Don't assume that the Pentans and Praxians need superior numbers to blow away their opponent. The Mongols were outnumbered at almost every battle they fought, sometimes massively. So was Alexander the Great. Numbers are not necesarily decisive. Top notch soldiers and leaders can compensate for a lot.
If you can obtain local superiority (not necessarily numerical superiority) at the decisive point, without allowing yourself to be defeated elsewhere, you can defeat your opponent no matter how much of a numerical superiority he may have on the field. The extra bodies just take longer to hunt down. [Yes, it is easier to say than do.]
Danny wrote:
>>The English
>>longbow is a tactically very limited weapon, as it only really works
>>wonders in a prepared defensive postion that is attacked by idiots. All
>>infantry missile troops have severe limitions in that they can only
>>defend. They cannot force cavalry to fight them.
>But by the same token cavalry alone can't hold a battle field. Missile
>infantry can continually drive them away with a slow advance with a
>form-and-fire routine if the cavalry try to get in close.
Sounds like Manzikert, up to the part at the end. . . <G>
Anyway, that is true to a certain extent, but there are two major problems:
First, facing the enemy and destroying him in a decisive battle is a Western tradition. The horse peoples have never shared that tradition and fight in ways that maximize their advantages and minimizes ther vulnerabilities. This is called cowardly, treacherous, and vicious by western armies. So they won't try to close in, at least not when you are ready. They have other options.
Second, operationally the horse army is a much better postion. A) How many arrows can an infantryman carry as they march across the battlefield? 20 to 40? How long does that last in combat? At six arrows a minute, about seven minutes. How many arrows can a horse archer carry? Maybe one or two hundred?
B) If the archers are assumed to be advancing with wagons of arrows (so they don't run out of arrows eight minutes into the battle) they are going to be a massively ponderous army. You have a giant square of archers and spearmen with a core of wagons in the center. A really ugly mess to try to move without disordering the ranks. So you are going to need really disciplined troops to do this. How many of them are you going to able to afford? Or are they just not going to able to pull it off?
C) It is not necessary to actually fight the enemy on his selected battlefield to destroy him. If you have a force similar to most nomads you can just manuver around the enemy and wait for them to make a mistake. How long can they march in battle formation? How much food and water do they carry with them? How big an escort do their supply trains have?
Shadow their forces, keeping the main force over the horizion and keep scouts well outside of arrow range. Poison the wells and burn the fields in front of them. Encourage them to chase you into an ambush. Hit any small groups with your entire army. Make certain that they can never retrieve an arrow. Ambush/overwhelm their supply trains. It gets pretty ugly fast.
D) Lastly, if the cavalry army makes a mistake and loses it can just leave. Infanty cannot pursue. If the infantry army makes a mistake it dies where it stands. Defeat is fatal.
It is not a coincidence that mounted archers tend to kick the teeth in of armies that depend on infantry and/or shock. "The race does not always go the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's where the smart money is."
Kevin
Powered by hypermail