| Author |
Message |
|
Mart Shearer
|
 Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 8:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Anyway, you're not going to find images of mail chausses on infantry for the most part. Or like the famous Roland statue on Verona Cathedral, only the left (leading) leg is armored. The legs get additional armor sooner than the arms do for cavalry.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
  |
 |
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | First you don't have to be running away to be hit in armpit or cut in the back of the knee or neck or so on. |
Sorry, I think I've lost the gist of your argument! We both definitely agree that mail is an excellent all-around defence with unbeatable flexibility, and that most guys in the Early Middle Ages didn't have it. Presumably we also agree that there just were not a lot of things like greaves and vambraces.
| Quote: | | Second, to say than all warfare or any era in Europe was based on lines in a gross over simplification which down the presence of columns, crown formation, wedge formations, etc. |
Not gross at all. It was the accepted norm. Things like wedges were specifically designed to *break* the opposing *line* and gain victory. Other formations were certainly known (though I haven't heard of a "crown"), but they were exceptions to the rule. Lines are easy and effective.
| Quote: | | Also, from what I've read, the muster system was largely development of the High Middle Ages, along with Arms Azzizes, the expansions of preference of cities, all of where refined in late Middle Ages and Renaissance. |
Oh? The Saxon Fyrd system was quite ancient, and the Carolingians had extensive militia systems combined with bodies of professionals. So did the Norse, plus we also have descriptions very similar to muster requirements for the equipment to be used by ship crews.
| Quote: | | Also, to demonstrate the relative (key word, relative) lack of discipline of Dark Age Armies, Harold Goodwinsion essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when his a good portion of his tired and impatient men broke formation and charged Norman's fighting retreat. They could won the day and force William and his army to leave if they just stay in shield wall longer. |
Why shouldn't they have pursued? They were winning! They were tired because they'd spent all day kicking the Normans' butts back down that hill repeatedly. The English were considered the best infantry west of Constantinople, and holding off Norman heavy cavalry that long had to have looked like proof, to them! Believe me, EVERY culture had problems keeping their troops in check, no matter how disciplined they were. Heck, the Romans were some of the worst, on that score, and they were "the standard by which all others are judged" for discipline.
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Peter Messent
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This is something I've wondered about also - if not a full set of greaves, why not splint armor at least? I don't have the sources to hand, but IIRC leg wounds (both healed and not) have been pretty common on skeletons excavated from Viking-age combat. I'm not a martial artist, so it may seem like a simplistic viewpoint, but I'd have thought that the legs would be an obvious opportunistic target, given the presence of a large shield and therefore an obvious area to try and cover by means other than the shield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the only place limb armour shows up in in the eastern roman armies AND in the horse cultures around the black sea region, in those regions we have a decent amount of evidence for limb armour. the earliest reference i know of is in maurices strategikon which was a military manual written in the 7th century for armies of the eastern romanns, interestingly wood is listed as a material.
(although despite having the heaviest cavalry the world had ever known until the emergence of renaissance gendarme lancers they byzantines never developed the use of gauntlets for their cataphracts.. wierd)
however this is far too removed geographically to have even the slightest bit of relevance to western europe at that time period or even later.
regarding dark age combat, we also have to consider that, as matthew said the main weapon pretty much EVERYONE will have is a spear and shield, and as a backup, probably their seax knife and maybe a hand axe, even if said hand axe was the hatchet you used on the farm for all those little odd jobs.
but when facd with spears, who is going to aim for your arm, not many people thats for sure, seing as how mose evidence suggests that men in sildwall style formations (this includes the phalanx since, really theres not much significant difference between a shield wall and a phalanx) you're going to be stabbing at the face and neck for the most part, the legs are a bad idea because well i hear that tends to cause you to overreach yourself and open yourself up for attack, so greaves would be a higher priority than vambraces
also to the OP, a lot of reenactors wear vambraces due to safety reasons even if the culture of choice never used them.
(although i would argue the real solution to that is to hide modern protective arm guards underneath your historical clothing whenever possible)
although some people just like to show off and put as much shiny metal armour on their bodies as they can.
|
|
 |
|
|
Rolf Postma
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but when facd with spears, who is going to aim for your arm, not many people thats for sure, seing as how mose evidence suggests that men in sildwall style formations (this includes the phalanx since, really theres not much significant difference between a shield wall and a phalanx) you're going to be stabbing at the face and neck for the most part, the legs are a bad idea because well i hear that tends to cause you to overreach yourself and open yourself up for attack, so greaves would be a higher priority than vambraces |
I agree that fore-arm protection does not have priority, your shield arm is always covered by the shield, and from what I know of sparring the sword (weapon) arm also largely remains behind the shield.
