![]() It’s hard to tell who would have won between the Mongol horde and Swiss pike tactics, because they are separated by over two centuries of technological development. It also was developed in direct response to the previous dominant military doctrine, heavy cavalry. The pinnacle of Medieval European warfare was the pike square because it was the second to last major tactical innovation (until pike and shot tactics arrived with the widespread adoption of gunpowder). Granted, later invasions weren't as successful but Europe had adapted better tactics by then, namely by stressing an army that by design lives off the land. The first Mongol invasion was built around mounted archery if it happened a few centuries later and wasn't halted by succession problems, they probably would've mowed down pike squares as pikemen are literally, completely, 100% useless against mounted archers. I could be misreading the intention that could also mean "it took firearms to make the pike square obsolete" but I'd say that's because Europe didn't have anything like the Mongols did. No, but I'm disputing the claim that the pike square was the high water mark of medieval warfare until firearms and artillery. Britain couldn't expand its empire the way it did if it relied on archers. In equal numbers, an army of elite longbowmen of the Late Middle Ages would've easily defeated an army of 18th century musketeers the difference was the resources it took to build & maintain one vs. ![]() Mongol light cavalry was basically a society built around invasion itself. Interestingly, it's not like the transitions in tactics over the years were all that clear-cut, because to a large extent it depended on the resources you threw at it. I think he would've been fine against pike squares. ![]() The pinnacle of European medieval warfare was the pike square, but if we're talking the Middle Ages as a time period, nothing barely even slowed down Subutai's forces. They are very advanced weapons compared to something like a spear or a mace.Ĭlick to shrink.No, but I'm disputing the claim that the pike square was the high water mark of medieval warfare until firearms and artillery. They have extensive training manuals and take years to master. Not to mention swords are just a lot cooler than most other weapons. You were still better off trying to get them exhausted and knocking them off their feet and sticking a dagger through the opening in their head armor. Yes, Halberds and maces and the like were superior to the sword in cracking and breaking plate armor but it wasn't exactly a hard counter to plate armor, it was just more effective than something like a spear or a sword. So yes, the sword was not very effective against plate but I'm not quite sure anything was, that's why people wearing it were walking tanks. That is one of the most unique values of the sword is that it's a very good defensive weapon while affording you the benefit of being able to carry another weapon in your hands.Īlso, we're talking about the Middle Ages when plate armor was not very common at all until the very late periods and even then I don't think it was until the Renaissance that you'd see army formations wearing plate armor. Even those that you would often use with two hands. While a Zweihander is not something you can sheath and carry as a sidearm most every other type of sword, you can. You can also get swords in wildly different variations of length from a simple one hander to a zweihander. As a defensive weapon they are superior to most other types of weaponry, perhaps all of them. I feel like swords are getting a bit overlooked in this thread so I'll just say that from a certain mindset they might be the best medieval weapon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |