What are you saying I'm saying? Jidf you need to make your point clear.
The side with more artillery or cavalry always wins. Every battle without exceptions.
Yes that's a famous example of a successful human wave against artillery. In all other cases battles are simply the side with more artillery.
Tanks and aircraft are basically useless.
Are you including tanks in the definition of cavalry? I'm sure you could find several examples of WW2 battles in which the side with more tanks lost to fortifications and good anti-tank crews
But you are too lazy to find them jidf. You can't find a single example.
Now you will declare victory and run away despite being too dumb to find a battle where artillery or cavalry lost.
>end of world war 2 >the brutal meat grinder that was the waves of russian fodder pouring onto the nazis ends in russian victory >l-lol acchutally you lost b-because more of you died than us
By many arguments and instances it can be clearly established that in their military
enterprises the Romans set far more store on their infantry than on their cavalry, and
trusted to the former to carry out all the chief objects which their armies were meant
to effect. Among many other examples of this, we may notice the great battle which
they fought with the Latins near the lake Regillus, where to steady their wavering
ranks they made their horsemen dismount, and renewing the combat on foot obtained
a victory. Here we see plainly that the Romans had more confidence in themselves
when they fought on foot than when they fought on horseback. The same expedient
was resorted to by them in many of their other battles, and always in their sorest need
they found it their surest stay.
Nor are we to condemn the practice in deference to the opinion of Hannibal, who, at
the battle of Cannæ, on seeing the consuls make the horsemen dismount, said
scoffingly, "Better still had they delivered their knights to me in chains." For though
this saying came from the mouth of a most excellent soldier, still, if we are to regard
authority, we ought rather to follow the authority of a commonwealth like Rome, and
of the many great captains who served her, than that of Hannibal alone. But, apart
from authority, there are manifest reasons to bear out what I say. For a man may go
on foot into many places where a horse cannot go; men can be taught to keep rank,
and if thrown into disorder to recover form; whereas, it is difficult to keep horses in
line, and impossible if once they be thrown into disorder to reform them. Moreover
we find that with horses as with men, some have little courage and some much; and
that often a spirited horse is ridden by a faint-hearted rider, or a dull horse by a
courageous rider, and that in whatever way such disparity is caused, confusion and
disorder result. Again, infantry, when drawn up in column, can easily break and is
not easily broken by cavalry. This is vouched, not only by many ancient and many
modern instances, but also by the authority of those who lay down rules for the
government of States, who show that at first wars were carried on by mounted
soldiers, because the methods for arraying infantry were not yet understood, but that
so soon as these were discovered, the superiority of foot over horse was at once
recognized. In saying this, I would not have it supposed that horsemen are not of the
greatest use in armies, whether for purposes of observation, for harrying and laying
waste the enemy's country, for pursuing a retreating foe or helping to repulse his
cavalry. But the substance and sinew of an army, and that part of it which ought
constantly to be most considered, should always be the infantry.
And among sins of
the Italian princes who have made their country the slave of foreigners, there is none
worse than that they have held these arms in contempt, and turned their whole
attention to mounted troops.
This error is due to the craft of our captains and to the ignorance of our rulers. For
the control of the armies of Italy for the last five and twenty years resting in the
hands of men, who, as having no lands of their own, may be looked on as mere
soldiers of fortune, these fell forthwith on contriving how they might maintain their
credit by being supplied with the arms which the princes of the country were
without. And as they had no subjects of their own of whom they could make use, and
could not obtain constant employment and pay for a large number of foot-soldiers,
and as a small number would have given them no importance, they had recourse to
horsemen. For a condottiere drawing pay for two or three hundred horsemen was
maintained by them in the highest credit, and yet the cost was not too great to be met
by the princes who employed him. And to effect their object with more ease, and
increase their credit still further, these adventurers would allow no merit or favour to
be due to foot-soldiers, but claimed all for their horsemen. And to such a length was
this bad system carried, that in the very greatest army only the smallest sprinkling of
infantry was to be found. This, together with many other ill practices which
accompanied it, has so weakened the militia of Italy, that the country has easily been
trampled upon by all the nations of the North.
