amadeus wrote:HenrytheV wrote:Whasn't that also why Switzerland was never conquered, because of their pikmen and stuff? And no, I'm not looking for the word "pocketknife".
There is a rumor they were supplied by renegade templars, and this is theory be came widely popular.
Anyway, mysteriously, the peasents of th swiss farmlands were armed with modern weapons. And were able to successfully defend their borders, becasue they didn't use cavalry, at all (besides scouting). And when the Austrian Prince sent his finest cavalry soldeirs to take over the revolting swiss lands, they swiss peasent infanrty (outnumbered 3 to 1 by cavalry soldiers) prevailed and defended.
This is yet again, and example of the foot soldier prevailing over over whelming odds.
I don't think there was anything mysterious about the Swiss having voulges at Mortgarten. It was a national weapon that they trained with. It it had been suddenly dumped on them by Templars, they wouldn't have been trained in its use.
The Swiss were able to defend their borders because it was difficult terrain for the most part. Plug the passes up and they were 90% of the way there.
At Mortgarten, the Swiss were outnumbered by the Austrians by 3 to 1, but only one third of that force was mounted knights. Inasmuch as the austrian foot fled when the Swiss ambushed the column in a narrow pass by rolling stones and logs downhill, it was more of an even fight (if you want to call getting the drop on the opponent, from uphill, on ground specifically bad for cavalry, with their formations disrupted before there was even any contact, an "even fight").
It was all brilliantly done by the standards of the age. It was also one of a handful of battles where infantry prevailed.