NationStates Jolt Archive

Which unit of the Ancient, Classical, or Post-classical era was the most effective?

Many people say it's the longbow man because of his quick firing speed abnd longer range, but I wanted to see your opinion.

Use the poll above.

EDIT: Quick run-through of advantages:

Phalanx member- Huge shields, long pikes/javelins. Excellent in formation.
Slinger- They could launch stones at speeds that pwn the arrow's speed
Horseback swordsman- The horse can plow through some infantries and artilleries while the horsemen swings at people
Janissary- GUNPOWDER
Samurai- Eastern version of a knight. Lighter blade for more speed and easier use. Heavily armored.
Mongolian archer- Archer mounted on a 1/2-sized horse. Small, easily maneuverable unit with bow use while in motion. 360 degree firing.
Long bow- Able to pump out arrows fast enough to give it the name of "The Machine Gun Of The Middle Ages"
Man-At-Arms- Heavy Infantry unit.
Knight- Heavy armor, a strong sword, and a large horse. Great for running over infantry.

Axemen, the highest classical age strength and the 50% bonus vs melee units is useful.

<.<

>.>

In real life, pikemen, probably.

Purely in terms of effect, it's either the longbow, or the Roman legion.

Axemen, the highest classical age strength and the 50% bonus vs melee units is useful.

<.<

>.>

In real life, pikemen, probably.

I'd personally say the Mongolian archer.

360 degree firing radius while riding on a horse, plus their bows were curved forward at the ends for more power.

Their disadvantage: No armor. So a good slinger/pike could get them.

Longbowmen in rank behind a protective layer of Men-at-Arms with iron pikes.

Mongol Archer.

After all the Mogolians had a pretty kick ass empire for a while

Mongol Archer.

After all the Mogolians had a pretty kick ass empire for a while

Though short-lived, it was the biggest.

And the reason Russia failed at life until the 20th century.

You forgot Hoplites

Isn't that a unit in a phalanx?

Seriously, I forgot the name when making the poll, but I think that's it.

(I need to learn my unit names from sources BESIDES Empire Earth and Civilization...)

EDIT: TIME WARP

You forgot Hoplites

i'd say a tie between samurai and mongol horse archers

Notwithstanding the battle of cynoscephalae, I would still favor the macedonian phalanx. After all you can't argue with results. Cynoscephalae could possibly be written off as a failure of generalship.

Then that whole Genghis Kahn thing.

BTW, is anyone else going to see the 300? I am totally pysched.

Mongols FTW! No contest.

Longbowmen were in many ways responsible for the decline of armored knights and armored warfare.

But the Mongol Reflex Bow was a major technological advancement in mounted warfare and gave them a serious edge in combat.

Yeah, I'd have to go with the Mongols.

US Army regulars, c. 1860.

That counts, right?

Longbowmen were in many ways responsible for the decline of armored knights and armored warfare.

But the Mongol Reflex Bow was a major technological advancement in mounted warfare and gave them a serious edge in combat.

Yeah, I'd have to go with the Mongols.

Here I thought the Mongols main weapon was their utter ruthlessness. Knowing you would be slaughtered, your corpses thrown into a giant pile to rot, and the thousands and thousands of bodies able to be smelt from miles away while glowing in the dark...

US Army regulars, c. 1860.

That counts, right?

No.

The period we are discussing is before the Renaissance in most parts of Europe (Italy being the exception).

So no guns with the exception of the Janissaries.

Samurai were only horsemen very late in their existence, up until the introduction of Arab horses their mounts were too small to be rode into battle, they rode to battle and dismounted, or they'd shoot bows in a ritualised fashion (Yabusame is descended from this). After the Mongol invasions samurai tactics changed to be more 'real war' and less 'ritualised fighting for honour'.

Also, a katana weighs roughly the same as a knight's sword.

Hoplites are a forerunner to phalanx formations. The Macedonian phalanx didn't use shields and used much longer spears then hoplites who charged with a long spear and a shield.

Most importantly, to answer your question, Polish hussars > everything else. ;)

Tactical Nuclear Greek Fire

w00t!

In Europe the best we ever did without gun powder was Swiss Pikemen. They dealt with heavy cavalry, various forms of infantry and archers, and even crossbows.

The one thing I'm wondering is whether the Mongols would be able to seriously outmaneuvre them. Though the Mongols were by no means unbeatable...it's a little known fact, but they almost lost the Battle of Mohi when they actually got bogged down in man on man combat for a while, which the Europeans were actually quite good at.

Here I thought the Mongols main weapon was their utter ruthlessness. Knowing you would be slaughtered, your corpses thrown into a giant pile to rot, and the thousands and thousands of bodies able to be smelt from miles away while glowing in the dark...

