[Oxymoron]

I am reading about the English Civil war, the battle tactics, troop numbers and lack of armor. I began to think that perhaps a highly trained army led by Alexander the great would potentially crush Oliver Cromwell's army even with the former having guns. I mean Alexanders troops would be armored, their Cavalry would be far superior in training. Am I missing something but it seems to me only after rifling and professional armies were introduced that armies of antiquity would be at a severe disadvantage.

[The Immortal Goon]

You may be right on a one-to-one basis. Like, if you took Alexander's military at its height and put it against Cromwell's at its height.

The difference with firearms, and especially as used by the New Model Army, was that anybody can fire a gun; it takes years and maybe decades to become a fighter—even an archer—proficient enough to be used in ancient armies.

The advantages of the New Model Army was threefold:

1. It was much more of a meritocracy. While one can argue that there was an element of that to Alexander, it wasn't something that could go all the way to the very bottom in that the best shot would be brought up to teach everyone else. If you were an Egyptian scrub brought into the forces for some reason, you would never outrank a Macedonian noble, even if you were far more skilled.

2. Cromwell had a big, wide ranging, and skilled propaganda machine. The printing press and (relatively) widespread literacy meant that he could drum up new and enthusiastic recruits virtually forever. And even in implementation, his most controversial things like the sacking of Drogheda, remain staunchly defended by well informed people because they have access to his thinking and propaganda. Alexander massacring his troops in India gets a sort of, "Well, we know he was a good general, so it was probably necessary," kind of push at best.

3. Finally, Cromwell had gunpowder. As much as guns are easier to train, which I addressed, it means that there is no quarter behind walls. In the aforementioned siege of Drogheda, he asked for the town to surrender; they didn't right away; so they blew up the wall and went in there and killed everyone. It was a triumph of gunpowder—but also a triumph of forces that were wound up and ready to fight; and a triumph of propaganda in able to spin murdering women and children as a justifiable act that actually saved lives—again a spin that a lot of people will take today.

Alexander, even after a victory in the field against Cromwell, would have to put his forces back together again and would be very slow to do so—if it were even possible.

[MB.]

I read a book many years ago by a guy who argued Alexander would have defeated Wellington at Waterloo, using the Macedonian phalanx. Is this the same book, Oxymoron?

Anyway, as Geoffrey Parker and others have discussed, there were basically 3 elements in the evolution of western military art at the time if the 30 years war. All three started during the 14th century but came to fruition during the 17th.

1) fortifications derived from Italian designs capable of withstanding siege artillery. This meant defeating the enemy's army was generally more useful than long and costly sieges, even by medieval standards

2) introduction of field artillery first by Edward II but really by Gustavus Adolphus. This meant mobile armies could defeat "traditional" square based formations without suffering heavy losses. The field cannon could break up phalanx formations in a manner classical artillery could not achieve.

3) massed produced firearms integrated with pike formations, introduced by the Dutch republics in their war with Spain during the 16th century. As TIG pointed out, this system was very flexible and easy to train, unlike classical arms (men at arms / archers) of which assembling large numbers was always the limiting factor in medieval combat. Now any one with a matchlock and a printed/illustrated training manual could learn to defeat armored knights in a few weeks.

The English were late to this game for a number of reasons, mainly because their mid 17th century conflicts with Scotland did not require utilizing these tactics. The New Model Army basically brought the Roundheads up to the standard achieved by Gustavus Adolphus against the Imperial forces.

Now, would the Macedonian phalanx have been able to defeat a 17th century European army using the new tactics. I don't think so. The phalanx, as my argument here should make clear, was actually obsolete by the time of the thirty years war. The firearms in the modern army would decimate the enemy's heavy cavalry and pike ranks, and the close order formations would be broken up before getting into contact, mainly by field cannon. Even if they could make it close order, the two armies would be wielding basically the same weapons (pikes). Probably the most useful element in Alexander's army would have been Persian mounted archer auxiliaries or mercenaries, which could saturate the New Model Army positions with arrows and avoid most retaliation, like the Cossacks or Mongolian steppe cavalry of old.

