Why Did Armies Disregard Melee Combat?

Lol really? No argument, just lol. Your turn.

 

The native American tribes wasted no time trading for the cheap trade muskets brought over by the fur traders, which would be highly unlikely if muskets were inferior to bow and arrows, given the existential realities of native American existence in those days, and most of them would have been well trained with bows, so obviously even cheap, crappy, inferior quality trade muskets were preferred to bow and arrow.by people familiar with both weapons, certainly by the end of the 17th Century onward that seems to be the case.

Tomahawks were handy melee weapons as well, given the numbers of Europeans who adopted that weapon; sort of a cultural 'cross-fertilization' thing going on there. They were also very useful for other tasks as well, probably more useful than knives, generally.

 

I forgot to add that musket and pike were usually a combined arms infantry team, and complimented each other's strengths and weaknesses very well in their heyday.

 

Yes absolutely - A pike block taking a flank attack is a very ugly thing. Musket fire is well known to discourage such actions by the enemy

 

Just ask American troops in the Pacific in WW2. Very nasty for the close quarter fighting

 

One of the disadvantages the US troops had in the Pacific was that many Americans only had a 6 inch bayonet. The Japanese, and the Australians, had bayonets about a foot and a half long.

 

I agree on the Saxon long axes being power full weapons, but if I had the choices, they probably wouldn't be the first on the list against armor despite their powerful swings. To each his own though.

I agree on the crusade part. The muslim troops weren't trained as well, and didn't have very good weapons. (though the many fireworks they did have were very frightening) Saladin was probably the only reason the Crusaders lost battles, not to mention the terrain of the area worked against them a bit.

The mongols were also frightening warriors, but I would still take the English style of longbowmen over the mongol horse archers in full battle. The English long bowmen's style of fighting (putting a barricade of sharpened stakes in front of them) gave them a defensive advantage, but I think i can see the advantage in having a more mobile force when you are on the offensive.

Epic.

 

The masters of edged weapons - the Romans - used a eighteen-inch long iron stabbing sword.

Their organization, practiced proficiency, and tactics made them unbeatable until the epidemics of the late second and early third century A.D. thinned the ranks of the Legions to unworkable levels.

 

The Gladius was steel.

 

The samurai sword was steel, it was similar to damascus steel, in that it was worked and folded a lot. yes, it was expensive.

 

Metallurgical examinations of ancient Roman swords show that some were wrought iron, others steel. The steel ones were made by a pattern welding process (very similar to the concept of damascus steel)

 

If there was a true steel gladius, the Emperor of Rome or a very wealthy Senator owned it. If there was a true steel katana, the Emperor of Japan owned it. In Roman days, the tiny amount steel floating around the economy was ten times more expensive than gold.

Steel (as opposed to wrought iron) is very difficult to make. Getting the carbon out takes an enormous amount of energy. A true steel gladius would require cutting down square miles of trees and making tons of charcoal. Realistically, the Bessemer process was not feasible until a large coal industry came about, providing lots of cheap and intense energy. Metallurgical use was what spurred growth of the coal industry in the first place.

Easy way to tell the difference. Steel holds an edge. Wrought iron won't. Legionnaires, gladiators and samurai spent a lot of time sharpening their swords. The samurai (in true Japanese style) made a whole martial art out of sharpening swords. On the other hand, the high carbon content wrought iron makes it much more rust-resistant than steel, hence its preferred use for architectural outdoor ornamentation even today.

Wrought iron, with its forged grain structure was good enough for most soldiers.

 

Noric Steel was very common in Rome.

 

I'm not familiar with Roman 'steel', but according to a history of American iron working I have around here somewhere a lot of what was called 'steel' previous to the 1850's or so wasn't true steel as we know it today. It has a fairly detailed discussion of the differences; I'll see if I can find the book in those disorganized stacks of books I have all over my study. I'm pretty sure that 'steel' was mostly an accidental byproduct and it wasn't known how to make it consistently, mostly it was used on blade edges and the like, i.e. special uses and in small quantities. They simply didn't know enough about the chemistry of the processes involved until late in the 19th century.

 

Actually, you have it the wrong way around. To make steel, you add carbon to iron, you do not remove it. Blast Furnaces are used to remove excess carbon and other impurities. And that also depends on the quality of the ore used in the first place. With enough working even a smith at a force can work out a lot of carbon, if they are willing to take the time to do so.