That it is a mistake to make more account of cavalry than of infantry, may be still
more clearly seen from another example taken from Roman history. The Romans
being engaged on the siege of Sora, a troop of horse a sally from the town to attack
their camp; when the Roman master of the knights advancing with his own horsemen
to give them battle, it so chanced that, at the very first onset, the leaders on both
sides were slain. Both parties being thus left without commanders, and the combat,
nevertheless, continuing, the Romans thinking thereby to have the advantage of their
adversaries, alighted from horseback, obliging the enemy's cavalry, in order to
defend themselves, to do the like. The result was that the Romans had the victory.
Now there could be no stronger instance than this to show the superiority of foot
over horse. For while in other battles the Roman cavalry were made by their consuls
to dismount in order to succour their infantry who were in distress and in need of
such aid, on this occasion they dismounted, not to succour their infantry, nor to
encounter an enemy contending on foot, but because they saw that though they could
not prevail against the enemy fighting as horsemen against horsemen, on foot they
readily might. And from this I conclude that foot-soldiers, if rightly handled, can
hardly be beaten except by other soldiers fighting on foot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
With very few cavalry, but with a considerable force of infantry, the Roman
commanders, Crassus and Marcus Antonius, each for many days together overran the
territories of the Parthians, although opposed by the countless horsemen of that
nation. Crassus, indeed, with the greater part of his army, was left there dead, and
Antonius only saved himself by his valour; but even in the extremities to which the
Romans were then brought, see how greatly superior foot-soldiers are to horse. For
though fighting in an open country, far from the sea-coast, and cut off from his
supplies, Antonius proved himself a valiant soldier in the judgment even of the
Parthians themselves, the whole strength of whose cavalry never ventured to attack
the columns of his army. And though Crassus perished there, any one who reads
attentively the account of his expedition must see that he was rather outwitted than
defeated, and that even when his condition was desperate, the Parthians durst not
close with him, but effected his destruction by hanging continually on the flanks of
his army, and intercepting his supplies, while cajoling him with promises which they
never kept.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It might, I grant, be harder to demonstrate this great superiority of foot over horse,
had we not very many modern examples affording the clearest proof of it. For
instance, at the battle of Novara, of which we have already spoken, nine thousand
Swiss foot were seen to attack ten thousand cavalry together with an equal number of
infantry, and to defeat them; the cavalry being powerless to injure them, while of the
infantry, who were mostly Gascons, and badly disciplined, they made no account.
On another occasion we have seen twenty-six thousand Swiss march on Milan to
attack Francis I. of France, who had with him twenty thousand men-at-arms, forty
thousand foot, and a hundred pieces of artillery; and although they were not
victorious as at Novara, they nevertheless fought valiantly for two days together,
and, in the end, though beaten, were able to bring off half their number. With footsoldiers only Marcus Attilius Regulus ventured to oppose himself, not to cavalry
merely, but to elephants; and if the attempt failed it does not follow that he was not
justified by the valour of his men in believing them equal to surmount this danger.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I repeat, therefore, that to prevail against well-disciplined infantry, you must meet
them with infantry disciplined still better, and that otherwise you advance to certain
destruction. In the time of Filippo Visconti, Duke of Milan, some sixteen thousand
Swiss made a descent on Lombardy, whereupon the Duke, who at that time had Il
Carmagnola as his captain, sent him with six thousand men-at-arms and a slender
following of foot-soldiers to meet them. Not knowing their manner of fighting,
Carmagnola fell upon them with his horsemen, expecting to put them at once to rout;
but finding them immovable, after losing many of his men he withdrew. But, being a
most wise captain, and skilful in devising new remedies to meet unwonted dangers,
after reinforcing his company he again advanced to the attack; and when about to
engage made all his men-at-arms dismount, and placing them in front of his footsoldiers, fell once more upon the Swiss, who could then no longer withstand him.
