Alexander the Great VS Oliver Cromwell - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14805841
Oxymoron wrote:small enough to be mobile but practically once they were setup they did not move for tactical advantage.


I really don't see your point. Your argument that the Macedonians would somehow totally avoid being attacked by field artillery seems like wishful thinking to me. In fact, the Macedonians would be forced to attack the guns to prevent them from breaking up the phalanx formations over prolonged bombardment (as actually happened at Langport in 1645). This would make the close ranked phalanx even more vulnerable to light artillery such as 6 pdr sakers firing canister shot or ball. The only way to prevent this would be try to pin the enemy's cavalry which would result in a massacre of the Macedonians - Cromwell's cavalry were known as the "Ironsides" for a reason.
#14805842
Oxymoron wrote:You keep ignoring the artillery issue, like I mentioned the cannons were not capable of any tactical movement. So unless the battlefield was chosen by the English, and the Greeks just walked into a perfectly placed line of site of the artillery then you would have a point. This seems rather absurd, like I mentioned artillery played almost no role in the battles of the English civil war for that exact reason. Rather they were used for siege warfare. Your point about the muskets, perhaps the men would get spooked perhaps not this is guess work, as far as its effectiveness I do not think early musket men were any more dangerous then the archer and horse archers of the Persians, especially that they were about 25-30% of the fighting forces. Not mention that the Greeks had archers as well, that would be very effective against the armor-less Musketeers.


I am not ignoring it. You do not understand how the battles were fought up to around reneisance if not further. Classical armies fought them like this(This includes ancient Greeks, Romans, Gauls etc):
1)Two armies meet somewhere.
2)Two armies start manouvering on 1 place by changing their tactical formations.
3)Two armies look at each other.
4)Two armies go to camp for the night.
5)Two armies engage each other after weeks if not months of manouvering. (Well months was rare but happened from time to time)

They did not happen all of the sudden, it was just a quirk of the times. A kind of underrated part of the job which played a key importance back in the day. Under this conditions, there is no way that cannons can't be deployed in time.

Also you are thinking that Macedonian armor will be effective against the muskets which it will not be. They were mostly using bronze and leather which is not something that can stop gunshots.
#14805845
To be fair, the Hoplon would be relatively effective against musket ball (especially at range), while the sarissa lances were about the equivalent length of the English pikes (5 to 6 meters). The Macedonian armour, however, would be totally ineffective against cannon ball (in fact, it would be detrimental since the hoplons and bronze plates would shatter, throwing splinters which would cause secondary injuries to the dense ranks). The Macedonian phalanx would still be at a disadvantage, however, as it would be both slower and softer hitting than the English pike formations. This is significant because, again, the New Model Army would be much more mobile than the Macedonian and able to easily turn its flanks. Furthermore, the English pikemen were equipped with steel cuirass breastplates and helmets, which would be impenetrable to Macedonian javelins or arrows. Macedonian bronze or iron swords would shatter against the modern steel swords employed by the English.

I think it's pretty significant to emphasize the latter point. The Macedonians would not be very capable of inflicting casualties against the New Model Army for these reasons.
#14805872
To be fair, the Hoplon would be relatively effective against musket ball (especially at range), while the sarissa lances were about the equivalent length of the English pikes (5 to 6 meters). The Macedonian armour, however, would be totally ineffective against cannon ball (in fact, it would be detrimental since the hoplons and bronze plates would shatter, throwing splinters which would cause secondary injuries to the dense ranks). The Macedonian phalanx would still be at a disadvantage, however, as it would be both slower and softer hitting than the English pike formations. This is significant because, again, the New Model Army would be much more mobile than the Macedonian and able to easily turn its flanks. Furthermore, the English pikemen were equipped with steel cuirass breastplates and helmets, which would be impenetrable to Macedonian javelins or arrows. Macedonian bronze or iron swords would shatter against the modern steel swords employed by the English.

