during the invasion of Vietnam, hundreds of Chinese soldiers were killed because they based their combined armed tactics on watching WW2 Soviet movies and attempted to ride on the tanks.https://twitter.com/ModelsWarp/status/1457693636632666113 …
-
0:56Näytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BeijingPalmer
Well you ride them TO battle, not INTO battle.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 13 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @andreamatranga ja @BeijingPalmer
A lot of knightly warfare was also on foot. The horse provide operational mobility, recon ability, etc. Fighting from horseback kinda sucks if you're up against anything bettee than peasant levees.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 9 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @andreamatranga ja @BeijingPalmer
Eh, yes and no? To be clear, if we're talking 'knightly warfare,' we're talking post-Carolingian period...the skills expected of 'knights' are predominantly (but not exclusively) about mounted combat. They expected to fight mounted far more often than not.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 15 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @BeijingPalmer
Well a lot of knightly warfare was burning the other side's villages....
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @andreamatranga ja @BeijingPalmer
True, but because you are raiding another military aristocrat's village, the chance of finding yourself in a 'small' engagement is meaningful. That engagement would also generally take place with both sides mounted.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 12 tykkäystä -
But the emphasis for aristocrats is overwhelmingly on mounted combat. They have other people - mercenaries/ the sergeantry - to fight on foot. Situations, like Agincourt, where most of the knights are dismounted, are exceptions, not the rule.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 13 tykkäystä -
Random question: why anti cavalry pike formations develop so late? Is it a matter of training? Or innovation?
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @Egocrata, @BretDevereaux ja
I thought it was mostly economic/organizational/circumstantial. "Maintain formation and keep the pointy bits foe-ward" predates pikes. Predates iron, for that matter. Cavalry always had to wait until formation was disrupted. 1/2
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @Soloraka1, @Egocrata ja
Yes-ish? Prior to the iron age, it is very hard to actually talk in much detail about tactics, especially infantry tactics. But we do see men with spears and shields in regular formations very early (Egypt in the first intermediate period at least)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä
Our first really good evidence for infantry tactics comes honestly with the Neo-Assyrian Empire - they're using matched pairs of spearmen and archers, presumably the former protecting the latter. They seem to be in regular, tight formation; hard to tell from artwork.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @Soloraka1 ja
Oh, also on the list of evidence is of course the Stele of the Vultures in Mesopotamia, c. 2400 or so. Very early, shows infantry with large shields and spears in tight formation, marching under the orders of an officer.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @Soloraka1 ja
That kind of early artwork can be difficult as evidence goes, of course. But 'men in lines with spears and shields' seems to have been a natural fighting solution reached by many peoples at many points.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.