For his men, being on foot and well armed, easily penetrated the Swiss ranks without
hurt to themselves; and getting among them, had no difficulty in cutting them down,
so that of the entire army of the Swiss those only escaped who were spared by his
humanity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is basically every cope possible, now we're on to pikes.
Book was written before the 17th century when artillery slaughtered everyone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Of this difference in the efficiency of these two kinds of troops, many I believe are
aware; but such is the unhappiness and perversity of the times in which we live, that
neither ancient nor modern examples, nor even the consciousness of error, can move
our present princes to amend their ways, or convince them that to restore credit to the
arms of a State or province, it is necessary to revive this branch of their militia also,
to keep it near them, to make much of it, and to give it life, that in return, it may give
back life and reputation to them. But as they have departed from all those other
methods already spoken of, so have they departed from this, and with this result, that
to them the acquisition of territory is rather a loss than a gain, as presently shall be
shown.
Discourses on Livy by Niccolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER XVIII.—That the authority of the Romans and the example of ancient Warfare should make us hold Foot Soldiers of more account than Horse.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Machiavelli was a massive coper, writing in a brief period where pikes were dominant.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's because of Roman archers. It's still artillery. The side with more artillery or cavalry always wins.
what about 1000 infantry vs 1 cavalryman
who wins?
That has never happened but because cavalry can run away it has to "win".
Artillery cannot and at Beersheba thousands of infantry defeafed a few guns.
>thousands of infantry defeafed a few guns
so you mean wars not battles
that's not really controversial Tbh
What are you saying I'm saying? Jidf you need to make your point clear.
The side with more artillery or cavalry always wins. Every battle without exceptions.
What about Battle of Beersheba (1917)
If the cavalry runs away that is them retreating and thus loosing
America lost the gulf war.
No evidence for the gulf War. You closing your eyes and ignoring evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Impeccable logic jidf.
Here you are again. Ignoring evidence
Excellent work jidf.
Battle of Isandlwana
BTFO
Yes that's a famous example of a successful human wave against artillery. In all other cases battles are simply the side with more artillery.
Tanks and aircraft are basically useless.
Are you including tanks in the definition of cavalry? I'm sure you could find several examples of WW2 battles in which the side with more tanks lost to fortifications and good anti-tank crews
Tanks are useless and artillery is all.
Wrong.
>Tanks are useless
Incredibly wrong
Idiotic reply. Try again.
I already said that. Jidf you truly can't read.
so exceptions do exist then
But you are too lazy to find them jidf. You can't find a single example.
Now you will declare victory and run away despite being too dumb to find a battle where artillery or cavalry lost.
Battle of Beersheba (1917)
>end of world war 2
>the brutal meat grinder that was the waves of russian fodder pouring onto the nazis ends in russian victory
>l-lol acchutally you lost b-because more of you died than us
No physical evidence for battle of Stalingrad.
The "meat grinder" was all penal units and fake, there was no combat in ww2.
Didnt read, now please take the place of your forfathers and lay down infront of mr. T-34.
Fascism won ww2, they didn't take yugoslavia, they didn't take West Berlin, they left Poland in 1956.
>fascism won w-*CRACK SNAPPLE POP*
The side with the better culture and soldiers wins
Wars are won in the decades preceding them
7 German horsemen vs 5 French infantrymen
Interesting, thanks. I will accept your feeble example.
How the hell do you go missing during a battle of 12 people in the middle of a town
Gunther got hungry and snuck out for a snack
he noclipped into the backrooms
By many arguments and instances it can be clearly established that in their military
enterprises the Romans set far more store on their infantry than on their cavalry, and
trusted to the former to carry out all the chief objects which their armies were meant
to effect. Among many other examples of this, we may notice the great battle which
they fought with the Latins near the lake Regillus, where to steady their wavering
ranks they made their horsemen dismount, and renewing the combat on foot obtained
a victory. Here we see plainly that the Romans had more confidence in themselves
when they fought on foot than when they fought on horseback. The same expedient
was resorted to by them in many of their other battles, and always in their sorest need
they found it their surest stay.
Archers are artillery. Roman archers were everywhere.
