We obviously work under the constraints of Fred Malmberg and his people at Conan Inc. For example we have been working on Aquilonian standards today, and while I imgined them as somethingakin to those portrayed in, say El Cid, our guidelines are to give them more of a Romano-Byzantine feel with a cross pole. As such expect that what you picture when you use the word 'knight' may be different to a western Hyborian specimen.
Aquilonia
- Thread starter The Warlord
- Start date
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
It seems also quite logical when I recalled of stories like The hall of the dead or the God in the bowl that take place in Nemedia. The names are latin, the nobles ride on charriots and the general feeling is distinctly that of old but clean cities of antiquity (the middle-age wasn't reputed for its hygienic environment).Mongoose Old Bear said:
So if the Nemedians can more or less stand against the Aquilonians, it would be logical to guess the Aquilonians are not superior to the Nemedians (who would compare Roman Cavalry to the French knights of the 11-14th centuries?).
Kirth Gersen
Mongoose
The King said:
Roman Cavalry sucked (except, maybe, for the Roman bizantinian) - Roman Army was based on infantry not on Cavalry, and I think that in a open battle the Roman Army probably would win against a French army of the 11-14th centuries.
In a one-one battle a single knight is more powerful than a roman legionarie, but the true strenght of the Roman Army was in his organization and in the discipline of his members. They were professional soldier trained to work togher.
Medieval army were often collection of noble knight (sometime with different motive to work together), mob peasant levy (not very good in battle) and mercenary soldiers.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
The cavalry of the antiquity was used to outflank the ennemy and help to rout them. In the middle age, the role of the cavalry was very different as it was use in frontal charge against the opponent.Ataru Moroboshi said:
I think the first charging cavalry unit were the Byzantines (cataphracts) but I'am not sure.
Sword-dancer
Mongoose
Very unlikely, the roman Weapons are useless against the French, their cav would be routedAtaru Moroboshi said:
Most knights weren`t noble, in germany the majority of knights the ministeriales were unfree.
btw Knight come from Knecht which means Peasant.
You mean as the Englisch Yeomanry or Longbowmen, or barbarossas Slesian, or the citicen Militia of Gent Brügge or the Lombards?
Sword-dancer
Mongoose
They would have not only an Cav against the roman re helpless, but also an inf against teh roaman arms would be useless.
Orkin said:
There is little doubt that if the French chivalry could get into contact then with the legionaries they would break them, given a flat surface, as the pilum isn't much use against armoured horse. That said, the Romans successfully fought against Sassanid cataphracts on occasion and a lot would be down to choice of battlefield.
I think this sought of discussion is extremely healthy, and rather exciting as we begin to see the Hyborian armies developed for a tabletop wargame (maybe...)A lot of decisions on troop types and styles have to be made, of course.
Sword-dancer
Mongoose
@Old Bear
The Problem would be, would the french knights ac as stupid as at Crecy ´, or would they follow Bertrand du Guscelin.
But Roman Weapons are not really effective against Steelforged Plate, the arms and armor even of a Bowmen(meant light infantry) would come from a Quality base higher than the Romans.
If i could throw in the mix Barbarossas swordsmen, english Billmen, Militia from Flandern etc I doubt Roman Armor would withstand a good hit with a Bill or Godendag, Weapons their Equipment an fighting style wasn´t designed to scope with.
And their I´ven`t even gone toknights and Man at arms going in with Warswords and poleaxes who would cleve throug roman armor.
Even Huscarls or Varangians would be an enemy hard to scope with, and their disadavabntage in the Bowmen/_Crossbowmen has also to be considered
Nor would swiss Infantry be so an inflexible enemy than macedonian Phlanx
The Problem would be, would the french knights ac as stupid as at Crecy ´, or would they follow Bertrand du Guscelin.
But Roman Weapons are not really effective against Steelforged Plate, the arms and armor even of a Bowmen(meant light infantry) would come from a Quality base higher than the Romans.
If i could throw in the mix Barbarossas swordsmen, english Billmen, Militia from Flandern etc I doubt Roman Armor would withstand a good hit with a Bill or Godendag, Weapons their Equipment an fighting style wasn´t designed to scope with.
And their I´ven`t even gone toknights and Man at arms going in with Warswords and poleaxes who would cleve throug roman armor.
Even Huscarls or Varangians would be an enemy hard to scope with, and their disadavabntage in the Bowmen/_Crossbowmen has also to be considered
Nor would swiss Infantry be so an inflexible enemy than macedonian Phlanx
Sword-dancer
Mongoose
Mongoose Old Bear said:
Not necessary, at crecy they underestimated their enemy, by Agincourt they were likely forced to attack by thir own support situation, shortage of food for men and horses.
By Nicäa look at Crecy, but a Orleans, or under du Guscelin they learned to hit hard, hold their line and so on.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
In his Hour of the Dragon Howard describes some battles where the cavalry is used as it was in the middle age, routing the infantry.Mongoose Old Bear said:
My military knowledge of antiquity is not so good but in the Troy movie for example the cavalry has a very limited role and the main battles were led by the infantry. So I guess it should be the same for all other antiquity battles.
It seem to be difficult to adapt it to the Hyborian Age as Howard writes frequently that Hyborian Cavalry (knights) is the queen of battle.
In fact most of the other armies described by Howard have a lot of calvalry (Turan, Shem) and the role of the infantry, even the heavy infantry, is minimized, while the archery is used as support (which is it's true role).