Which infantry units in the ancient, medieval and reinassance periods were the most effective? I would love to know about few examples from each period. Pic unrelated.
Roman, Swiss, Swiss
>>348733
Anything decently equipped and not wallet searing recruited on masse.
>>348735
I would love to see you elaborate on this opinion.
>>348733
Medieval? Europe?
Asiatic cavalry, easily.
Greek to Roman formations in ancient.
Swiss in Renaissance.
varangian guard
>>348847
The Romans because they were one of the few professional armies with a huge school of warfare.
The Swiss provided mercenaries for centuries and were known for their high quality and well trained soldiers.
>>348870
In what battles they helped?
>>348865
In ancient times you most certainly had north african cavalry as the top threat.
And later it was asian cavalry.
>>348879
sicilian re-conquest
>>348881
>had north african cavalry as the top threat.
Really? Threat to who/when?
I mean just seeing Carthaginian/Roman/Vandalic conquests of North Africa, was it in tandem with that form of cavalry?
The significant successes of the mongols and turks to conquer Eastern Europe and mount relatively strong invasions into Central Europe, with a major reliance on their cavalry, implies a far greater threat to me.
>>348886
Exactly.
>infantry
What the fuck was OP thinking?
>>348895
>Carthaginian/Roman/Vandalic conquests of North Africa
... all of which employed north african cavalry in their armies?
In ancient times sherden
>>348886
Oh whatever, 'combat units' would be more interesting.
Not really sure what to say for the medieval period then.
Medieval Europe seems so contingent on castles, developing armor, and not particularly outstanding infantry, unlike the Renaissance onward.
>>348896
Do you change every WWII weapons thread into aircraft thread as well because air superiority wins wars? Retard.
>>348897
Do you know how to read full posts?
>>348906
Well the WWII tank thread did devolve into one guy posting stats ignoring that they were forged by the air superiority in these battles.
So yes, I guess I do.
>>348910
When I see something I disagree with I get hard as diamonds, and very eager. I cant contain myself and hastily write a smartass response as I cream my panties. Only later I potentially go and finish the post.
>Almogavars (Spanish: almogávares, Aragonese: almugávares, Catalan: almogàvers and Portuguese: almogávares) is the name of a class of soldier from many Christian Iberian kingdoms in the later phases of the Reconquista, during the 13th and 14th centuries.[1] Almogavars were lightly clad, quick-moving frontiersmen and foot-soldiers. They hailed from the Kingdom of Aragon, the Principality of Catalonia, the Kingdom of Valencia, the Crown of Castile and the Kingdom of Portugal.[2][3] At first these troops were formed by farmers and shepherds originating from the countryside, woods and frontier mountain areas. Later, they were employed as mercenaries in Italy, Latin Greece and the Levant.[1]
>>348935
>spanish troop
>with an arab name
eehehhehehhehehehehhehe
>>348936
Your live must be weird if that makes you laugh.
foot knights and yeomen
>>348936
The name was given by their enemies. Also it's not like they were a kind of troop composed by normal citizens, it was literally like taking all the ghetto shit in the USA and sending it to kill arabs.
Spartans and the Roman armies immediately after the third Punic war come to mind. That army of veterans conquered most of the early Roman expansion and made it a (known) world power.
>>348733
Infantry with spears/polearms for that entire timespan and in every part of the world that matters.
>>351151
>who were the Romans
>>351499
>what is a pilum?
>>351537
A projectile.
>>348850
>swiss meme
Thats why the swiss were known for their mercenaries and high quality troops, right?
its all so circumstantial that a simple answer cannot be given
>>348870
>BTFO by Turks at Manzikert
Back to the end of the line, Knut
Ancient: Roman legionaries.
Medieval: Not really many regularly equipped formations in this time.
Renaissance: Tercio.
