The best medieval unit

where is the french napoleonic infantry facts proving they were better than that of the british who stood against and beat them in every major battle of the period

 

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter Greek infantry was the best unit especialy in batlle of marathon 490 B.C

I agree they were extremely effective

arab fighter was  greatest warrior if you read the arab expand it is so fast

they ruled half of ancient world in 50 years

I think the best m�dieval unit is:

chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

2/3 cavalry, 1/3 infantry>>

 >>

CAVALRY :>>

5 000 Heavy Knights: most important part in my army, equiped with heavy gothic-plate armor of proff (witch resist agaisnt arrow, crossbow blots, pistol or arquebus balls) armed with lances and swords. Mounted on knightly horses equiped with heavy armor (bard with flanchard, crinet, crupper, peytral, shaffron�)>>

1 000 light cavalry of mounted archers protected by a light armor with cuirass and mail, gauntlet, greaves also armed with gun pistol and  sword, mace and shield>>

 >>

INFANTRY>>

- equiped with light chain mail, sallet, >>

- armed with shield, long knifes, dagger,  sword, war hammer or axe or mace for hand to hand combat>>

2 000 archers (mix of longbowmen and arbalestrers)>>

2 000 men armed with gunpowder (arquebus for exemple)>>

2 000 pikemen (like Swiss Halberdiers) with hallebards or fauchards or gisarme,>>

 >>

Tactic:>>

- First attack by infantry shooting against ennemy>>

- Charge of heavy cavalry in 2 assaults to break ennemy ranks >>

- Assault by the rest of heavy cavalry and all the light cavalry against flanks of ennemy>>

- Attack by infantry >>

Under a good chain of command, such army, with so many well-armored-heavy-knight cannot be defgeated by a medieval army.

 

Wath do you think?

Excuse me.I have a question.I don't know keshik.What people were they?

I gave my vote for the longbowmen. Their best element was the fact that they were expendable. Quantity over quality. They were good but also cheap to train and equip when compared to other troops. It counts as well.

And what comes to Samurai, I think they aren't as good as many people think. Their strategies and tactics sucked. Some of them were really good but most were just like any other professional soldiers. Most samurai boys started their training at the age of 13. Knights were much younger. Only unmatched thing they had was their weapons which were of extremely good quality.

I'm just wondering why normal knights aren't on the list. After all they weren't bad either. And certainly better than genoese crossbows...

hehe this post has turned into more of a longbow vs. mongols

my vote would have to go with the mongol archers because of thier success record... they conquered much of two continents...

Originally posted by Tonifranz The English Longbowmen. They were the defining weapon of the Hundred Years' War and gave  England it's military reputation during the Middle Ages.

Composite bone and sinew bow using thumb pull was a far superior  weapon than English longbow. Mongol archer could hit a head at 100 meters.

These were also bows used by Ottoman empire. As I argued in another forum, firearms are not really effective until eighteen century.

and because he wouldnt run that means he would die first?

when ur r set up to fight someone the person that run away aka letting his guard down is usually the first to die

The elephant would have stepped on them all.