined, an entirely internal state of being, makes no effing difference to the horse. Hello? It’s a horse, not Miss Cleo.
The guy strapping a small fortune in forged steel to the front of his crushingly expensive mount expects to ride it directly into massed infantry. The person paying him to show up is expecting him to do it also. The art and writings of the period unquestionably confirm that that is exactly what they did. No one’s saying it was a smart thing to do, a smashingly successful tactic or that their survival rate was high. But as to the question of whether you can get a horse to ride into a packed wall of spearmen, the answer is unequivocally yes.
I’m not discussing anything else here so I can’t really imagine what you think we’re talking about other than you being wrong.