Medieval armies

Fluffy · Post by **Fluffy** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:53 pm

Good afternoon everyone

A friend and I have a "debate" about medieval armies, he says that the core of any good medieval army is the knights and I agree that that may be historicly accurate, but hold that the core of a good medieval army is good foot.

I thought I'd open this to the floor (so to speak), any thoughts?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:20 pm

I suspect that the French might be of the opinion that anyone without a horse and a title is not relevant but that the English might want to argue with that.

Interestingly the top 10 Medieval armies based on the current ELO are not knight heavy forces and in some cases have no knights at all. This would suggest that the French standpoint is flawed at best.

Personally I like medieval armies with decent foot and a few knights. I don't think I have ever fielded more than two BG of knights and most of the time I can manage with just one.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:44 pm

No, that suggest only that the rule are wrote by Englishmen who never understood the charm of a glorious charge

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:19 pm

olivier wrote:No, that suggest only that the rule are wrote by Englishmen who never understood the charm of a glorious charge

Touché

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:49 pm

olivier wrote:No, that suggest only that the rule are wrote by Englishmen who never understood the charm of a glorious charge

Same goes for Englishmen writing about the battle of Waterloo.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:06 pm

Yes!!
The same who wrote about Crecy or made their only glorious attempt of a manly charge at Balaklava

General Pierre Bosquet : « C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. " ("It is magnificent, but it is not war.")

Seriously, an average, good core of shock infantry supported by good archery (or artillery) and disciplined Knights are the art of war in the end of the period.

Spanish and French learn this with their blood and their armies ruled the early renaissance.
English failed to see this evolution, Burgundian failed to masteries it and ottomans failed to professionalize their armies.

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:38 pm

I believe French Ordonnance won the recent BHGS challenge with 3 BGs of drilled knights.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:24 pm

If you go by ELO ratings the top 2 medieval armies are Early and Middle Hungarian, which would suggest that the real answer is Knights, but with a bucketload of shooty cav and light horse.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:53 pm

ethan wrote:I believe French Ordonnance won the recent BHGS challenge with 3 BGs of drilled knights.

Commanded by an Englishman

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:03 pm

kevinj wrote:If you go by ELO ratings the top 2 medieval armies are Early and Middle Hungarian, which would suggest that the real answer is Knights, but with a bucketload of shooty cav and light horse.

True but not really a medieval army in the propper sense (meaning Western european)

eldiablito · Post by **eldiablito** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:50 pm

olivier wrote:Yes!!
The same who wrote about Crecy or made their only glorious attempt of a manly charge at Balaklava

General Pierre Bosquet : « C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. " ("It is magnificent, but it is not war.")

Seriously, an average, good core of shock infantry supported by good archery (or artillery) and disciplined Knights are the art of war in the end of the period.

Spanish and French learn this with their blood and their armies ruled the early renaissance.
English failed to see this evolution, Burgundian failed to masteries it and ottomans failed to professionalize their armies.

I've got to repeat these statements. Knights were romanticized in the Medieval period (and even more so today). However, Knights could not break a solid line of determined infantry. You needed archery to soften up enemy infantry before knights could break the line.

Let's not bring the Mongols into the argument and only focus on Western Europe or else the discussion loses meaning.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:04 pm

eldiablito wrote:I've got to repeat these statements. Knights were romanticized in the Medieval period (and even more so today). However, Knights could not break a solid line of determined infantry. You needed archery to soften up enemy

I'm sure the French kinights ran through a few solid lines of Pikes without support, or English leadership.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:54 pm

Knights could not break a solid line of determined infantry.

In the FoG universe knights seems to have a good chance of defeating veteran Roman legions. They are equal in impact and the knights have a POA in melee. The same is true with cataphracts vs. legions, except they aren't two dice per stand.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:35 am

Delbruck wrote:
Knights could not break a solid line of determined infantry.
In the FoG universe knights seems to have a good chance of defeating veteran Roman legions. They are equal in impact and the knights have a POA in melee. The same is true with cataphracts vs. legions, except they aren't two dice per stand.

The two dice are a big deal I think.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:37 am

hammy wrote: Interestingly the top 10 Medieval armies based on the current ELO are not knight heavy forces and in some cases have no knights at all.

Most have 2-3 Knights.

SHNC has 1-2 and good solid foot
English Longbow are the exception in that their knights are all dismounted.

Beyond those two types, how many options are there?

marty · Post by **marty** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:24 am

which of course leaves out all the (probably most common) medieval armies of knights backed up by foot who are defensive spear, x-bow, halberdiers and the like that, alas, almost no one uses.

Martin

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:26 am

hazelbark wrote:
hammy wrote: Interestingly the top 10 Medieval armies based on the current ELO are not knight heavy forces and in some cases have no knights at all.
Most have 2-3 Knights.

SHNC has 1-2 and good solid foot
English Longbow are the exception in that their knights are all dismounted.

Beyond those two types, how many options are there?

I think that is pretty much what I said Dan. In my book 2 BG of knights is not knight heavy, 3 BG is getting there but I have faced 5 BG admitedly at 900 points but 4 at 800 points is what I would consider knight heavy.

Swiss normally have no knights too.

As I see it the options are:
No knights, just the one BG, 2-3 BG or lots.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:15 am

hammy wrote:As I see it the options are:
No knights, just the one BG, 2-3 BG or lots.

Not much wisdom there then

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:50 am

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:As I see it the options are:
No knights, just the one BG, 2-3 BG or lots.
Not much wisdom there then

The young today - after a gap year travelling round the world think they know everything...

Medieval armies

Medieval armies

Me too

Re: Me too