I have been watching a lot of ancient history shows on youtube about army tactics, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why a smaller army would every beat a larger army. To me, the larger army would square up against the opponents, and then simply flank the enemy, which would usually result in routing. How would an ancient era deal with the problem of getting flanked? Did it simply just all come down to terrain?
Edit: Thank you so much for your answers! I love learning about this kind of stuff, so this has been a lot of fun. Maybe I’m still confused about how an army would engage and disengage an army to remain mobile to avoid flanks, could anyone provide some insights into this?
In: Other
You can’t assume equal training or strategy between armies, even within nations.
One leader may run an army of knights outfitted in armor against an army in far lighter gear and the army of knights could lose due to the field being wet/muddy even though their gear is better.
Rome did well because of their formations, which wasn’t always a concept yet for their opposing forces.
Flip side of formations is that Persians had formations and the Greeks (Alexander) did not to the same extent, yet he overwhelmed his enemies with a strong Calvary. So another example of effective use of troops to get enemies to panic and flee, undermining the strength of the overall formation.
Most famous example of making army size less important is the Spartans holding up against a vastly larger force at the hot gates where they could invalidate the size difference through a narrow passage.
Latest Answers