Conner_Wolf's forum posts

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#1 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@conner_wolf: You're basically ignoring the entire reason I brought up mounted combat, to point out that ground-based knights aren't truly what made knights so effective against infantry, it was their cavalry charge, and that individuals on the ground fighting against a legion are a tactical disadvantage. Knights from almost every form of fantasy fictional medium are infantry and not cavalry. Hence, ya know why I brought up that knights were far more effective when mounted to begin with then I went off-topic on how the Romans did adapt to cavalry. Oh and of course the fact my initial comment was in response to Nate discussing footmen in full plate, a la the Alliance.

And, again, infantry were given plate armor [usually half-plate] as time went on because it was ludicrously effective and a group of men-at-arms with plate are going to easily defeat roman legionnaires. So, we are back to where we started with the technological advancements that spurned the tactical progress of Europe is still superior to whatever era of Romans you wish to use [Be it Marian Reforms or the later Western Roman Gaul/Celtic Inspired soldiers]. Not to mention Stormwind Footmen run around in armor that looks more designed for Space Marines then humans without any noticeable strain which doesn't bode well for anyone else for their implied strength and endurance [if not the poor design of the armor, itself].

Also the fact that the Roman Empire fell to decadence and logistical nightmares and that's why they stopped using the legion tactic, and ignoring historical evidence that knowledge of Rome was incredibly rare until the renaissance.

Are you talking structure or equipment? Because structurally the 'legion' stayed with the Eastern Roman Empire even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire until 600 AD [IIRC]. If you mean equipment, they used that version of armor for maybe a century of its existence, so it isn't like that was some super important facet of what makes a Legion a Legion. If you meant tactics the Legions, themselves, grew, adapted and changed so much that a legion from any time period is going to look markedly different from another one, hell, even the ones from the same time period will look different based on where they were deployed [so what auxiliaries they faced, what opponents they faced and so were adapting to, what equipment the local blacksmiths were able to produce, etc].

What historical evidence? The one that ignores the Byzantine Empire's existence? Is it one of those that focuses on how the Dark Ages were some crazy technological and culturally repressed times which is incorrect? What historical evidence are you citing here?

As for why people don't like it, it's because people don't like when you snark them for no reason.

Then stop being sensitive and snark back, have fun with it.

But this isn't europe, this is Tamriel whose steel should be at least equivalent in smithing to that of full plate, since according to the game they're fairly close in terms of durability.

I meant partially the equipment and partially the tactics, you're right, things evolve overtime and the environment that the Byzantine Empire fought was not condusive to classical Roman Legion style, they were too slow and could not effectively deal with the cavalry they faced, who could literally run circles around them on the open terrain.

Yes, cavalry is effective, but infantry has a use and a purpose, footsoldiers were used even when cavalry was in use, and when compared to footmen, the Legion is a better tactic than just sending in a mass of individuals all fighting as independent figures, even if they are wearing full plate. Hell if you evened out the armors and gave them equivalent armor-which if we're talking about the tactic alone-it would basically remove any and all advantage the armored footmen have. But then you point out that the footmen wearing full plate was a tactic in and of itself, one of individual superiority, one where you expected individuals to reign supreme on the battlefield, sure, let's give them equivalent metals then, but they keep their styles of armor and such. You cannot possibly believe that the knights will just slaughter through the legion like it's nothing unless they're superhuman.

Yes, the dark ages were technologically regressive. That is a fact. The fall of Rome saw the loss of a lot of information.

And I'd snark back if I wasn't convinced the moment I stepped out of line a mod would come in and ban me because they're like that.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#2 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio
HAIL HYDRA
HAIL HYDRA

Comic book factions are hardly fair. Hydra has the technology to combat Marvel heroes regularly and cosmic cubes are enough to wipe the enemy from existence.

Unless no side is allowed to science during the battle in which case I'd give the advantage to the fascists still, their weaponry is still enough to combat the Marvel heroes.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#3 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut:

You're basically ignoring the entire reason I brought up mounted combat, to point out that ground-based knights aren't truly what made knights so effective against infantry, it was their cavalry charge, and that individuals on the ground fighting against a legion are a tactical disadvantage. Knights from almost every form of fantasy fictional medium are infantry and not cavalry. Hence, ya know why I brought up that knights were far more effective when mounted to begin with then I went off-topic on how the Romans did adapt to cavalry. Oh and of course the fact my initial comment was in response to Nate discussing footmen in full plate, a la the Alliance.