You mention wrought iron as having to much carbon. Actually it is also the exact opposite, it is the lack of carbon that makes it behave the way it does.

And the steel used at that time is not quite the same as what is used today for building bridges and buildings. But since it's use was in weapons and armor and not holding up structures, it did not need to be as strong. And the biggest problem with making it the old way was mostly in the manpower.

And to a nation built on conquest and slaves, manpower was never really an issue. If anything, it was the excess of slaves and manpower that eventually brought the Roman Empire to it's knees.

 

They took our jewbs!

At their height 1 in 8 males was in the Roman military. They needed that many to keep the slaves in order and get new slaves. That was not affordable.

 

That is not quite true. The bodkin point was developed purely for penetrating all kinds of armor.



Now this created a bit of an "arms race" during medieval periods. Bodkins could penetrate most metal armors, but had a hard time penetrating the thick cloth armors that were often worn under the chain and plate mails. So armsmen started to wear 2 sets of quilted armor, one over and another under their metal armor.

But this had the problem of reducing movement and increasing the risk of overheating. And this did not prevent the "porcupine effect" similar to soldiers who had to face the Roman Legions with their Pila. The arrows would penetrate the first layers of armor, and then be left stick out and reduce the moment of the soldiers even more.

It is interesting to consider what might have happened, if not for the fact that at about the same time this was happening, firearms started to be used in Europe and pretty much put paid to Archers and Armour.

And the Longbowmen as a fighting force lasted for hundreds of years past the Norman invasion. At the Battle of Crecy (1346), the British longbowmen absolutely devastated the French cavalry and crossbowmen. It was the advances in heavy cavalry towards the end of the Hundred Years War that ended the reign of the Longbow, and then the musket that put an end to the short reign of Heavy Cavalry.

And yea, the gladius was a superb weapon, when combined properly with the rest of their weapons.

Typically, Roman tactics had each soldier armed with a gladius, and from 2-3 pila.

The pila was an interesting weapon. There were actually 2 of them, one was a light throwing spear, and the other was a heavy thrusting spear.

The lighter pila had a soft iron tip, which would bend easily. When the enemy was approaching they would volley fire these. While not having a great deal of penetrating power, they did have enough punch to penetrate shields or light armor. At this point the steel in the shank would bend, making it impossible to either throw them back at the legion. And because a shield is worthless with a 3 foot spear stuck to it, the enemy commonly had to discard their shields and then fight shieldless.

The heavier pila was mostly used for thrusting, or as pikes. And 2nd rank legionnaires would then thrust over the shoulders of those in the front rank. So you have 1 rank with shields and gladuis and a second with spears. Against an enemy that by now has lost half of it's shields even before it gets within hand to hand range.

 

Not really. The vast majority of the Roman military was stationed outside of the borders of Rome, not inside. Mostly they were used for holding down the tributary kingdoms that owed allegiance to Rome, not actually within the Italian peninsula itself.

And for most of the history of the Empire, soldiers were not permitted inside the city of Rome (where the majority of slaves were). There was not even any kind of "Police Force" as we would understand it. Most "law enforcement" was done either as private guards or through a kind of "mercenary guard" (vigilis, which was also their fire department). If they caught somebody in the act of a crime, the victim essentially had to pay these guards to turn them over to the Justices. And if the criminal had more money then the victim, they often walked free. Otherwise most criminals were apprehended by civilians acting essentially as posses.

And Roman law was harsh on slaves who tried to escape or revolted. The military was only needed a total of 3 times in putting down slaves, and this over a roughly 60 year period. There were 3 Servile Wars, the last being the closest to actually succeeding (the Third Servile War is the one led by Spartacus, that ended with over 6,000 slaves crucified along the Via Appia, from Rome to Capua).

With examples like this, it is obvious why very few soldiers were needed to "hold down the slaves". Heck, if you are going to be a slave, Rome is the place to be one in. In the Roman Empire, even a slave could own a slave! And there the slaves even had rights of varying degrees, depending on the Emperor. And many were "debt slaves", essentially indentured servants for a set period of time.

Slavery in Rome was not the same as that in the Americas.

 

What were the advances in heavy cav? Did they have armour for the horses or something?

The difference was in effective range, they could still go throught the armour but they had to be closer to the target.