[Oxymoron]

So in response to both, and very good points you bring up.

So in essence my argument is this:

1. The Cavalry under Alexander was far more disciplined, trained and armored. I think Alexander would be able to route the light cavalry which made up most of the English Civil war horsemen and easily wheel around and hit the flanks of the infantry or charge the artillery positions.

2. The Phalanx was much better trained and better armed, I think in the face of this the English Pikemen who were hardly trained especially in the newly recruited new model army would buckle.

3. Hypaspists would take the roll of rodeleros and effectively break up anything in doubt, the English did not have anything like this role.

4. archers against unarmored soldiers of the English could be effective


Just some thoughts, I think in a longer drawn out ear the English would have easier time recruiting and training. But in a set piece battle I think Greeks best could beat the English Best.

[MB.]

Sounds to me like you're making a convincing argument that the Cavaliers would defeat Alexander, but not the Roundheads. Which raises the question of how parliament managed to win the Civil War in the first place.

[fuser]

Classical era army won't stand a chance against a medieval army let alone an army with gunpowder. Even the companion cavalry of Alexander's would be comparatively light cavalry to medieval cavalry arm, Stirrup alone gives a massive edge to medieval and renaissance armies.

If not for utter incompetence, a medieval heavy cavalry army would decimate the companion cavalry which arguably was more instrumental in Alexander's victory than phalanxes. Plus there were indeed many technological innovations since that era, bronze armor of Macedonian army stands no chance against steel armor of medieval army.

To me its just romanticism to think that classical era armies be it ancient Romans or ancient Greeks can defeat later armies.

[JohnRawls]

I am reading about the English Civil war, the battle tactics, troop numbers and lack of armor. I began to think that perhaps a highly trained army led by Alexander the great would potentially crush Oliver Cromwell's army even with the former having guns. I mean Alexanders troops would be armored, their Cavalry would be far superior in training. Am I missing something but it seems to me only after rifling and professional armies were introduced that armies of antiquity would be at a severe disadvantage.

No chance for Alexander. There is only 1 battle that comes to mind where the army that had its centre broken and routed managed to win. (Hannibal did it)

First of all, you need to understand that 70% for classical and around 90 to 95% for medieval armies happen during a route. Phalanx simply doesn't stand a chance against cannons because they will not be able to maintain formation against cannon fire which is what cannons are designed to do.

As the phalanx will approach their phalanx cohesion will first of all be broken by cannon fire and then by Musket fire which will eventually lead to a route. The main advantage of muskets is not only range but also the loud sounds that have a psychological effect on both people and horses. On top of that muskets are deployed along with pikes to prevent cavalry from causing massive damage to frontline units hence only logical solution is to either flank or charge the units from the back, to prevent cavalry from being destroyed.

Here is where the problem comes in, you can't simply flank or charge the rear if the frontline is not engaged with something. Phalanx will simply not be able to engage the front because an effective phalanx is a cordinated phalanx which is not possible under musket fire and cannon fire. It will at best, reach the front and break straight away. At worst it will break without reaching the front.

The whole point of the phalanx is to apply coordinated preasure on the enemy units and push them while being protected by shields and spears. But the army with gunpowder has no need to charge them nor it has a need to engage them in a classical/medieval "push" battle.

And any route as mentioned will cause the army to suffer horrendous casualties. Armies durring classical times/medieval times usually NEVER survive when their centre is broken. The centre can be pushed back or faint retreat but if it breaks then it is the end for any classical army/medieval army.

If you imagine something like this to happen then it is not possible because classical army centre will break and the the rest of the army will be routed as seperate groups:

[youtube]MroGPObEZzk[/youtube]

Here is perhaps the only chance that classical army will have(But it only happened once in my memory):

[youtube]O-bXtg14T90[/youtube]

[Oxymoron]

No chance for Alexander. There is only 1 battle that comes to mind where the army that had its centre broken and routed managed to win. (Hannibal did it)

First of all, you need to understand that 70% for classical and around 90 to 95% for medieval armies happen during a route. Phalanx simply doesn't stand a chance against cannons because they will not be able to maintain formation against cannon fire which is what cannons are designed to do.

