Medieval Warfare

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The colonies fought for England, there technically fighting with them but their alone in a sense their under a nation as a colony.

      Why do people forget the colonies if your a Greek are you brit? An African are you Brit? An Aussie are you brit? Their British colonies, not a nation as a whole, just because their colonies dosent mean their not countries of their own and are considered as their parent country. The Philippines is a US colony, it's already a country before the US came, should I call myself an American? Wake up people.
      "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
      -imperium thought of the day

    • You mean during the colonial period? Yeah the Brits do win from superior forces, but have the tendency to lose to a more inferior force

      The American revolution...

      Or how about 1066
      The Brits of 80,000 lose to a force of 8,000
      "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
      -imperium thought of the day

    • In 1066 they had to force march half way up the country to fight off a Viking invasion then they had to run all the way back down, discarding heavy gear that weighed them down. The reason they lost is because they didn't have proper logistics for obvious reasons. I learnt this from the documentary Bullets, Boots and Bandages: The Real Way To Win A War I think it was called.

      Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

      Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

    • True they have to march all the way back down, but there are other factors. The Brits were fighting on top of a hill againts mounted soldiers, with the height advantage they can easily push them, but because their tired and full of farmers as soldiers they never stand a chance againts trained profesionals. You can easily use archers on that position but they didint in large numbers anyway.

      Also "heavy equipment" does not exist in that time period the only heavy equipment tha Saxons have are all light equipment padded leather armor, wooden shields and spears, and chain mail. Their already light to begin with.

      PS. I learned it from a flash game "1066" it's quite fun, along with formal research of course, but still the flash game.
      "Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
      -imperium thought of the day

    • V1nd1cat0r wrote:

      True they have to march all the way back down, but there are other factors. The Brits were fighting on top of a hill againts mounted soldiers, with the height advantage they can easily push them, but because their tired and full of farmers as soldiers they never stand a chance againts trained profesionals. You can easily use archers on that position but they didint in large numbers anyway.

      Also "heavy equipment" does not exist in that time period the only heavy equipment tha Saxons have are all light equipment padded leather armor, wooden shields and spears, and chain mail. Their already light to begin with.

      PS. I learned it from a flash game "1066" it's quite fun, along with formal research of course, but still the flash game.
      The Brits had to march all the way back down, discarding men that had to go back to their farms. The Brits were farmers. The Normans were trained pros with cavalry. The Normans used false retreat tactics, meaning the went up the hill, and then back down again, but the Saxons followed them. Then the Normans turned back and slaughtered them. Harold Godwineson was fighting as a normal footsoldier, but William was on horseback at the back of his forces, giving orders. It was not a fair fight.
      The past is a foreign country.

    • I read a little about the first opium war. I love it. I find it so funny that back then a country fought for something that is now illegal in their country(I think).

      As for Hastings, the Brits would've won if they had listened to the king's mother, she said to rest and wait for the Normans to come to them. I also think that the Brits let the Normans cross the river because they said it wasn't fair that they kept getting slaughtered. I think, anyway.

      Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

      Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!