Yes, but they have to win first. Having a reputation for taking no prisoners can work against you - it tends to encourage people to fight to the death.

Janissary - why? Because they're the only regular force listed. The gunpowder is an added bonus.

Second choice would be Longbow men. The reason being is they were compelled by law to practice once per week during times of peace, plus they had a nice rate of fire, up to 10 times a minute if I remember correctly.

You always need to ask "Which is the best pre-modern unit" at a certain point in time.

There's always been this armsrace going on, where one development of equipment or weaponry triggered a response later on.

You could equip a simple bowman against different opposition, so he

- could also carry a longbow for greater range or better penetration.
- could also be on horseback for mobility, even using a composite bow with better qualities.
- could also carry a crossbow against heavy armored units like knights.
- would become the first to use a firearm like the Arquebus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus).

Some books on military history define it like 'scissors-paper-stone': archers would generally beat unsupported spearmen, spearmen would generally beat unsupported ['shock'] cavalry, and ['shock'] cavalry would generally beat unsupported archers...

Some books on military history define it like 'scissors-paper-stone': archers would generally beat unsupported spearmen, spearmen would generally beat unsupported ['shock'] cavalry, and ['shock'] cavalry would generally beat unsupported archers...

These would be the "shock cavalry" that were shot off the field at Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers?

I am aware that the English forces had a significant quantity of men-at-arms, but equally, the longbowman proved the superior of the knight by a country mile.

You always need to ask "Which is the best pre-modern unit" at a certain point in time.

There's always been this armsrace going on, where one development of equipment or weaponry triggered a response later on.

You could equip a simple bowman against different opposition, so he

- could also carry a longbow for greater range or better penetration.
- could also be on horseback for mobility, even using a composite bow with better qualities.
- could also carry a crossbow against heavy armored units like knights.
- would become the first to use a firearm like the Arquebus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus).

Can you not read? A longbow punches through plate armour, chainmail and leather. Why would a crossbow be necessary?

Can you not read? A longbow punches through plate armour, chainmail and leather. Why would a crossbow be necessary?

Much easier to use (it is essentially a 'point and click' technology), thus allowing more time to be devoted to other training.

Can you not read? A longbow punches through plate armour, chainmail and leather. Why would a crossbow be necessary?

Because a Longbow doesn't punch through heavy plate armour. That's a myth.

The Welsh Longbow hit harder than any other bow, and fired faster than any crossbow. It was an excellent weapon that outranged any other country's ranged weapons. It could not, however, punch a hole in a good suit of field plate.

The damage to heavily armoured knights was in places they weren't quite as well armoured, such as joints, eyeslits and the unarmoured inner thigh (which had to be left unarmoured in order to control the horse), or to the horse he was riding on.

My choice from the list is the Janissarries. In addition to being extremely well trained foot soldiers, they were also religious fanatics. Someone like that is very hard to stop.

Agincourt.

Out of these choices? No question: Mongolian Horse Archer. They single-handedly resulted in the Mongolian control of most of Asia and parts of Europe for a while. Single best Middle Ages soldier ever.

Can you not read? A longbow punches through plate armour, chainmail and leather. Why would a crossbow be necessary?
Because if you drafted up 100 peasants who'd never seen a bow of any kind in their lifetime, they'd be quite good with a crossbow in about 3 days.

On the other hand, a longbow, which has many of the advantages of a crossbow (although even when firing bodkinned arrows, it couldn't penetrate plate mail), and a longer range too, takes literally years of practise to get good with.


And my choice is the Jannissaries. Because they were incredibly well-trained and disciplined soldiers, as well as being very physically fit. Even their archers were capable swordsmen, and their spearmen were utterly unbreakable.

@ The OP

- Romans didn't have phalanxes, that's what they helped to destroy!
- The Jannissaries weren't all gunpowder troops like they are in Age of Empires 2, you know - that was mainly down originally to the Piyade Topçu (lit. Foot Artillery, more like riflemen in truth)

Agincourt.

The French were defeated at Agincourt by a combination of weather, field conditions, seriously bad judgement and some damn good generalship on the English side. The Longbow, in the hands of a trained Yeoman, was a very good weapon - but it wasn't a superweapon.

Both before and after Agincourt the French faced massed Longbow fire, and dealt with it effectively. The Longbow's winning the battle of Agincourt is another myth.

After all, you should remember, the French won that war.

The French were defeated at Agincourt by a combination of weather, field conditions, seriously bad judgement and some damn good generalship on the English side. The Longbow, in the hands of a trained Yeoman, was a very good weapon - but it wasn't a superweapon.

