4 ms·

> This is not the case. Sounds like something that comes from a pop account of crecy or agincourt? Not the OP and there is lots of post-factum rationalisation

> This is not the case. Sounds like something that comes from a pop account of crecy or agincourt? Not the OP and there is lots of post-factum rationalisation like "the Crusaders lost because they were sloppy, not because they were cavaliers", but there's also the famous example of the 1393 Battle of Nicopolis which the Ottomans won because they were way lighter compared to the Westerners. Their archers and sharpened stakes against the Crusaders' heavy cavalry can be compared to today's NLAWs against the Russians' tanks. It is true, by the mid 1400s and especially by the start of the 1500s artillery and gunpowder had won the game, that's mostly how Suleiman the Magnificent managed to reach the gates of Vienna. Also, there's much to be said about the Mongols' excellent administrative skills once they had conquered some land, I think that because of some Western-related bias that doesn't get underlined as much as should do in today's mainstream historiography. As the US (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and the Soviets/Russians (in Afghanistan and partially in Ukraine) have found out at their own expense is not enough to militarily conquer some land, you also have to administer it afterwards, preferably with the help of some of the local population. Because, among other things, of their religious tolerance the Mongols (or Tartars, as they were mostly known here in Eastern Europe) were really good at it, probably there are some good books written about this specific aspect of their rule but to be honest I didn't put my hands on any of them until now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

pasabagi 5y ago
I guess technological-determinist arguments are generally easy to source, because there's usually abundant archaeological evidence of the kinds of equipment people use to fight wars. I'm generally pretty skeptical: there are just a ton of cases where an army strong in one category (say, heavy cavalry) have slaughtered enemies strong in other categories, and vice versa. It seems to me that technologies that dominated entire eras (heavy infantry for the romans, heavy cavalry for medieval europe, horse archers for the steppes, etc) follow naturally from the social models rather than military necessity. A feudal lord wouldn't have the ability to organize or provision a roman legion, for instance, or the raw culture of mobility and horsemanship for horse archers, etc.
- Retric 5y ago
  In some ways that’s true but it’s important to realize military effectiveness was increasing over time. This was most obvious with naval warfare, but also holds true of land armies. Professional feudal armies would have crushed Roman armies of equivalent sizes. However, they lacked the scale of true empires.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    > Professional feudal armies would have crushed Roman armies of equivalent sizes. Really? Why? The other thing is that a feudal state wouldn't be able to field an army that was of an equivalent size to a Roman army. The Romans fielded eight legions at Cannae, which was like 80,000 guys. Agincourt, in comparison, involved about a quarter of that number if you combine both sides. Even if the roman legionnaire was worse than a feudal soldier, which I see no reason to believe, it's obvious that there was a precipitous decline in organizational and logistical capacity. In a battle, that would count more than the quality of the soldiers involved.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Plus, nit to forget, a Legionnaire was a professional soldier. The majority of feudal armies was part time soldiers. Exceptions were late medieval, early Renaissance mercenaries. And those, e.g. Landsknechts, men-at-arms and the Swiss pikemen, dominated the battlefields in their time. The Romans build their empire on logistics and organization as much as they did on legions and civil engineering. No feudal kingdom came close to that.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - Retric 5y ago
      Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies so yes they had a real logistical advantage. As to feudal soldiers vs legionnaires it was largely a question of equipment. Mounted knights required horse that weren’t available to Rome because selective breeding had yet to produce them. Improvements in metalwork and armor design resulted in far better coverage for the same weight. Knights largely stopped using shields because they didn’t need them as much as they could use a free hand. That said there was a large variation on both sides. Disease, exhaustion etc could also wreck an otherwise capable army.
_glass 5y ago
Do you know this book: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691165851/lost-enlightenment https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691165851/lo... It talks about the often overlooked civilisation in Central Asia between 800 and 1200.
- paganel 5y ago
  Nope, and thanks a lot for the recommendation, I'll give it a try. I've mostly read Peter Golden's [1] excellent works about that area, but they approximately stop before the Mongol invasions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Golden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Golden
  - _glass 5y ago
    Oh, thanks. I wanted to read his Central Asia in World History since a long time. Sometime I'll write a Global History of the Turkic-Mongol mercantile business.

pasabagi 5y ago

I guess technological-determinist arguments are generally easy to source, because there's usually abundant archaeological evidence of the kinds of equipment people use to fight wars. I'm generally pretty skeptical: there are just a ton of cases where an army strong in one category (say, heavy cavalry) have slaughtered enemies strong in other categories, and vice versa. It seems to me that technologies that dominated entire eras (heavy infantry for the romans, heavy cavalry for medieval europe, horse archers for the steppes, etc) follow naturally from the social models rather than military necessity. A feudal lord wouldn't have the ability to organize or provision a roman legion, for instance, or the raw culture of mobility and horsemanship for horse archers, etc.

Retric 5y ago
In some ways that’s true but it’s important to realize military effectiveness was increasing over time. This was most obvious with naval warfare, but also holds true of land armies. Professional feudal armies would have crushed Roman armies of equivalent sizes. However, they lacked the scale of true empires.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > Professional feudal armies would have crushed Roman armies of equivalent sizes. Really? Why? The other thing is that a feudal state wouldn't be able to field an army that was of an equivalent size to a Roman army. The Romans fielded eight legions at Cannae, which was like 80,000 guys. Agincourt, in comparison, involved about a quarter of that number if you combine both sides. Even if the roman legionnaire was worse than a feudal soldier, which I see no reason to believe, it's obvious that there was a precipitous decline in organizational and logistical capacity. In a battle, that would count more than the quality of the soldiers involved.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Plus, nit to forget, a Legionnaire was a professional soldier. The majority of feudal armies was part time soldiers. Exceptions were late medieval, early Renaissance mercenaries. And those, e.g. Landsknechts, men-at-arms and the Swiss pikemen, dominated the battlefields in their time. The Romans build their empire on logistics and organization as much as they did on legions and civil engineering. No feudal kingdom came close to that.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - Retric 5y ago
    Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies so yes they had a real logistical advantage. As to feudal soldiers vs legionnaires it was largely a question of equipment. Mounted knights required horse that weren’t available to Rome because selective breeding had yet to produce them. Improvements in metalwork and armor design resulted in far better coverage for the same weight. Knights largely stopped using shields because they didn’t need them as much as they could use a free hand. That said there was a large variation on both sides. Disease, exhaustion etc could also wreck an otherwise capable army.

_glass 5y ago

Do you know this book: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691165851/lost-enlightenment https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691165851/lo... It talks about the often overlooked civilisation in Central Asia between 800 and 1200.

paganel 5y ago
Nope, and thanks a lot for the recommendation, I'll give it a try. I've mostly read Peter Golden's [1] excellent works about that area, but they approximately stop before the Mongol invasions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Golden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Golden
- _glass 5y ago
  Oh, thanks. I wanted to read his Central Asia in World History since a long time. Sometime I'll write a Global History of the Turkic-Mongol mercantile business.