Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Roman Legionaires carried wooden spikes and caltrops as part of thier feild kit. Notamlyl used for setting up thier camp defenses they could and would be presse dinto service vs enemies who relied on the charge. Further based on Hungarian exploits vs the Mongols, they were not disciplined, a good rea don this is the DEvils Horsemen by James Chambers
|
Agreed, the Romans did regularly construct 'field fortifications', usually at the end of the day's march. However, the discussion is drifting further and further from the original point I was making, which was that the Roman weapons and fighting formations were not strong against cavalry opponents. This also raises the key point that a cavalry force can choose the time and place of battle against an infantry opponent. So, for example, if the Romans had constructed field fortifications - pits / stakes etc. - the Hungarians could simply have waited for the Romans to (literally) 'pull up stakes' and move before attacking. If the Romans don't move, then the Hungarians could simply have 'trapped' the Romans in the 'middle of nowhere' anytime they chose to.
I'm not sure that fighting against the Mongols would put the Hungarians, or other Europeans for that matter, in the best light. They would have been fighting a superior cavalry force using tactics that were not the norm in Europe. Further, the coordination of feudal cavalry depended alot on the commander. If he was competent, and universally recognized as having authority (e.g. the king) then orders would be obeyed. If the commander was 'appointed', and his authority not recognized / accepted, then you end up with behaviour like the French at Agincourt.