Quality vs Quantity

Preach, kamerad! Our Iron discipline and superior technology will stop the soviet horde!

Imagine a group of Medieval lancers going up against hundreds of peasants armed with pitchforks. The lancers could target one peasant at once, but if they all line up, the horses will have almost no way of getting through. Even if the horse was capable of plowing through a wall three-people-thick, they could always brace themselves and stab at the horse. Alternatively, think of a good hundred longbowmen against five pikemen. The point is, there are times when both succeed, and both of them fail.

And it's clear you have fuck all knowledge regarding what you're talking about!

>Imagine a group of Medieval lancers going up against hundreds of peasants armed with pitchforks. The lancers could target one peasant at once, but if they all line up, the horses will have almost no way of getting through.
Except this is completely false, and this happened several times in history with a couple hundred well organized knights with good morale utterly dominating unwashed hordes of peasants. Such as during the invasion of Sicily by the Normans when less than 300 Norman Knights at very least took on several thousand peasant levies and killed them all, only losing a couple (literally) men in the process. Although they claimed the number was in tens of thousands, but regardless we know there was at least a couple thousand and just a bit over 260 knights swept them the fuck out. There is also the Battle of Muret where 1,600 well drilled Crusader Knights and Sergeants killed over 15,000 Aragonese knights and soldiers.

>Alternatively, think of a good hundred longbowmen against five pikemen. The point is, there are times when both succeed, and both of them fail.
If you think longbowmen aren't quality troops, there's no helping you.

Depends really, but generally I'd prefer elite troops and gear. In more modern eras, better gear and vehicles are game-changers, and in earlier times, elite troops used properly will wreck levies entirely disproportionate to their numbers.

not the one you replied to

what if, hypothetically speaking, the hordes were well-trained and well-motivated, but lacked superior equipment

what do you believe would be the result in this situation

Equipment doesn't really matter unless it's ungodly awful or nonexistent. So long as it's usable a well drilled formation will certainly stand up to and kill a cavalry charge. The most important things above all else in battle, especially in pre-modern warfare, is unit cohesion and morale. If your block of spearmen or pikes break rank and run for it after the first two or three ranks are swept away, that's it, you're done for. The unit is fucked and will be mopped up before they can rally up. This is why the Swiss, Flemish, and German mercenaries were so god damn effective and so valuable, because they had peerless cohesion and morale. They would all fight to the last man as they were trained enough that they knew that that kind of determination was better than any armor or shield.

Assuming equivalent training? Well, it'd depend on tech level.

In a medieval or low-tech setting, the sheer superior numbers would get them eventually, if they weren't complete shit as far as the soldiers' training and morale like a serf-conscript army.

Modern or future-tech warfare takes on a very fundamentally different angle, and the smaller force reasonably stands a chance if they've got far better equipment, but that revolves around a combination of terrain, commander skill, long-range supply lines and support (which most armies have for the sake of supplies) and the extent of their range advantage, as well as the exact composition of their army (tanks, APCs, strategic bombers, joint-strike fighters, helicopter gunships, airborne infantry, howitzers, rocket artillery, mechanized infantry? What're we working with here?).

Just for example, also look at the British Army during the Colonial period. The reason why they were so feared and so effective isn't because they had the best guns (they sorta did) or the best commanders. They were feared, respected, and effective because unlike everybody else the Redcoats were trained to march through musketfire and not give a damn about getting shot. They'd go well into the range of enemy guns, and -then- open fire at a range that they were guaranteed to score lots of hits on the enemy line formation despite any inaccuracies muskets may suffer for.

After this they might then fire a couple times more, then they would mount a bayonet charge and shatter enemy lines. In the long run this actually reduced losses taken by the unit by their initial sacrifice of guys getting popped while they marched into the face of enemy fire. That takes balls of steel, and it fucking works if you have the ability to train troops to act like that.

I would like a tiny army of total incompetents.

It would be funnier that way.

this thread just made my autism curious how well a humanoid ant-race would fare in battle

assuming that they didn't hivemind superior production for the queen or whatever, they would, in my mind, be limitless in their morale and cohesion