That depends on how good armour was. Archers would slaughter light infantry, but proper plate armour (even just munitions armour) would make pikemen more-or-less invulnerable to missiles - unless they got hit in the face or other unarmoured portions of the body. And keep in mind that even unarmoured infantry utilizing muskets often decided battles with cold steel (especially Swedes under Charles XI, XII and XII decided battles through
Ga Pa, which utilized pike-and-bayonet charge as its main offensive tactic).
Reason why Scots often lost to England was that circular schiltron was incapable of offensive action, which - combined with English
cavalry superiority - meant that they lacked any offensive capability. And you cannot win a battle just defending. This is why Scots lost Falkirk - but do note that it took a combination of missile bombardment, foot assault and a cavalry charge to defeat Scottish schiltron. But they eventually (1307.) developed rectillinear schiltron. It was utilized in some 8 battles I counted (Glen Tool, Bannockburn, Myton, Dupplin Moor, Culblean, Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross, Otterburn), and 5 of those were Scottish victory. In two of battles Scotland lost, English were assisted Scottish rebels utilizing schiltrons of their own. This leaves only
one battle where schiltron was actually defeated by an army utilizing archers with no schiltron of its own.
I do not think an 5-1
losing record is a good recommendation for effectiveness of the longbowmen - especially since question here is late 15th century, which means that Scots should have access to much better armour (whereas English were rather lagging behind continental powers in terms of implementation of gunpowder weapons). If anything, heavy cavalry will be more dangerous to Scottish pikemen in this scenario than longbowmen will.
If anything, heavy cavalry was
far more effective against pike squares than longbowmen were (as long as pikemen were armoured). As for longbows versus cavalry, at Crecy and Agincourt both the battle was decided in melee - see below. But cavalry requires open terrain with no obstacles to be truly effective.
Possibly. Swiss pikemen often utilized armour, but I am not certain when exactly they started using half-plate
en masse.
Which is why everybody knows English won the 100 years war, right? Oh, wait... Anyway:
French defeats against English longbowmen always came down to three factors: terrain, terrain, and terrain. At all three famous English victories (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt), English had managed to goad the French into attacking a prepared defensive position over a narrow front. And in at least one of those, they also had the benefit of captured French battle plan.
Crecy: French cavalry was thrown into disarray by their clash with their own retreating crossbowmen (who were thrown against English without half their equipment), and had to charge over muddy ground, up the hill and over pits dug by the English, all of it on horses which had no protection against English arrows, being without barding. Even so, charge was eventually defeated by English dismounted men-at-arms in melee. Eventually they retreated, and in the morning both the French army and arriving reinforcements were routed by English heavy cavalry in a charge.
Poitiers: French again were riding unarmoured horses, and thus a direct attack against longbowmen (who were again in a fortified position) proved to be a disaster. French infantry was repelled in hand-to-hand combat and broke after attacked in the flank by English heavy cavalry.
Agincourt: French heavy cavalry charged only
after English were already deployed behind their protective stakes, and were unable to outflank them due to dense woodland to the sides. Horses also wore head armour only, and were again attacking over muddy terrain.
Overall, the "longbowmen beat everyone" is nothing but a myth. If heavy cavalry was so ineffective against disciplined infantry, and longbowmen in particular, it would not have been used for so long: I do not think the sheer expense of maintaining heavy cavalry corps is truly appreciated nowadays. And knights' social standing was a direct result of their effectiveness on the battlefield; the moment knightly heavy cavalry became useless, knights started disappearing.
At any rate, Westerosi heavy cavalry seems to utilize full barding much more regularly than it was used historically, thus making them basically invulnerable to enemy missile fire.
Wrong, as explained above in detail.
Keep in mind that:
a) Mongols LOST against Western-style knightly armies whenever the two met in open battle; their opening successes in Central Europe were against predominantly light cavalry armies
b) Dothraki are utterly incompetent compared to Mongols (no heavy cavalry, no engineers, no command and control)
c) Janissaries were only
one element of a combined-arms force... which BTW heavily depended on cavalry (light and heavy cavalry both) for its successes
d) Unsullied are
nothing like Janissaries, but are rather more akin to discount Spartans... or, rather, Sumeran phalanx. Even Westerosi militiaries should be capable of wiping the floor with them, and those are nowhere near to high-end of actual 15th century armies such as French
Compagnies d'Ordonnance, tactically speaking.
