33 replies to this topic

[Tibet Libre]

Just nitpicking, but the missile fire were the serious stuff.

Knew that was coming. But then the crossbowmen in the pic were much too few for my liking.

Considering the amount of losses one suffers if they actually engage in infantry-to-infantry battles (even if you are on the winning side), it is extremely undesirable to have them do anything more than the bare minimum.

The losses of the winning side in infantry battles were actually often surprisingly low. In Marathon the Greek only lost not more than 150 men. Likewise Alexander at Granikos. The real melee only began when one side was giving quarter and battle ranks broke.

[ih8eurocentrix]

150 men at marathon might be exaggerated ,the perisan did fire arrows at the greeks first

[Effect]

I would argue the formation seems to show too many 'flaws' to be real. Whats the point of having the ranks so deep. The battle front is too small. It seems to look far cooler, better than it would be effective

[ih8eurocentrix]

Depthness in formation for Tactical flexibility

[Effect]

How the formation is locked in. the front blocks attack but it also blocks forward movement. The cavalry on the side block the infantry moving sideways. The crossbowmen at the bak are not going anywere and the ones in the front will have a hard time running.

[Tibet Libre]

150 men at marathon might be exaggerated ,the perisan did fire arrows at the greeks first

Precisely, it were 192 dead Athenians and the number is said to be known by every Athenian child for a long time afterwards. The funeral hill for the fallen Hoplites is btw still there at the site of the battle.

We dont need to correct the numbers of the fallen Athenians, we need to correct the axiom that archers could do sufficient damage to heavy infantry.

Marathon, Platai, Granikos, Issus Gaugamela were all cases where archers were very ineffective against the onslaught of more heavily armoured troops. At Platai the Persian archers even found themselves soon slashing desperately with arrows in their hands against hoplite panoply.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 18 June 2006 - 11:50 AM.

[ih8eurocentrix]

So the greeks had no unarmoured skirmishers ,or unarmoured troops

[Killer Katanas]

Source: http://www.lksf.org/...s/picture.shtml (野戰 - 步兵 、弩兵、騎兵等整齊劃一的兵種聯合布陣, Open Combat - Infantry, Cross-bowers, Cavarly and various combination of battle formation)

I got the link from Yun's post at
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=11647

I know this is very late, but the original source for this picture comes from Rekishi Gunzo, which is published by Gakken. They have a few issues that deal with the Chinese Art of War, mostly during the Romance period.

I have a few of the issues dealing with the Chinese Art of War. There is some additional drawings of other formations. I would be happy to scan them if anyone is interested?

Brian

[BeeJay]

It looks a lot like an army on the march in the open, deployed: so as to be able to respond immediately to any threat. You move slower, but are always ready. Was done many times over in all periods by regular armies.

I miss the baggage train though ...

And yes please, the more pics the better.

BJ

[Boleslaw I]

1. Is this a form of defensive or offensive formation?

It is defensive formation, offensive formation is usually arranged in wedge formation, and normally heavy cavalry would be put into the front for crashing enemy's infantry.

The first line of this formation is set up with barriers, that is one evidence of defensive formation. The second line comprises with light crossbowmen which serve as the second barrier, which mean that the opposite side has to arrange their attack in loose formation. This also give an opportunity to predict that the rate of attacking from the imaginary adversary would be slow, because if they desire to speed up their frontal attack by cavalry, your formation needs to put pikemen or spearmen at front not crossbowmen.

The frontal area of this formation shows that it may not be finished yet, since small frontal contact and deep ranks will prove fatal if the enemy manage to encircle them.

What I don't really get is the two small group of crossbowmen back behind the first two spearmen formations, it is unlogical. Their position gives no advantage in firing range at all.

While there are cavalry protected the flanks, what happened to the very end units? They were left without protection at flanks and may manoeuvred in the case their enemy manage successfully to encircle them.

If the enemy managed to attack strongly at flanks of this army, what happened. The longitudinal cavalries might hold them back a bit, and then they will be broken, the crossbowmen in front became useless.

To break this formation, the opposite force might divide their armies into two parts, and have many options, they may outflank left or right flanks of this army. But frontal attack is impossible. Anyhow, the frontal defensive of this formation is still strong enough to withstand a heavy attack, but still show its weakness in flanks.

[Birdjaguar]

Basically this tactic works this way:

First row will fire at the charging enemy. After firing, the first row of crossbowers would squat down, so that the 2nd row can continue to fire from the back at the enemy. While squating down, the 1st row will prepare to re-load their crossbow with bolts. After the 2nd row had fired, they would squat down and allowed the 3rd row to continue to fire from the back at the enemy. While squating down, 2nd row will prepare to re-load their crowbows. After the 3 row had finished firing, the 1st row will stand up and it will be their turn to fire again.

Thus in short, after 1st row had fired, it will be the turn of 2nd crow to fire. After 2nd row had fired, it will be the turn of 3rd row to fire...After 3rd row finishes, it will be 1st row's turn to fire and this cycle continues until all enemy charging into the formation are wiped out. The changeover to another row allows the cross-bowers time to re-load their ammunition while making sure there are still continuous firing from the formation.

Is this an actual crossbow tactic or just a possibility?

What strikes me about the painting is that as a battle formation it seems to defy usefulness in an actual battle. It is too deep overall and each individual infantry formation is too deep to fight effectively. A 12 man deep phalanx armed with short spears wastes 4 or more rows of men. If the expectation is to fight with swords, then up to six rows would be wasted. Melee battles are best fought with long fronts to gain flank advantages if possible.

I suspect that it would be more of a parade ground formation.

[TacticalTao]

I believe the formation is most likely defensive, due to the fact that the cavalry is on the side. when attacked in the front or the back, the cavalry will flank the attackers

as the enemy charges(red) at the blue(defenders) the cavalry(purple) would run through and flank them

this is all speculation on my part(what i would do)

[bayonet]

The formation is impressive. But I doubt it is historical accurate. To me, it is neither a defensive nor an offensive formation. It is more like a "show of' of power or just an imaginery render. Regarding the time is 3kindoms, it is not surprised to see the infantries consist of the main force of the formation. But the arrangement is just so weird and illogical.

[Yoda Su]

we assume it is a defensive formation because the placement to wheelbarrow. it makes sense. the wheelbarrow is going be obstacle if they going to charge the opponent with their foot soldiers. however, i have doubt about the position of calvary. calvary is vulnerable to arrows. if opponent concentrates its fire on the left and right wings, the casualty is going to be significant. there is possibility the calvary is ready to charge with suppressive fire from the crossbow.

[Liang Jieming]

Just nitpicking, but the missile fire were the serious stuff. Chinese battles were a matter of outmanuveuring your enemy on a strategic level so that you eventually wear your enemy down with missile fire. Cavalry would merely play mob-up when on the plain fighting infantry.

Just to add to this point.

General Li Mu (warring states) assembled a force of some 1,300 chariots, 13,000 cavalry, 50,000 infantry & 100,000 archers(+crossbows?) against the Xiong nu.

Whatever the actual numbers after factoring possible exaggeration, the gist is clear. Missile troops formed the bulk of the army.