Nor are we to condemn the practice in deference to the opinion of Hannibal, who, at
the battle of Cannæ, on seeing the consuls make the horsemen dismount, said
scoffingly, "Better still had they delivered their knights to me in chains." For though
this saying came from the mouth of a most excellent soldier, still, if we are to regard
authority, we ought rather to follow the authority of a commonwealth like Rome, and
of the many great captains who served her, than that of Hannibal alone. But, apart
from authority, there are manifest reasons to bear out what I say. For a man may go
on foot into many places where a horse cannot go; men can be taught to keep rank,
and if thrown into disorder to recover form; whereas, it is difficult to keep horses in
line, and impossible if once they be thrown into disorder to reform them. Moreover
we find that with horses as with men, some have little courage and some much; and
that often a spirited horse is ridden by a faint-hearted rider, or a dull horse by a
courageous rider, and that in whatever way such disparity is caused, confusion and
disorder result. Again, infantry, when drawn up in column, can easily break and is
not easily broken by cavalry. This is vouched, not only by many ancient and many
modern instances, but also by the authority of those who lay down rules for the
government of States, who show that at first wars were carried on by mounted
soldiers, because the methods for arraying infantry were not yet understood, but that
so soon as these were discovered, the superiority of foot over horse was at once
recognized. In saying this, I would not have it supposed that horsemen are not of the
greatest use in armies, whether for purposes of observation, for harrying and laying
waste the enemy's country, for pursuing a retreating foe or helping to repulse his
cavalry. But the substance and sinew of an army, and that part of it which ought
constantly to be most considered, should always be the infantry.
Cannae clearly proved cavalry is all that mattered.
And among sins of
the Italian princes who have made their country the slave of foreigners, there is none
worse than that they have held these arms in contempt, and turned their whole
attention to mounted troops.
This error is due to the craft of our captains and to the ignorance of our rulers. For
the control of the armies of Italy for the last five and twenty years resting in the
hands of men, who, as having no lands of their own, may be looked on as mere
soldiers of fortune, these fell forthwith on contriving how they might maintain their
credit by being supplied with the arms which the princes of the country were
without. And as they had no subjects of their own of whom they could make use, and
could not obtain constant employment and pay for a large number of foot-soldiers,
and as a small number would have given them no importance, they had recourse to
horsemen. For a condottiere drawing pay for two or three hundred horsemen was
maintained by them in the highest credit, and yet the cost was not too great to be met
by the princes who employed him. And to effect their object with more ease, and
increase their credit still further, these adventurers would allow no merit or favour to
be due to foot-soldiers, but claimed all for their horsemen. And to such a length was
this bad system carried, that in the very greatest army only the smallest sprinkling of
infantry was to be found. This, together with many other ill practices which
accompanied it, has so weakened the militia of Italy, that the country has easily been
trampled upon by all the nations of the North.
That it is a mistake to make more account of cavalry than of infantry, may be still
more clearly seen from another example taken from Roman history. The Romans
being engaged on the siege of Sora, a troop of horse a sally from the town to attack
their camp; when the Roman master of the knights advancing with his own horsemen
to give them battle, it so chanced that, at the very first onset, the leaders on both
sides were slain. Both parties being thus left without commanders, and the combat,
nevertheless, continuing, the Romans thinking thereby to have the advantage of their
adversaries, alighted from horseback, obliging the enemy's cavalry, in order to
defend themselves, to do the like. The result was that the Romans had the victory.
Now there could be no stronger instance than this to show the superiority of foot
over horse. For while in other battles the Roman cavalry were made by their consuls
to dismount in order to succour their infantry who were in distress and in need of
such aid, on this occasion they dismounted, not to succour their infantry, nor to
encounter an enemy contending on foot, but because they saw that though they could
not prevail against the enemy fighting as horsemen against horsemen, on foot they
readily might. And from this I conclude that foot-soldiers, if rightly handled, can
hardly be beaten except by other soldiers fighting on foot.