I think it's pretty significant to emphasize the latter point. The Macedonians would not be very capable of inflicting casualties against the New Model Army for these reasons.

@MB.

Perhaps, i just don't imagine bronze armor holding against bullets considering that steel swords can chop of peaces from bronze swords.

As for this hypothetical scenario, it is so even for the roman legion. Roman legion actually more so, because roman legion is mostly consistent of heavy infantry with weaker cavalry. Roman strategy is also rather dumb but flexible. Their whole approach would be to win the set peace battle by engaging with a strong centre or flanks but ultimately it will still lead to the same outcome of cannons being able to break the melee infantry. Roman infantry would fair better than the phalanx because they can both work as a unit or can simply charge and fight free for all very well. But again, romans over rely on Heavy infantry especially in the centre and it leads to the same outcome.

Perhaps Roman infatry coupled with Parthian cavalry might be able to do it.
#14805884
I should clarify: I'm not saying the bronze corselets and greaves would withstand musket ball impact. I'm saying I suspect the wooden hoplite shields that are faced with bronze would probably withstand ball impact at range (over 100 yards or so). Since the phalanx wields a hoplon (or aspis) along with its sarissa, it stands to reason that a musket volley fired at range would at least partly impact the shield and thus in some cases be deflected.

Image

As I've suggested, this deflection would no doubt reduce with range (less than 100 yards) as the musket's penetrating power increases dramatically along with a marginal increase in accuracy. The real problem for the phalanx, of course, is that once it reaches the musket line it would have to fight the mixed pike regiments which would be a very bloody affair, especially with the English pikes easily capable of penetrating the bronze hoplite armour, whereas the hoplites would, in effect, be fighting with iron-tipped stakes, unable to penetrate the steel armour worn by the pikemen. Worse, some of the pikemen may be equipped with bucklers or their own shields.

Image
#14805915
Alexander would not have been disadvantaged by his choice in metal, bronze is as good for weapons and armour as iron/steel for hardness with the extra advantage of being considerably more resistant to corrosion. The idea that bronze alloys are inferior to iron carbon alloys (steel) is a popular misconception presumably put about by speculative historians ignorant of metallurgy. In Alexander's day iron-carbon alloys were available, both carbon and iron are far more common and easy to source than copper and tin which are the components of the bronze alloy, but bronze was chosen ubiquitously despite the relative rarity of its components because it was superior for weapons given the technology of the time. The bronze age ended when tin became almost impossible to source making cheap, easy to source iron, the next best thing. In the course of working with iron more than bronze, because of its wider availability, metallurgists discovered how to make steel with a lower carbon content which brought the hardness of iron alloys up to a par with what was possible with bronze. Once steel becomes just as good as bronze but yet cheaper then there is little point returning to bronze even where tin becomes more accessible unless resilience to corrosion is particularly desired.

Tl;dr steel replaced bronze for armours and weapons because of cost-availability not hardness or strength.
#14805917
The reason bronze was superior was because the techniques required to produced hardened steel did not yet exist. Yes, economics was a factor, and yes bronze remained useful for weaponry and armour for many centuries afterwards. Bronze cannon continued to be cast well into the early modern period for this reason, I agree. But to downplay the difference between 4th century bronze forging in Macedonia and 17th century metallurgy in England is a stretch. I'm not a metallurgist, but is not steel produced by increasing the carbon content, not reducing it?

Also, there is speculation in waring-states China that Qin steel technology produced harder weaponry compared to the Shang bronze-Iron cored weapons. With regard to corrosion, there's the classic case of iron ship rivets (cheap) that unfortunately deteriorated as a result of electrolytic contact with copper in water, with the result that warships in the mid 18th century had to be re-riveted with bronze rivets (expensive) to prevent degradation.

