flamer84
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 9,435
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
I don't think so. Because they had better archers doesn't mean they were inferior to hand-to-hand. They just put their advantage to their use. There is no proof they were any less of fighters in hand-to-hand. Most of the battles were also hand-to-hand and they won those battles.
Historical evidence supports my view.You can give me examples and we can talk about those battles.I'll do a quick search on battles from the ME/Anatolia between Turkic/muslims and crusaders and we can have a supported view.
I don't think so. Because they had better archers doesn't mean they were inferior to hand-to-hand. They just put their advantage to their use. There is no proof they were any less of fighters in hand-to-hand. Most of the battles were also hand-to-hand and they won those battles.
Hand-to-hand was small part:
Battle of Manzikert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I also looked at others. Most of the battles there was physical contact.
The battle of Manzikert only supports my view......It's the exact tactic that i've described.