Both before and after Agincourt the French faced massed Longbow fire, and dealt with it effectively. The Longbow's winning the battle of Agincourt is another myth.

After all, you should remember, the French won that war.

And, of course, the French at Agincourt weren't actually wearing full White Plate in the later style, which was effectively arrowproof. Armour was still very transitional then, and much more vulnerable.

Axemen, the highest classical age strength and the 50% bonus vs melee units is useful.

<.<

>.>

In real life, pikemen, probably.

Civilization IV much?

Both before and after Agincourt the French faced massed Longbow fire, and dealt with it effectively. The Longbow's winning the battle of Agincourt is another myth.

You make it sound like a fluke. But previous major battles such as Crecy and Poitiers were also won by the longbow against superior forces of French Knights. Furthermore, the Longbow clearly won the battle of Agincourt, as without the archers the English would have been massacred.

After all, you should remember, the French won that war.

It wasn't really a single war. The Hundred Years war is much the same as if the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, and World War II were all bundled together and called the 80 years war.

The Berserker.

Which unit of the Ancient, Classical, or Post-classical era was the most effective?

Many people say (snip)

Just wondering, how many people considered this issue before reading this post?

( Not flaming, I'm curious if this is a big argument among history buffs. I got no room to poke, given my thread about "Who gets buried first?" :D )

Dragoon. Though that might be in too late an era for the purposes of this examination. The trick is that no single unit can be declared "the best" for every situation. Like a tool box, each is suited for a specific task. The best military minds made use of many types of armed forces in order to dominate every angle. But even an entire army will always have certain strengths and weaknesses. One must constantly strive to know one's enemy in every detail. That way your strength can be leveraged against their weakness most effectively.

Dragoon. Though that might be in too late an era for the purposes of this examination. The trick is that no single unit can be declared "the best" for every situation. Like a tool box, each is suited for a specific task. The best military minds made use of many types of armed forces in order to dominate every angle. But even an entire army will always have certain strengths and weaknesses. One must constantly strive to know one's enemy in every detail. That way your strength can be leveraged against their weakness most effectively.

Agreed.

The best pre-modern military unit is a good military commander. Which, incidentally, is one of the only pre-modern units to have transferred to the modern era.

That and engineering units.

The trick is that no single unit can be declared "the best" for every situation.

True, but I think the Swiss Pikemen come the closest. They were virtually invincible until firearms became sufficiently effective to deal with them.

Dragoon. Though that might be in too late an era for the purposes of this examination. The trick is that no single unit can be declared "the best" for every situation. Like a tool box, each is suited for a specific task. The best military minds made use of many types of armed forces in order to dominate every angle. But even an entire army will always have certain strengths and weaknesses. One must constantly strive to know one's enemy in every detail. That way your strength can be leveraged against their weakness most effectively.Machine gun. Topped only by artillery and armored units. And it is pre-Modern.

Machine gun. Topped only by artillery and armored units. And it is pre-Modern.

Given that the Modern Era started around the late 18th century with the industrial revolution, no it isn't.

Given that the Modern Era started around the late 18th century with the industrial revolution, no it isn't.Depends on whom you ask. Some say it started as early as the middle ages, which effectively removes Swiss pikemen and all that from the list. Another placing as after WWI, which I like more as it is the transferral from the old world order into a new one, finished with WWII, which spelled the end for the traditional empires. And then of course, there's a bunch of definitions in between, such as your industrial revolution or the French revolution.

I see some confusion has arisen as to what I meant by pre-Modern.

The intent was for everything before the capture of Constantinople to count.

You make it sound like a fluke. But previous major battles such as Crecy and Poitiers were also won by the longbow against superior forces of French Knights. Furthermore, the Longbow clearly won the battle of Agincourt, as without the archers the English would have been massacred.

Yes, they would have. But you can say the same about the excellent infantry the English had (as opposed to the French, which was basically a peasant rabble) which kept the Longbowmen safe, and the Knights and other cavalry, even if they did work primarily as a lure in that particular battle.

And those victories were by no means a fluke. You need to look at who was in command in each - Edward the Third, Edward the Black Prince and Henry the Fourth, respectively. While I personally only count the Black Prince as a bona fide Tactical Genius, both his father and his son were good, solid generals with a talent for leading men. They used the advantages the Longbow provided well, chose their ground and in short provided a level of generalship the French lacked in those battles.

Don't assume I'm selling the Longbow short. It was probably the best ranged weapon of it's time. It just seems to me that people neglect the other, equally important factors that led to those victories.


It wasn't really a single war. The Hundred Years war is much the same as if the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, and World War II were all bundled together and called the 80 years war.