As the phalanx will approach their phalanx cohesion will first of all be broken by cannon fire and then by Musket fire which will eventually lead to a route. The main advantage of muskets is not only range but also the loud sounds that have a psychological effect on both people and horses. On top of that muskets are deployed along with pikes to prevent cavalry from causing massive damage to frontline units hence only logical solution is to either flank or charge the units from the back, to prevent cavalry from being destroyed.

Here is where the problem comes in, you can't simply flank or charge the rear if the frontline is not engaged with something. Phalanx will simply not be able to engage the front because an effective phalanx is a cordinated phalanx which is not possible under musket fire and cannon fire. It will at best, reach the front and break straight away. At worst it will break without reaching the front.

The whole point of the phalanx is to apply coordinated preasure on the enemy units and push them while being protected by shields and spears. But the army with gunpowder has no need to charge them nor it has a need to engage them in a classical/medieval "push" battle.

And any route as mentioned will cause the army to suffer horrendous casualties. Armies durring classical times/medieval times usually NEVER survive when their centre is broken. The centre can be pushed back or faint retreat but if it breaks then it is the end for any classical army/medieval army.

If you imagine something like this to happen then it is not possible because classical army centre will break and the the rest of the army will be routed as seperate groups:

[youtube]MroGPObEZzk[/youtube]

Here is perhaps the only chance that classical army will have(But it only happened once in my memory):

[youtube]O-bXtg14T90[/youtube]

Fact is that artillery played almost no role in the English civil war aside siege warfare, and that something like 80% of the armies were either Pikemen or Light cavalry. The fact is that cavalry played probably the decisive role in this conflict, and the fact is that Alexanders cavalry would have been far more experienced, trained, disciplined and armored. So saying Alexander would have no chance is a bit over the top. I think in the right battlefield the Greeks would have had a good chance to win, but again we are just talking shit about something that cannot be proven.

[JohnRawls]

Fact is that artillery played almost no role in the English civil war aside siege warfare, and that something like 80% of the armies were either Pikemen or Light cavalry. The fact is that cavalry played probably the decisive role in this conflict, and the fact is that Alexanders cavalry would have been far more experienced, trained, disciplined and armored. So saying Alexander would have no chance is a bit over the top. I think in the right battlefield the Greeks would have had a good chance to win, but again we are just talking shit about something that cannot be proven.

You are not listening Oxy. Phalanx is a slow moving, very coordinated formation. You do not need to be a master canoneer to hit it. Breaking the formation makes the phalanx useless. Muskets and cannons will break the formation and the core of the army will collapse. Unengaged centre will then mop up the cavalry if it is stupid enough to engage. Engaging with cavalry before the centre pushes and engages will not produce any results due to pikes and muskets.

[Oxymoron]

You are not listening Oxy. Phalanx is a slow moving, very coordinated formation. You do not need to be a master canoneer to hit it. Breaking the formation makes the phalanx useless. Muskets and cannons will break the formation and the core of the army will collapse. Unengaged centre will then mop up the cavalry if it is stupid enough to engage. Engaging with cavalry before the centre pushes and engages will not produce any results due to pikes and muskets.

, the Pikeman formations acted pretty much the same way and no cannon was able to break the formations. Cannons were heavy and almost impossible to move tactically during battle, so for what you say to happen the battle setting would have to be just right for the cannons to do what you claim they would do. The Musket men were not very numerous in the English civil war, and would not be that much more effective against the Phalanx then say the Persian Cavalry archers.

[fuser]

Companion cavalry is seriously outdated. It's like putting WW1 era tanks against modern tanks. Seriously stirrups were the biggest innovation in warfare prior to gunpowder and Macedonians didn't had any stirrups.

And as per armor, bronze is no match for
steel.

[Oxymoron]

Companion cavalry is seriously outdated. It's like putting WW1 era tanks against modern tanks. Seriously stirrups were the biggest innovation in warfare prior to gunpowder and Macedonians didn't had any stirrups.

And as per armor, bronze is no match for
steel.

