- From: cemanuel <cemanuel@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 16:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
On May 22, 1:12 pm, a...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 21, 11:16 pm, cemanuel <ceman...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 3:24 pm, ken...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
By the way the situation changed a lot from when the Merovignians took
over to C. There was a change from infantry as the main force to cavalry
a hundred years plus of Merovignian rule and the abandonment of throwing
axes as a weapon.
Not really. Seems to be the same misconception as followed later
armies where the sources often minimize infantry to highlight the
nobility, who rode horses.
Martel's victory at Poitiers was completely due to his infantry.
Numerous later sources such as the Utrecht Psalter show infantry as
Charles Martel (alledgedly) created effective Frankish cavalry.
It wasn't used at Poitiers.
Charlemagne was not operating immedieately after the battle at
Poitiers: almost 3 decades passed between this event and the time when
C became the King of Franks and he was ruling for 46 years. A lot of
development happened during this time so the Poitiers in not such a
You've just become hilarious.
The new "Alex Milman Rules of Comparing Time Periods" has just been
used to discount a discussion of Carolingian Military Methods in a
discussion about (drum roll) Carolingian Military Methods.
Now why don't you share a bit more about Napoleon and the 19th century
and how that applies to Carolingian warfare.
I don't want to minimize cavalry. They were very important to how
Charlemagne seems to have conducted warfare - critical even. Once
infantries engaged they'd charge,
What if infantries did not 'engage'? Would cavalry stay just waiting
for the infentrimen taking initiative?
So you think the Carolingians were only capable of fighting one way
and not adjusting to circumstances?
throw spears and then head back to
grab another spear and repeat the maneuver, though apparently
sometimes they'd dismount and fight as infantry.
I wonder what would be the source of this description. The primary
sources are short of the details but on the few ocassions that I
already quoted they mention 'cavalry battle' or the cavalrymen
attacking on a full speed.
You mean why would one think when one of the standard weapons of
Carolingian cavalry was the spear and that there's no evidence for
shock combat that you might find it reasonable that they might throw
their spears? Generally a good way to stay alive is to keep your enemy
at a distance. Anyway, Kelly Devries and Bachrach both talk about it.
However the majority
of his forces seem to have still been infantry.
And this opinion is based on which facts?
Facts? Who thinks anyone's going to find facts? I don't have a video.
We have evidence which people have used to make conclusions from.
Rhabanus Maurus spends a great deal of time discussing infantry. The
Walthurius poet has quite a few lines about infantry marching in step.
There are numerous images such as the Utrecht Psalter I mentioned
earlier. Einhard mentions military leaders setting their battle lines
in a way that suggests defensive infantry positions.
And Kelly DeVries, Bachrach, Bradbury and others believe it.
Not to mention common sense - it took a LOT more to support a mounted
knight as evidenced by the regulations. It was much more expensive and
far fewer people would have been able to meet those requirements. Plus
most of the set battles C was involved with were sieges. Cavalry
doesn't do you much good there. I'm sure he had them along to chase
Saxons around in the woods but he needed the foot soldiers too.
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: am05
- Re: Kalamazoo
- Prev by Date: Re: 1066 Battle for Middle Earth on Brit TV
- Next by Date: Re: Bad Day For Creationists
- Previous by thread: Re: Kalamazoo
- Next by thread: Re: Kalamazoo