>Jose (great post BTW)
>>Let's not forget that the battles between byzantines and Norman's in
>>Italy were determinant in the latter adoption of the couched lance
>>(with>>other influences thrown in). And it is indeed true that the Norman
>>charge>>had a heavier impact than the 10th century Byzantine...
Great post, indeed, but I have an objection on the above paragraph: you
(Jose) state that "the battles between byzantines and Norman's in Italy were
determinant in the adoption ...". We speak of the X century, I suppose, Duke
Robert and his successors in Sicily and Apulia and Calabria. But I remember
(or am I wrong?) that by X century the byzantine forces in Italy were for
the great part composed of Norman mercenaries. The main confrontation
between the two parties was logistical, in my opinion: when byzantium was
weakened as a naval and economic power in the western basin of Mediterranean
sea by Saracen Pirates and Norman SeaRebels, the fall of the Italian feuds
in the hands of the Normans was already decided. AFAIK, the serious
confrontations between Norman Knights and Byzantine Knight did not take
place until after the disaster of Manzikert, some decades later. At that
moment, the Anatolian Norman Mercenaries did rebel and were fought by the
byzantines, but southern Italy was already in their hands and none could
deny that fact except for the Muslim fleets.
The golden age of Normans, in the western world, was in the X and XI
century, before that they were mere pirates and after that they were to be
replaced by anglo/norman nobility (in England) and Svevian (in Italy) and
were repulsed by Byzantines' Scandinavian mercenaries (the Vareg) in the
east. I know the period is very confused, but I doubt that the "the battles
between Byzantines and Norman's in Italy were determinant in" anything.
Other factors played greater parts, IMO.
The main problem for byzantium were never the Normans, AFAIK: they were
annoying but, opportunistically, stroke only when Byzantines were already
weakened (by the Franks and Saracens in Italy, by the Turks and Bulgars in
Anatoly). It's my personal opinion, also, that byzantium strategoi learnt
very little from Normans. They used them simply because they needed troops
with that style of fighting (the charge) in order to keep at bay the armored
Muslim knights, armed with spears, swords, bows (especially after Manzikert)
and footmen to defend their positions.
Byzantium cavalrymen were a little lighter equipped than the Muslims and
much lighter than the Normans. So they needed chargers. But simple chargers
could not win any battle, either in Italy or Anatoly or even England (where
William won thanks to his chargers but equally thanks to his archers).
I hope not to have misunderstood your point, Jose. Anyway, good show and forgive my pedantry.
>Yes, this is the case. The 10th century Kataphractoi attacked at the
>trot,>in wedge, with very few lancers in the formation, mostly with maces
>and a>significant body of horse archers. In effect the tactical deployment
>of the>formation was more of a direct assault attritional tool than a shock
>weapon.>Only operationally could it be counted as a shock formation. The
>Norman's on>the other hand were a shock tactical body.
Exactly what I meant, Martin, with poorer words on my side. I simply object to the importance of Italy's battles.
>However, the military side of the Carmanian heritage is
>best though of by using the Crusader states analogy. They maintain
>their>ways of combat but are influenced by the cultures they contact.
Possibly. Iranian Knights are another analogy, IMO, since Saladin used them to counter the Crusaders and so they (the westerners) had to evolve a similar tactical force (mounted chargers _and_ bowmen and footmen) else they were operationally overwhelmed by the Saracens.
>(3). Heavy infantry - the Pelandans showed that a solid heavy infantry
>can>withstand the contact of shock cavalry. This was somewhat new to
>the>Carmanians and must have come as a surprise initially. They would have
>had>to adapt their tactical body to cope with this, replying more on
>flanking>attacks _after_ disruptive missile and melee combat weakened the
>enemy>formation. Further fighting with Dara Happa would have honed this
>skill over
>hundred of years. They would have also used the hoplite as a solid
>infantry>core of their army.
This seems similar to the Muslim armies (or the late Crusaders, of course).
>(4). Horse archers, light cavalry. The conflict with the Pentans during
>the>height of their rule of Peloria and the following long struggle with
>the>Char-un, which still simmers occasionally, has led to the
>Carmanians>developing strong tactics for dealing with horse archers. Their
>main>teaching is to maintain order among the formation and used ranged
>weapons to>frustrate the horse archers into range of a decisive charge.
>Crossbows are>popular for this but the most popular form of mercenary for
>this kind of work>was the Rathori longbowman, who often get recruited in
>large numbers for wars
>against the nomads.
This makes sense: the stable footlongbowman has a tactical advantage over the mountedarchers of nomad (Mongol) style, as far as a strong unit of cavalry defends him from the eventual charge of the more mobile archers.
>Yes, the Carmanian knighhood may be conservative by Lunar standards,
>but>compared to its Western brethren it is cosmopolitan in the extreme.
>Their>assumptions about what is militarily expedient would shock the
>Western knight>as being unholy and outlandish.
Interesting. Hypothetically, then, the Lunar Army (stronger than the Carmanian one) should crush the western armies of Fronela or Seshnela easily, provided they come in contact. Is that true?
Ciao
Gian
Powered by hypermail