I think training, experience, and discipline would overcome any shortcomings in technology. You are taking the human element completely out it. BTW Bronze armor is better then no armor.

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm not a military historian, as evidenced by my very wide argument, but I think that in Alexander's case we do need to look at heavy armour. To my recollection, part of the reason Alexander cut through the Persians was that the Persians used a light weight but highly mobile armour, sometimes mere wicked--and Alexander cut through them with bronze. If he used the same tactic against Cromwell, it probably wouldn't work like it had against the Persians.

[Oxymoron]

I'm not a military historian, as evidenced by my very wide argument, but I think that in Alexander's case we do need to look at heavy armour. To my recollection, part of the reason Alexander cut through the Persians was that the Persians used a light weight but highly mobile armour, sometimes mere wicked--and Alexander cut through them with bronze. If he used the same tactic against Cromwell, it probably wouldn't work like it had against the Persians.

Aside The London Lobsters the English cavalry had no armor. I think bronze can cut through clothes.

[MB.]

It would be helpful to know what source we're arguing against here Oxymoron.

Well on the one hand I tend to agree with you that the manpower /morale issue is more significant than technology here, you also might want to consider the historical context: Macedonian tactics and material couldn't defeat Roman centurions of the Republican period, why would you expect them to be able to defeat a modern army with cannon and musket, not to mention pistoiler cavalry?

It seems to me the argument hinges on leadership: let's assume the forces are equal and there is no technological asymmetry. The real question is then merely, who was the better general, Cromwell or Alexander?

I think that's a very different question from could a Macedonian phalanx of 300bc defeat an early modern Army from 1650 ad.

Btw, you are factually incorrect in your claim that the New Model Army lacked artillery or armour. The composition of the New Model Army in May 1645 was as follows: 12 regiments, each regiment of 10 companies (120 men), organized as 78 musketeer companies and 42 pike. The cavalry was organized into 11 regiments of 6 troops each (100 horse per troop). The cavalry was armed with sword, 2 pistols each, and a helmet and cuirass. There were also 10 companies of dragoons armed with muskets. The army's artillery was composed of 56 guns, 6 and 7 inch in caliber, supported by a number of 12 inch bomb throwing mortars for siege work. The artillery was supported by a small engineering establishment (Fuller, 1955). Total establishment strength was about 22,000 men (14,400 infantry, 6,600 cavalry and 1,000 dragoons).

Comparatively, Alexander's army at Gaugamela was probably about 47,000 men- 40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry, of which a good proportion were mercenaries and archer/javelin auxiliaries (Fuller from Dodge's figures, 1954).

[Oxymoron]

It would be helpful to know what source we're arguing against here Oxymoron.

Well on the one hand I tend to agree with you that the manpower /morale issue is more significant than technology here, you also might want to consider the historical Al context: Macedonian tactics and material couldn't defeat Roman centurions of the Republican period, why would you expect them to be able to defeat a modern army with cannon and musket, not to mention pistoiler cavalry?

It seems to me the argument hinges on leadership: let's assume the forces are equal and there is no technological asymmetry. The real question is then merely, who was the better general, Cromwell or Alexander?

I think that's a very different question from could a Macedonian phalanx of 300bc defeat an early modern Army from 1650 ad.

Well I am basing this on the descriptions of the battles and the type of forces used in English civil war. Yes the Macedonians lost to Rome, but Rome is not like chump change... I didn't want to compare Rome, because Phalanx against pikemen fits better.
My overall point is that the armies of antiquity properly led, disciplined, trained, and experienced would have a good chance against ill trained, undisciplined, inexperienced armies of the English civil war. English armies heavily made up of pike-men, and light cavalry. From what I have read, most of the successful tactics used by the light cavalry was still the charge and the effectiveness of pistols not very well explained.

[JohnRawls]

Well I am basing this on the descriptions of the battles and the type of forces used in English civil war. Yes the Macedonians lost to Rome, but Rome is not like chump change... I didn't want to compare Rome, because Phalanx against pikemen fits better.
My overall point is that the armies of antiquity properly led, disciplined, trained, and experienced would have a good chance against ill trained, undisciplined, inexperienced armies of the English civil war. English armies heavily made up of pike-men, and light cavalry. From what I have read, most of the successful tactics used by the light cavalry was still the charge and the effectiveness of pistols not very well explained.

