5 ms·

I guess technological-determinist arguments are generally easy to source, because there's usually abundant archaeological evidence of the kinds of equipment peo

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.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      >Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies My feeling is actually that as the empire grew, the armies they could field somewhat declined. When Cannae happened, the Romans were big, but not huge, and they could literally field army after army of professional soldiers. Part of this was demographics (there had been a population boom in Italy) but part of it is economics and state capacity. I would guess that up until really late (like, 1880's) warfare was not that technical, so stuff like 'elan' and 'will' was typically by far the most important characteristic in a soldier. That's at least what generals right up to the first world war tended to prize. When it comes to sheer discipline, bloodymindedness and martial spirit, I don't think anybody would surpass the Romans until the modern era.
- hoseja 5y ago
  What is a "professional feudal army"? No seriously, that is a conceptual oxymoron, or at least I understand it to be.
  - Retric 5y ago
    One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
    - hef19898 5y ago
      That's already early Rennaissance, stabding mercenary formations started to show up around that time. Feudal armies tended to be passants being called to arms centered around some highly trained knights and professionals. The Mongols were a standing professional army, something that played an important role during their campaigns.
      - Retric 5y ago
        I don’t think there is agreement to when the Middle Ages ended and the Renaissance started, but 1458 could easily fit into both. That said, they started having a professional army in the 1440’s. The late medieval and early renaissance line is blurry in part because various practices got adopted at different times in different locations.
        hef19898 5y ago
        It truly is, as is the question when the medieval period started. Personally, I think it's fair to see the first "modern" principles from 1400 onwards. What is usually considered being classical feudal middle ages is, IMHO, earlier. That's why I think the 15th century is so damn interesting. It was the turning point after which European powers became the dominant powers. Up to then global domination was up for grabs.

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.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    >Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies My feeling is actually that as the empire grew, the armies they could field somewhat declined. When Cannae happened, the Romans were big, but not huge, and they could literally field army after army of professional soldiers. Part of this was demographics (there had been a population boom in Italy) but part of it is economics and state capacity. I would guess that up until really late (like, 1880's) warfare was not that technical, so stuff like 'elan' and 'will' was typically by far the most important characteristic in a soldier. That's at least what generals right up to the first world war tended to prize. When it comes to sheer discipline, bloodymindedness and martial spirit, I don't think anybody would surpass the Romans until the modern era.
hoseja 5y ago
What is a "professional feudal army"? No seriously, that is a conceptual oxymoron, or at least I understand it to be.
- Retric 5y ago
  One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
  - hef19898 5y ago
    That's already early Rennaissance, stabding mercenary formations started to show up around that time. Feudal armies tended to be passants being called to arms centered around some highly trained knights and professionals. The Mongols were a standing professional army, something that played an important role during their campaigns.
    - Retric 5y ago
      I don’t think there is agreement to when the Middle Ages ended and the Renaissance started, but 1458 could easily fit into both. That said, they started having a professional army in the 1440’s. The late medieval and early renaissance line is blurry in part because various practices got adopted at different times in different locations.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        It truly is, as is the question when the medieval period started. Personally, I think it's fair to see the first "modern" principles from 1400 onwards. What is usually considered being classical feudal middle ages is, IMHO, earlier. That's why I think the 15th century is so damn interesting. It was the turning point after which European powers became the dominant powers. Up to then global domination was up for grabs.