I don't want to set up a false linear technological progression model, but I'm also not convinced that 4th century bronze wouldn't be at a disadvantage against 17th century steel.
#14805927
MB. wrote:The reason bronze was superior was because the techniques required to produced hardened steel did not yet exist. Yes, economics was a factor, and yes bronze remained useful for weaponry and armour for many centuries afterwards. Bronze cannon continued to be cast well into the early modern period for this reason, I agree. But to downplay the difference between 4th century bronze forging in Macedonia and 17th century metallurgy in England is a stretch. I'm not a metallurgist, but is not steel produced by increasing the carbon content, not reducing it?

Also, there is speculation in waring-states China that Qin steel technology produced harder weaponry compared to the Shang bronze-Iron cored weapons. With regard to corrosion, there's the classic case of iron ship rivets (cheap) that unfortunately deteriorated as a result of electrolytic contact with copper in water, with the result that warships in the mid 18th century had to be re-riveted with bronze rivets (expensive) to prevent degradation.

I don't want to set up a false linear technological progression model, but I'm also not convinced that 4th century bronze wouldn't be at a disadvantage against 17th century steel.


Iron ore was smeltered into iron using charcoal or coal (carbon) so it came out thick with carbon hence ancient iron was really steel of poor quality. The trick to producing quality steel came by reducing the carbon content to just the right amount. It is a case of less is more. The steel of oliver cromwell's day was decent quality compared with the steel of prior centuries but not exceptional, a Dark Age warrior would not be that impressed with it. Macedonian bronze would be just as good, its main issue would be the cost. The picture you painted of bronze swords shattering against steel corslets while steel sabres slashed through bronze armour is a fanciful fiction. Point of fact neither side would be killing the other by striking the armoured bits but by finding out the unarmoured bits.

The advantage, if any, of 17th century steel over macedonian bronze was that it was cheaper to produce in quantity though it was more prone to rust. That's it.
#14805929
I'd prefer to see some tests run on this ala The Face of Battle, but I can certainly concede your point regarding the relative merits of steel vs bronze. However, my statements were not entirely fanciful my friend: the iron tips on the sarissa lances, or the iron tipped arrows, would not be able to defeat the English steel armour, while iron xiphos swords would indeed warp or fail against steel weapons.
#14806001
Interesting discussion, I am still not fully convinced Cannons would play that big of a role unless the battle conditions were just right. Also unlike the Pikemen the Musket men usually did not have armor. I mean both sides had cannons, but they played almost no role....if they were so effective against Pikemen formations why were they not used more?
#14806008
Oxymoron wrote:Interesting discussion, I am still not fully convinced Cannons would play that big of a role unless the battle conditions were just right. Also unlike the Pikemen the Musket men usually did not have armor. I mean both sides had cannons, but they played almost no role....if they were so effective against Pikemen formations why were they not used more?


As you mentioned before, re-deploying early cannons was a pain in the ass. Cannons changed how battles are fought.

If up to reneisance the standard procedure was:

1) Armies meet.
2) Armies start manouvering to get an advantage relatively on 1 place.
3) Armies look at each other.
4) Armies go to camp to sleep for the night.
5) Armies engage after some time of manouvering when both sides figure out their advantages/get advantage/cut supplies etc.

After cannons appeared, this became more complicated due to cannons being easier to deploy and no need to construct. Earlier cannons were not very mobile though.

So battles became something like this:

1) Armies know their approximate locations. (Due to cannons appearing, scouting became a more important role)
2) Armies gather at safe distance from cannon fire.
3) Armies prepare for battle.
4) Armies take formations and go to battle.

The appearance of cannons, especially the later more mobile versions prevent armies from playing this manouvering game in close proximity. Before the cannon was invented, there were large distance weapons like catapults and trebucheis but they were almost non mobile, long to construct and very inaccurate so they were rarely deployed in open field battles. The cannon changed this. Even the earlier versions of cannons could be transported with relative easy compared to catapults, trebucheis etc.

Here is a good description of how battles were fought before cannons:

[youtube]QfLOaunQqxA[/youtube]

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]