You have a point, but there's also good reason to conside this series of conflicts together. They were all for the same reason, and between the same two nations; there was a continuity of conflict, at least at low levels, throughout the period; and there was both a clear beginning and a clear end. It's actually a better reason than that we consider the Thrity Years' War and the other Hundred Years' War to be a single conflict - those were more continuous conflicts involving a geographical area, with different opponents coming and going over time, often with very fuzzy endpoints.

emd f-7, 1500hp, infinite m.u. capability.

you did say unit. nothing about military!

also i think the meter is a pretty cool unit too.

=^^=
.../\...

And those victories were by no means a fluke. You need to look at who was in command in each - Edward the Third, Edward the Black Prince and Henry the Fourth, respectively.

is it not Henry the V?

"For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!"

Yes, they would have. But you can say the same about the excellent infantry the English had (as opposed to the French, which was basically a peasant rabble) which kept the Longbowmen safe, and the Knights and other cavalry, even if they did work primarily as a lure in that particular battle.

The english infantry were just dismounted knights, and the french had plenty of those. The French infantry was not a 'peasant rabble', it consisted of all kinds of feudal troops, ranging from peasant levies to highly trained men at arms.

And those victories were by no means a fluke. You need to look at who was in command in each - Edward the Third, Edward the Black Prince and Henry the Fourth, respectively.

Or maybe you need to look at who was in command, as it was Henry V at the battle of Agincourt, not Henry IV.

While I personally only count the Black Prince as a bona fide Tactical Genius, both his father and his son were good, solid generals with a talent for leading men.

And now it becomes quite evident that you don't really know much about this era of history at all. The son of Edward the Black Prince was Richard II, who is certainly not recognised as one of history's greatest generals. Henry V was the son of Henry IV, who usurped Richard II's throne.

Don't assume I'm selling the Longbow short. It was probably the best ranged weapon of it's time. It just seems to me that people neglect the other, equally important factors that led to those victories.

The longbow dominated the vast majority of major battles it was used in from the 13th - 15th centuries. It wasn't a superpower in and of itself - the correct tactics had to be used - but it allowed english forces to vanquish much larger conventional armies that they never would have with a similar disposition of forces to the French, and was still in effective use into the 16th century (Battle of Flodden Field).

It had it's drawbacks of course. Longbowmen took a long time to train, and were expensive because they had to be kept in good health. Weather could render them ineffective, and they really struggled against eastern-style cavalry archers, which they met on crusade. When high quality italian plate armour came into wider usage, in the mid to late 15th century, they weren't as effective, although this quality of armour wasn't available to everyone, and the longbow was certainly capable of penetrating lesser quality plate.

But the Longbow was definitely a battle-winning weapon. You can't say it was all the result of great generalship, as the Black Prince, Henry V, and dozens of lesser commanders all used essentially the same tactics when fielding archer armies.

Okay, okay, I get the successions mixed up. It doesn't change that fact that victory should not be put down to the Longbow, but to the proper use and effective tactics with ALL of the resources the English generals had at their disposal.

Okay, okay, I get the successions mixed up. It doesn't change that fact that victory should not be put down to the Longbow, but to the proper use and effective tactics with ALL of the resources the English generals had at their disposal.

I think it's safe to say that, if at Crecy or Agincourt, and probably a large number of other battles, if the archer contingent had been replaced by crossbowmen or billmen, the battle would almost certainly have been lost, despite outstanding leadership.

The long bow, it kicked everyone's arse until the musket.

The Czech Arqubusier

...I thought this wuz about units of measure. In which case I wuz gonna tip my hat to Babylon, what with their amazingly amazing job of codifying units of time and of course dividing circles into 360 degrees. But this military stuff?

Beats the shit outta me.

Can you not read?
Nö.
A longbow punches through plate armour, chainmail and leather. Why would a crossbow be necessary?
This I doubt. Could you link to a source, please? [I might even be able to read it.]

The Czech Arquebusier
Good to see someone else knows what an Arquebus is. :D

Nö.

This I doubt. Could you link to a source, please? [I might even be able to read it.]


Good to see someone else knows what an Arquebus is. :D

Here yah go...

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=769892

http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=3006

:p

...I thought this wuz about units of measure. In which case I wuz gonna tip my hat to Babylon, what with their amazingly amazing job of codifying units of time and of course dividing circles into 360 degrees. But this military stuff?

Beats the shit outta me.

Bweehee, math nerd. :p

The longbow was mighty, to be sure, but I guarentee you, against the Mongol Horse Archer the Longbow would fall every time. Pity there is no historical example of this, as I'm pretty sure no longbows were ever fielded against the Mongols during their forays into Europe.