Also the fact that the Roman Empire fell to decadence and logistical nightmares and that's why they stopped using the legion tactic, and ignoring historical evidence that knowledge of Rome was incredibly rare until the renaissance.

As for why people don't like it, it's because people don't like when you snark them for no reason.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#4 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@conner_wolf: Hilarious. You do realize the entire reason that the legion tactic wasn't around was because the strategy was, in and of itself, lost for many years, right?

Hilarious, You do realize that the Byzantine Empire was still a thing and quickly phased sword and shielded infantry out for more cavalry [Kataphraktoi] focused armies due to infantry failing even against the much worse classical heavy cavalry, right?

You do realize the Spanish with their targeteers were a well trained and disciplined heavy infantry heavily modeled after the Roman Legion... guess what? They were also phased out because they were utterly worthless against cavalry.

Hell, I think the only nation to keep formations of sworded infantry were the Polish and that was only because they could always count on having cavalry superiority.

The whole concept of knights in full plate no longer works when your opponent is behind a wall of shields. It's actually pretty basic tactics when you don't have to deal with gunpowder, the Swiss even made their claim to fame with a similar tactics-bar the shields.

Wut? The Swiss made their claim to fame using large, dense pike blocks. Not swords and shields because they weren't fools.

You know what people love to charge into? Sworded infantry who lack any weapon to harm heavy cavalry.

Now, before you say, "But! Infantry!" There were many nations that could afford to maintain large infantry armies, like the Byzantine, you know, the Roman Empire, yet they didn't and moved away from it, hm, I wonder why? Could it have been the very advanced and skilled cavalry they were facing in the east phasing them out? Because, if we look at how the Romans did against the Parthians.. oh, boy, they didn't do well. Even the Romans, themselves, constantly expanded their cav wings when able and often took in cav auxiliary because of how effective the were and how lacking they were in that department and knew it.

Then we look at the Parthians and their 'heavy cav' was pretty much just cav that trotted up and stabbed because they lacked the means to do what we see in the later medieval periods as true cav charges wouldn't come around until they started doing it thanks to stirs-ups, the lance and advanced horse breeding lines.

Then on top of it they were a mounted soldier much of the time, which gave them far more speed and the ability to get in close and deal a ton of damage and then survive once they were there. Heavy knights were shock troops to the Roman Legion's slow, unending advance. However a cavalry charge could route the Legion, hence why they had counters for it. Caltrops, their own horsemen, etc... the Romans actually had a significantly flexible army, it's how they routed Hannibal and the Greeks and their phalangites.

You... don't actually know how 'heavy' cavalry was back in the classical period.. do you? And if you think roman cavalry is going to do anything but get slaughtered by medieval cavalry then you have no idea what you are talking about. The Byzantine Kataphraktoi, the apex of 'classical' period heavy cav got their crap pushed in by Norman Knights and Men-At-Arms.

Actually, it was how Hannibal wrecked the Romans. Scipio copied Hannibal's tactics because they worked so well.

So, how do you expect the roman army to stand up to medieval cavalry? Send their own to get murder stomped? Throw caltrops and pray the Medieval cav doesn't do what they like to do? Which is engage the cav on the flanks, and in this case, utterly murder them while using archers [and they have a vastly superior archer force here] to weaken and disrupt the main line, send in the infantry, then smash the flanks with cav? The romans would die. As they did every time the Parthians did this to them.

Actually, the Romans, when defeating hte Macedonians, faced a shadow of theri former-selves. Back in Alexander/Philips time, they knew this weakness of the phalanx which is why they were great users of combined arms using light harassing forces, sworded infantry to guard the flanks of their main phalanx line, and, of course, a superb heavy cav force. Jesus, what, do you think the Roman's invented that or something? Because they didn't. Other empires and nations were using combined arms long before the Romans, and if anything, the Roman's did a craptastic job at it until they started to copy Hannibal and, even then, their cav wing was still pathetic which is why they used so many auxiliaries.

