Re: Infantry

From: Steve Rennell <software_at_spis.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:58:23 +1300

Peter wrote in part:
> As for the west with its disdain for infantry armies, that does
> not preclude them from having decent infantrymen. It merely
> means that the nobility (who write the histories) treat them
> with contempt and claim all the glory when the battle's won.

However if the people in charge treat their infantry with disdain, they tend to breed that disdain into their next generation of commanders and eventually the commanders stop using the infantry effectively if at all, and then they stop having decent infantry. Using them properly is at least part of having effective troops.

IMO the biggest advantage of Crecy period English armies was not that they had the longbow, but that they had become an army of soldiers that had discipline rather than a collection of individual warriors that had courage. The French would never have used the archers supported by dismounted knights, it just wasn't done. Ergo the French didn't have effective infantry (despite having hired some of the best Genoese merc's).

Steve Rennell

---