One of the core problems here is that the main tactic of the macedonian army is the phalanx. Phalanx is a very coordinated and slow moving target. Phalanx depends on the coordination and the cohesion of the whole unit and when this coordination and cohesion is broken then the unit falls appart and starts to route.
Cannon fire is something that is very good at destroying such formations. If we exclude that macedonians never seen guns before, just the sheer pressure of cannon fire and musket fire causes a psychological effect even on units that know about them, more so to tightly packed units that have no choice but to SLOWLY march under that gunfire. You can't perform charging attacks with a phalanx without loosing most of the cohesion, so a phalanx usually approaches as 1 unit.

So imagine an army, whos armor is not that good at starting bullets in the first place is slowly marching against Cannon fire and Musket fire. Yes, they might be able to reach the front lines of the opposing army but the shelling won't stop there. They will be continuesly attacked again and again, until they break if they won't break on approach.

The cavalry itself is not even a viable problem as i mentioned before. Again, if for some miracle, Alexanders cavalry can beat dragoons and pistoliers then they have no way to engage the main army because the core of the macedonian army won't be able to engage the opposing army for long or at all. The centre of the macedonian army will break and route, there is no other way around this.

[Oxymoron]

One of the core problems here is that the main tactic of the macedonian army is the phalanx. Phalanx is a very coordinated and slow moving target. Phalanx depends on the coordination and the cohesion of the whole unit and when this coordination and cohesion is broken then the unit falls appart and starts to route.
Cannon fire is something that is very good at destroying such formations. If we exclude that macedonians never seen guns before, just the sheer pressure of cannon fire and musket fire causes a psychological effect even on units that know about them, more so to tightly packed units that have no choice but to SLOWLY march under that gunfire. You can't perform charging attacks with a phalanx without loosing most of the cohesion, so a phalanx usually approaches as 1 unit.

So imagine an army, whos armor is not that good at starting bullets in the first place is slowly marching against Cannon fire and Musket fire. Yes, they might be able to reach the front lines of the opposing army but the shelling won't stop there. They will be continuesly attacked again and again, until they break if they won't break on approach.

The cavalry itself is not even a viable problem as i mentioned before. Again, if for some miracle, Alexanders cavalry can beat dragoons and pistoliers then they have no way to engage the main army because the core of the macedonian army won't be able to engage the opposing army for long or at all. The centre of the macedonian army will break and route, there is no other way around this.

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.

[MB.]

like I mentioned the cannons were not capable of any tactical movement

This flatly isn't true, Oxymoron. As I mentioned in my comments about the military revolution of the early modern period and the tactics of Gustavus Adolphus, the major transformation of the 17th century was the introduction of field artillery which was mobile. That's the whole point. By the 1640s the English were specifically manufacturing field artillery that was small enough to be mobile. Now, to be sure, as Geoffrey Parker states, the English were far behind the Swedes in this regard (neither side deployed field artillery at Naseby, for example), and the 56 guns in the New Model Army were not exactly of the same quality as the massed field artillery Gustavus used at Wittstock in 1636 (Parker, 2011).

[Oxymoron]

This flatly isn't true, Oxymoron. As I mentioned in my comments about the military revolution of the early modern period and the tactics of Gustavus Adolphus, the major transformation of the 17th century was the introduction of field artillery which was mobile. That's the whole point. By the 1640s the English were specifically manufacturing field artillery that was small enough to be mobile. Now, to be sure, as Geoffrey Parker states, the English were far behind the Swedes in this regard (neither side deployed field artillery at Naseby, for example), and the 56 guns in the New Model Army were not exactly of the same quality as the massed field artillery Gustavus used at Wittstock in 1636 (Parker, 2011).

small enough to be mobile but practically once they were setup they did not move for tactical advantage. This is the case in the English civil war, whether because the gunners badly trained, or bad leadership or misused what ever the reason in this scenario Cannons would not be at all decisive.