How many men with modern weaponry...........

[BigPoppa]

...........would it take to rule pre-gunpowder Europe?

And how would you equip them?

When I say "rule", I do not mean to garrison every town, but to be able to demolish any army that could be raised against it and take any fortification.

My answer is 400-500 men with body armor, automatic weapons and an assortment of man-portable heavy weaponry (mortars, recoilless rifles, or whatever else would work against a masonry castle). I might drop the number down to 200-300 with a couple of helicopter gunships (assuming fuel).

I actually don't think ammo would that big an issue, as the enemy would be operating out in the open and continually trying to close with us. The small number of men and antibiotics would also keep disease at bay.

Armor would be out as Europe was almost completely forested and criscrossed by rivers without a single bridge able to support the weight of a tank. Even with fuel, you wouldn't be able to get anything mechanized all the way across Europe without building a whole new road system.

If we were allowed prepared defensive positions, then I think a few dozen could carry the day against any assault since you could negate archers and have clear fields of interlocking fire.

However, this would not be nearly enough if we assume the need for mobility and to travel to meet new threats. Any small group would be vulnerable both to suprise attack by overwhelming numbers and to massed archers (or both at the same time).

The English had over 5000 archers at Agincourt and I would not doubt that they could wipe out a few dozen men with automatic weapons in the open field. Remember that archers can fire over obstructions and take advantage of cover even better than our men could.

Once it became obvious that armored knights were useless, I'd expect to see an army of 20,000-30,000 archers and crossbowmen with melee weapons at their side if needed (as at Agincourt). I think 400-500 men could spread out over almost any battlefield and mow down any archers that got close enough.

Oddly, this was the first thing that popped into my head when I woke up this morning.

[Sniper]

I like this hypothetical... but there is a flaw in your "assumptions"...

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "rule", I do not mean to garrison every town, but to be able to demolish any army that could be raised against it and take any fortification.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would take nothing more than A handful of men, 1 Bomber, and a stockpile of nukes... to "demolish any army that could be raised against it".


ps... if you play video games, you might be intereted in Age of Empires: The Age of Kings.

[Colt McCoy]

One pilot in a helo could pretty much take on everyone pre gunpowder.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
One pilot in a helo could pretty much take on everyone pre gunpowder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not after that first battle. The enemy are capable of learning.

As long as they stayed under the forest canopy, the helo pilot would have trouble even finding them, much less winning a battle.

I mentioned helicopter gunships in my OP as a good way of reducing enemy defensive positions, but you'd still need ground troops.

[Colt McCoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One pilot in a helo could pretty much take on everyone pre gunpowder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not after that first battle. The enemy are capable of learning.

As long as they stayed under the forest canopy, the helo pilot would have trouble even finding them, much less winning a battle.

I mentioned helicopter gunships in my OP as a good way of reducing enemy defensive positions, but you'd still need ground troops.

[/ QUOTE ]
One helo or plane w/ rockets, napalm, etc would pretty much do it I'd think. Battle? W/o guns there is no battle, just genocide.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One pilot in a helo could pretty much take on everyone pre gunpowder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not after that first battle. The enemy are capable of learning.

As long as they stayed under the forest canopy, the helo pilot would have trouble even finding them, much less winning a battle.

I mentioned helicopter gunships in my OP as a good way of reducing enemy defensive positions, but you'd still need ground troops.

[/ QUOTE ]
One helo or plane w/ rockets, napalm, etc would pretty much do it I'd think. Battle? W/o guns there is no battle, just genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mention planes, but there were no airstrips back in the day. How are they going to take off and land (unless you're going to use an aircraft carrier)?

One helo would not be enough. Eventually, other armies and kingdoms would adapt, and start mass construction of catapults as a defensive measure. All it would take is one lucky shot.

If allowed, I'd say you have one aircraft carrier armed with patriot missiles, and with a couple fighter jets/bombers, and enough men needed to make it functional. A half dozen helos. 2 or 3 tanks to defend your home base. 500 marines as your main army with a couple scores of humvees. And a few different special op groups.

The biggest danger to the ground troops would obviously be archers. Just like modern times, simply send in the air support first, and induce shock and awe. Send in the ground troops after this to pick off the remaints of the enemy's scattered army.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
It would take nothing more than A handful of men, 1 Bomber, and a stockpile of nukes... to "demolish any army that could be raised against it".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but we're assuming here that the intent is to control Europe, not to destroy it.

...and if you're whole force was a bomber and a pile of nukes, you'd have to make Europe essentially uninhabitable to win.

Not only would you have to nuke every army raised against you, but every castle that refused to surrender.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would take nothing more than A handful of men, 1 Bomber, and a stockpile of nukes... to "demolish any army that could be raised against it".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but we're assuming here that the intent is to control Europe, not to destroy it.

...and if you're whole force was a bomber and a pile of nukes, you'd have to make Europe essentially uninhabitable to win.

Not only would you have to nuke every army raised against you, but every castle that refused to surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct that is why I started by saying that your assumption... Rule = Destroy... as stated in your OP was flawed [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

If your Goal is not to destroy, but to Occupy & Control... then you are looking at a whole different set of issues.

[xx44]

The book, "guns of the south" is alternative reality. The premise, the Confederate army has AK-47's during the civil war.

[Colt McCoy]

[ QUOTE ]
The book, "guns of the south" is alternative reality. The premise, the Confederate army has AK-47's during the civil war.

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't really need them. They'd have won the war if they'd only been as willing as Grant to do what they had to.