However that's getting off-topic, the point is that in soldier vs soldier, the legion is simply far more effective in open ground combat, whereas the Knight's main advantage was to act as a battering ram or being able to operate independently-in which case they were significantly better than the Legionaire was independently.

Wut? The Knight, or just any heavy cavalry especially the later in time periods you get, main advantage is massive mobility, the ability to hit like a truck, pull out, and do it all over again [even early Frankish knights were capable of this] and having the intelligence to hit the flanks.

Seriously, do you really think that once the 'GLORY OF THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE!' collapsed everyone just went derpy derp derp? Ignoring, of course, that the Western Roman Empire weren't even really using legions anymore just barbarians led by barbarians fighting other Barbarians, the only ones who kept the heavy disciplined infantry was the Eastern Roman Empire, and I already pointed out how quickly the Byzantines ditched them for superior cav.

I did say that cavalry screwed the Legion, and I said the Swiss used the same tactic bar the shields... ie the halberd line. I don't think you actually read my comments.

As for the Byzantines, the reason they ditched the Legion was because they often fought on much more open terrain where they were dealing with many more opponents on horseback and they responded accordingly. You also keep misconstruing history to make the Romans sound like total idiots; you're basically just telling the same stories I am from the perspective of the Romans being big old dumb dumbs, even though adapting your enemy's tactics when they work well is the sign of a really good strategist.

Have I ever mentioned you need to cut down the snark? Because you do. I've already addressed that the legion tactic gets destroyed by cavalry, but my argument was never that the Imperials would beat Cavalry, just that they would beat other infantry. But you don't want to address that, you just want to constantly look like the smart person and throw up strawmen.

And yes, the knowledge of the Roman Empire simply wasn't known by pretty much anyone, that's why the medieval world didn't have cement, or a ton of the stuff the Romans did.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#5 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: Hilarious. You do realize the entire reason that the legion tactic wasn't around was because the strategy was, in and of itself, lost for many years, right? Only during the renassaince did the tales of the Legion resurface and by that time, gunpowder was already wrecking the idea. The whole concept of knights in full plate no longer works when your opponent is behind a wall of shields. It's actually pretty basic tactics when you don't have to deal with gunpowder, the Swiss even made their claim to fame with a similar tactics-bar the shields. Then on top of it they were a mounted soldier much of the time, which gave them far more speed and the ability to get in close and deal a ton of damage and then survive once they were there. Heavy knights were shock troops to the Roman Legion's slow, unending advance. However a cavalry charge could route the Legion, hence why they had counters for it. Caltrops, their own horsemen, etc... the Romans actually had a significantly flexible army, it's how they routed Hannibal and the Greeks and their phalangites. However that's getting off-topic, the point is that in soldier vs soldier, the legion is simply far more effective in open ground combat, whereas the Knight's main advantage was to act as a battering ram or being able to operate independently-in which case they were significantly better than the Legionaire was independently.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#6 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: No the Legion tactic is better than an individual and full plate.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#7 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@conner_wolf: The Scourge fights disciplined Footmen in full plate as standard gear, on top of powerful magic and early gunpowder weaponry like handguns and cannons. As well as steampunk like airships and tanks and mortars.

The Warhammer armies have both fought the pike and shot armies of the empire, which use powerful magic as well as gunpowder weapons like cannons and handguns.

I'd say the Legion's tactics and abilities shouldn't take anyone here by surprise to much. Unless Tullius decides to have his mages turn his cavalry into water breathing, flying, amphibious assault force, or his infantry for that matter.

The legion is honestly better than full plate tbh.

As for handguns and tanks and mortars, yeah those are significant, but don't they fight far fewer mages and such?

Warhammer's fair.

And out of fairness, he could totally do that cause Skyrim magic is silly.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#8 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

Imperial Legions should arguably be fairly effective in the open terrain, has anyone here ever faced a legion-style force before?

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#9 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

No clue, haven't seen enough of OPM.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#10 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: Since when was the average warboss able to blitz marines?