Combined Arms

[Vaevictis]

Some interesting comments about combined arms in the Hannibal infantry thread.

What do you guys think of Phillip II's tactics with Phanlanx + Heavy Cavalry as the first great combined arms breakthrough? Or should Hannibal get that award?

The role of the skirmisher in Alexander's army might be under-appreciated. Could they count as another Macedonian combined arms element?

[Al Amos]

How about the battle of Kadesh?

Egyptians used infantry, chariots and archers to defeat the Hittites using the same.

[TJD]

Some interesting comments about combined arms in the Hannibal infantry thread.

I agree but with all due respect to some very knowledgeable guys, I think the term 'combined arms' is being used too loosely in these threads to be meaningful. Just having units of different types doesn't mean you're employing an effective doctrine of combined arms. As soon as armies became something more than undifferentiated primitive mobs, you'd have combined arms if you define it just as unit specialization. The concept really has more to do IMO with how effectively the different types of units can be integrated to create a synergistic multiplier effect on the battlefield, and that's a question mainly of communications and organizational flexibility. Overall, the concept is so modern in its connotations that I'm not sure it really fits in the context of ancient warfare.

Just my .02

Best,

Tim

[Cats]

Gentleman,

Not being anywhere near the level of knowledge that you folks have, I can only offer my humble opinion of combined arms.

The way we define it today is no different that the way it was defined in days of old. Only the definitions and terms have changed.our mobile infantry today is mobilized by vehicles, planes, helicopters. In ancient time, horses, chariots, elephants.

Infantry is infantry. Grunts who use their legs. Also, different types of weapon formations. Today we have hand help rpg's, automatic weapons, in the past slingers, swords, spears, pikes.

The soldiers of yesterday are no different than today in that they were and are there to fight and kill. The weapons have changed not the soldier.

So the question I ask is then: Did combined arms start when a commander used slingers with swordsman, or swordsman with archers, or when the commander choose to use infantry with mobile infantry.

In my opinion the delivery system has not changed. A human being choosing to kill another.
Only the weapons has changed.

So after wandering around a while, I think that the combined arms started when a commander choose to use different types of weapons such as slingers, bowman, spears and such.

My best,

[Al Amos]

Cats,

Good point. And as a definition, what is 'combined arms'? Is it two, three, more?

As far as knowledge, I don't have much, but I like learning, so keep posting... everyone... it makes me think, and helps me learn more about this fascinating era.

[Vaevictis]

I've never read about Kadesh. I've got a Command mazgazine board wargame on it, time to give it a whirl.

Following TJD's comment on synergy, what do the infantry at Kadesh do that make the chariots more effective than they could otherwise ever hope to be?

I would not be surprised if the art of chariot warfare reached high levels of sophistication. The chariots were around for a long time and used by very advanced civilizations. Once that bronze age world collapsed into dark ages it may well have taken 7 centuries before similar levels of expertise once again existed.

[Dog Soldier]

Kadesh was in northern Syria.
The Hittite Empire under Muwatallis tried to repel the Egyptians under Ramses II from their land. Kadesh was a strategic fortified town which would serve as an excellent base for either side. The Hittites had recently seized the town and Ramses wanted it back.

I thought the the important features of this battle were:

1. The Hittite use of spies to set a ruse for Ramses. The spies gave Ramses disinformation. The Egyptians fell for the ruse thinking the Hittite army was far away. The Egyptians were in marching order moving to assault the town when the Hittite chariots struck.
   
2. Both sides had chariots. The Hittite infantry stayed in reserve and never engaged the Egyptians.
   
3. Ramses chariots and infantry (Ra division) were nearly routed. Ramses counter attacked the Hittite chariots with the Amon division from his camp north of the town. The Amon division had only arrived that morning. The battle was in the balance. Ramese was at risk, since he had to lead the counter attack with his bodyguard to rally his army which was falling apart.
   
4. Only the timely arrival of the Egyptian N'earin (mercenaries) and the Ptah division from Amurrru saved Ramses.
   

Simple summary is Egyptian numbers versus innovative tactics by the Hittites. Numbers prevailed.

Both sides showed good and bad command and control of their armies. Both had failures in communication.
The result was an Egyptian tactical win. Ramses withdrew after the battle. So the Hittites, who had retreated to the safety of Kadesh, won a strategic victory. In the end, both sides had had enough and a treaty was created. Thus the battle could be seen as a draw.

I can not say that this was a "combined arms" battle. The Hittites used their chariots as a mass formation. Their infantry stayed out of the fight.
The Egyptians had fewer chariots intermingled with what was basically an infantry army. The Egyptian chariots were a symbol of class and nobility for their owner/warriors rather than an a separate arm of the army.

The chariots of the time were of two very different types. Hittite chariots were light and pulled by two wild asses. These creatures favored endurance over speed. Thus the Hittite chariots were employed like horse archers of later centuries. They circled their enemy and pelted them with arrows from a distance.

The Egyptian chariots were also very light in construction. They were pulled by a single horse, and were thus faster. They only had two spokes, creating an "X" with the hub and rim of the wheel. This light construction made them fast, but prone to damage on anything but very flat ground. They were not the panzers of the ancient world as some times depicted.

Dog Soldier

[macnab]

Very good book with Kadesh in it and a lot more,The Art Of War Great commanders 1500BC-1600AD ancient and medieval Andrew Roberts (there are many authors in it), and a lot of battles theres also a second one now from 1600 AD to present,

[Al Amos]

From the website Warfare in Hellas

http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/w...egrat.html

The integrated army

The evolution of battlefield tactics peaked with the integrated army of multiple arms. Each arm had a battlefield role and mission. The army that best employed its various parts, using its rocks to break the enemies scissors, had the best chance of victory. An army that was not integrated, like the Greek phalanx armies, or an army only partially integrated, was at great risk because it might be at a significant disadvantage on offense, defense, or both.

Assyrians

Integrated armies were first deployed in Mesopotamia during the second millennium. The Assyrians, especially, learned by trial and error to use infantry, skirmishers, chariots, and cavalry in battle simultaneously because they had to face a wide spectrum of enemies. They fought advanced chariot armies to their south and northwest (the Babylonians and Hittites) and barbarians to their west, east, and north. They had enemies in every direction and learned new techniques from fighting each. The best weapons, formations, and tactics from each were adopted or foreign troops were hired as mercenaries to supplement the army.

Alexander the Great

The greatest integrated army of antiquity was probably that of Alexander the Great. This army combined heavy hoplite infantry, heavy cavalry (the Companions), light cavalry, skirmishers, and light troops from several different cultures into an integrated whole. Under the brilliant tactical and strategic leadership of Alexander, the army conquered Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus Valley in the incredibly short period of 10 years (336 BC to 326 BC). Alexander consistently used the parts of his army to perfection, employing the various units where they had the best chance of success. He was successful in all the battles he fought, even though he was usually outnumbered significantly.

[Vaevictis]

I always learn something new when I pop in here!