Most people know about Crecy, Agincourt and the back prince. One of the problems was England was fighting a war on two fronts against the French and Scottish, plus in fighting within the English upper class, if the British Isles had been united the British could have put everything into the French campaign, which was going rather well at one point. The English navy even then had control of the seas against the French. This later became the Royal Navy under Henry the 8th, in my view the best kings England ever had.

 

This is the period when the Knight was really developed. Mostly what changed in this period was better armor and better tactics. For one, knights by the late 14th century were starting to mass together into giant formations (as opposed to essentially fighting individually) that operated together.

As for equipment, this did make a large difference. And it was multiple inventions that all came together in the late 1300's. First was the stirrup, which allowed for a better seat on the horse. Then the cantled saddle (high in the back like a chair) which when combined with the stirrups allowed the knights to carry increasingly heavy lances and added greater impact to their charge. Then finally you had the rowled spur and larger warhorses which changed things even more.

Prior to this, the most common warhorse was the courser, normally around 10 hands. With larger saddles and stirrups the destrier or large warhorse (often 15-16 hands) was bred and became dominant. And these larger horses could also carry heavier barding, which at this time advanced from cloth and leather to various types of mail (even chain and articulated plate). This greatly enhanced the survivability of the warhorse on the battlefield.

Generally prior to this time knights generally fought as masses of individuals. Think of a battalion of barbarians, a horde essentially each fighting for themselves. A Baron would have his knights and retainers to fight alongside him, but they did not really coordinate or work with the Baron to the right or left on the battle line. And Independent Landed Knights fought largely for themselves, hoping that by showing their prowess in battle they could gain advancement. They might charge together, but no real cooperation besides "Go here and strike there!"

However at this time this started to change. Now the Knights were operating as larger coordinated units. Much more like a group of Roman Soldiers then individuals and platoon sized forces thrown together. And this is when the Knight really came onto it's own. "Shock of Impact" caused ripples all through European warfare at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance. Longbowmen were no longer as effective, since a large organized group of horsemen could close with and attack the lightly armed bowmen before a significant number could be brought down.

The only way to combat this at the time was to reduce the number of bowmen and place them behind pikes. This reduced the number of bows that could shoot, but allowed them some protection from the knights. This lasted for around 100 years or so until the bowmen largely fell out of use and pike units became the premiere foot units. This was the state until the advent of guns (which could be easily taught and fired in a flat trajectory).

One of the biggest changes brought on by guns was the trajectory itself. If you are firing into a mass of men with bows, the arrow takes a ballistic path (fired up at an angle, and returning to Earth in a similar angle). So if you only really have a chance to hit one or two people at most. But a gun with it's flat trajectory (more like a crossbow) was devastating on massed troops like knights. If you miss one person, there are 8 or 9 others behind that you might strike, greatly increasing the odds of striking somebody. Bowmen might hit scattered knights all through a formation, but musketmen devastated the front ranks, causing even more havoc as the fallen men and horses then caused a stagger to the charge as the rear ranks now had to leap over or move around their fallen comrades and their horses (often times causing even more injuries and loss of unit cohesion).

 

Has anyone seen the claims that by the time of Agincourt the English Longbow could not penetrate the armour of French knights?

 

I have not read or heard of anything of the sort. And considering the French lost between 7-10,000 and the British lost just over 100, I would seriously question the accuracy of such claims. It does not match with the results of the war, nor anything I have read or seen about it. But I would love to read a source if you have one.

And remember, to be effective the arrow does not have to penetrate the armour of the knight, just that of his horse.

 

The French were dismounted

 

The claim is that the vast majority of Frenchmen were killed with knives while they struggled and exhausted themselves in the mud. The English Longbowmen wore cloth shoes, the French Knights wore metal boots. The boots would create a suction in the mud, the cloth shoes would not. This would quickly tire a person which would mean that they could be killed with rather simple weapons from up close.

 

And the main fact American long muskets were better and far more accurate than the British muskets, they could and did target officers with specialist sharpshooters and once they adapted to the use of them in tactics the Americans had the stronger advantage. But hand-to-hand combat never disappeared knife fighting and martial arts are taught as well as bayonet combat and my day had advanced training being in the intelligence branch I'm pretty sure. (He did at seventy break the arm of a drug hyped up mugger before dislocating several other joints hardly untrained.)