With very few cavalry, but with a considerable force of infantry, the Roman
commanders, Crassus and Marcus Antonius, each for many days together overran the
territories of the Parthians, although opposed by the countless horsemen of that
nation. Crassus, indeed, with the greater part of his army, was left there dead, and
Antonius only saved himself by his valour; but even in the extremities to which the
Romans were then brought, see how greatly superior foot-soldiers are to horse. For
though fighting in an open country, far from the sea-coast, and cut off from his
supplies, Antonius proved himself a valiant soldier in the judgment even of the
Parthians themselves, the whole strength of whose cavalry never ventured to attack
the columns of his army. And though Crassus perished there, any one who reads
attentively the account of his expedition must see that he was rather outwitted than
defeated, and that even when his condition was desperate, the Parthians durst not
close with him, but effected his destruction by hanging continually on the flanks of
his army, and intercepting his supplies, while cajoling him with promises which they
never kept.
It might, I grant, be harder to demonstrate this great superiority of foot over horse,
had we not very many modern examples affording the clearest proof of it. For
instance, at the battle of Novara, of which we have already spoken, nine thousand
Swiss foot were seen to attack ten thousand cavalry together with an equal number of
infantry, and to defeat them; the cavalry being powerless to injure them, while of the
infantry, who were mostly Gascons, and badly disciplined, they made no account.
On another occasion we have seen twenty-six thousand Swiss march on Milan to
attack Francis I. of France, who had with him twenty thousand men-at-arms, forty
thousand foot, and a hundred pieces of artillery; and although they were not
victorious as at Novara, they nevertheless fought valiantly for two days together,
and, in the end, though beaten, were able to bring off half their number. With footsoldiers only Marcus Attilius Regulus ventured to oppose himself, not to cavalry
merely, but to elephants; and if the attempt failed it does not follow that he was not
justified by the valour of his men in believing them equal to surmount this danger.
I repeat, therefore, that to prevail against well-disciplined infantry, you must meet
them with infantry disciplined still better, and that otherwise you advance to certain
destruction. In the time of Filippo Visconti, Duke of Milan, some sixteen thousand
Swiss made a descent on Lombardy, whereupon the Duke, who at that time had Il
Carmagnola as his captain, sent him with six thousand men-at-arms and a slender
following of foot-soldiers to meet them. Not knowing their manner of fighting,
Carmagnola fell upon them with his horsemen, expecting to put them at once to rout;
but finding them immovable, after losing many of his men he withdrew. But, being a
most wise captain, and skilful in devising new remedies to meet unwonted dangers,
after reinforcing his company he again advanced to the attack; and when about to
engage made all his men-at-arms dismount, and placing them in front of his footsoldiers, fell once more upon the Swiss, who could then no longer withstand him.
For his men, being on foot and well armed, easily penetrated the Swiss ranks without
hurt to themselves; and getting among them, had no difficulty in cutting them down,
so that of the entire army of the Swiss those only escaped who were spared by his
humanity.
This is basically every cope possible, now we're on to pikes.
Book was written before the 17th century when artillery slaughtered everyone.
Of this difference in the efficiency of these two kinds of troops, many I believe are
aware; but such is the unhappiness and perversity of the times in which we live, that
neither ancient nor modern examples, nor even the consciousness of error, can move
our present princes to amend their ways, or convince them that to restore credit to the
arms of a State or province, it is necessary to revive this branch of their militia also,
to keep it near them, to make much of it, and to give it life, that in return, it may give
back life and reputation to them. But as they have departed from all those other
methods already spoken of, so have they departed from this, and with this result, that
to them the acquisition of territory is rather a loss than a gain, as presently shall be
shown.
Discourses on Livy by Niccolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER XVIII.—That the authority of the Romans and the example of ancient Warfare should make us hold Foot Soldiers of more account than Horse.
Machiavelli was a massive coper, writing in a brief period where pikes were dominant.
That's because of Roman archers. It's still artillery. The side with more artillery or cavalry always wins.
Cavalrycel cope. Cavalry always wins.
guldensporen slag
Jidf failed to find any battles where cavalry or artillery lost.
>Afghanistan
The side with stronger willpower, wins 90% of times.