But the shins remain uncovered by regular shields. When held normally a kite-shield reaches to just bellow the knee-joint and as far as I know a round-shield ends even higher. one-handed swords and axes would obviously not reach up to the lower legs, but spears can. If you ask me, a little bit of exposure for a quick jab at a lower leg is worth the risk, since it can completely immobilise your opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kew
Location: London, UK Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Also, from what I've read, the muster system was largely development of the High Middle Ages, along with Arms Azzizes, the expansions of preference of cities, all of where refined in late Middle Ages and Renaissance. |
The muster system of e.g. the Anglo-Saxons is different, but it was certainly in existence and well organised and legislated. A late Anglo-Saxon king could call out an army basically wherever in his kingdom he needed one, and call on various levels of troops as required. Most of the legal basis for this comes from land ownership, as land was the measure of wealth and status at the time.
| Rolf Postma wrote: |
I agree that fore-arm protection does not have priority, your shield arm is always covered by the shield, and from what I know of sparring the sword (weapon) arm also largely remains behind the shield. |
What's your shield? With a flat round shield (viking style), then yes, it's quite easy to protect the sword arm at nearly all times while fighting with one. With a kite shield, that's much harder. I've seen some interesting suggestions that one of the necessary factors for moving to the kite shield was wide use of mail hauberks, precisely to protect the arm while attacking.
| Rolf Postma wrote: | | But the shins remain uncovered by regular shields. When held normally a kite-shield reaches to just bellow the knee-joint and as far as I know a round-shield ends even higher. one-handed swords and axes would obviously not reach up to the lower legs, but spears can. If you ask me, a little bit of exposure for a quick jab at a lower leg is worth the risk, since it can completely immobilise your opponent. |
There are a number of flaws with this in a group fighting context.
Firstly, it's not a little bit of exposure. It's a near-fatal amount - if fighting with a spear high, you have to expose your upper torso and face (large, easy to hit, fatal) targets, in order to strike at a leg or foot (small, difficult to hit, unlikely to be rapidly incapacitating). The upper leg is safer as a target - but that's much easier to defend quickly without opening too many other issues.
Linked to that, it's a lot harder to hit a leg - it's small, and can move quickly. Furthermore, shields can also move, and simply dropping the level of your shield will ward many attacks which aren't aimed practically at ground level. Attacking to the foot is supremely difficult even in one on one combat, and doing it in a mass fight is asking to be stabbed repeatedly in the torso and head. So group fighters would tend to just target high, which is reliable, effective, and safer for themselves - and a line fight is broadly about dying slower than their side until they break.
Finally, the size of a shield varies. Kite shields can be very long: here's one from Geoffrey of Anjou's tomb, and note how it's covering him from chin to ankle. Even with a shorter shield, body position can give a lot of coverage. I'm 5'8 and have a 4' kite shield, which reaches about my knee if held at the chin while I'm standing straight. Bend the legs and lower my body a little, and it'll easily reach down to the ankle and practically up to the nose. Similarly, a 3' round shield can cover the whole torso, or can be lowered (especially if one is also wearing a mail shirt) to protect the upper legs quite easily.
Regardless of if we think it's a good idea, the evidence is fairly clear that they weren't used or seen as necessary. Even Anglo-Saxon huscarls fighting without a shield didn't bother with lower leg armour, according to the Bayeux Tapestry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | First you don't have to be running away to be hit in armpit or cut in the back of the knee or neck or so on. |
Sorry, I think I've lost the gist of your argument! We both definitely agree that mail is an excellent all-around defence with unbeatable flexibility, and that most guys in the Early Middle Ages didn't have it. Presumably we also agree that there just were not a lot of things like greaves and vambraces.
| Quote: | | Second, to say than all warfare or any era in Europe was based on lines in a gross over simplification which down the presence of columns, crown formation, wedge formations, etc. |
Not gross at all. It was the accepted norm. Things like wedges were specifically designed to *break* the opposing *line* and gain victory. Other formations were certainly known (though I haven't heard of a "crown"), but they were exceptions to the rule. Lines are easy and effective.
| Quote: | | Also, from what I've read, the muster system was largely development of the High Middle Ages, along with Arms Azzizes, the expansions of preference of cities, all of where refined in late Middle Ages and Renaissance. |
Oh? The Saxon Fyrd system was quite ancient, and the Carolingians had extensive militia systems combined with bodies of professionals. So did the Norse, plus we also have descriptions very similar to muster requirements for the equipment to be used by ship crews.
| Quote: | | Also, to demonstrate the relative (key word, relative) lack of discipline of Dark Age Armies, Harold Goodwinsion essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when his a good portion of his tired and impatient men broke formation and charged Norman's fighting retreat. They could won the day and force William and his army to leave if they just stay in shield wall longer. |
Why shouldn't they have pursued? They were winning! They were tired because they'd spent all day kicking the Normans' butts back down that hill repeatedly. The English were considered the best infantry west of Constantinople, and holding off Norman heavy cavalry that long had to have looked like proof, to them! Believe me, EVERY culture had problems keeping their troops in check, no matter how disciplined they were. Heck, the Romans were some of the worst, on that score, and they were "the standard by which all others are judged" for discipline.
Matthew |
To say it isnot gross at all in any era is massive oversimplification. Columns can do many things which lines can't, when you have mass of troops utilizing very long weapons (etc pikes) to amass several points forward at different ranges, protect different troops troop types from attack and deploy as needed, relief exhuasted front line troops,and keep discouraged moving forward becuase you can use more disciplined and eager troops moving behind as impetus to keep moving. The crown formation was used extentively by the Scots to protect missile troops and as a way to make sure that heavy calvary couldn't ramn through them or flank them. The column formation use extensively utilized you can see this battlefield artwork and battlefield accounts. To say that another another formation was so ineffective as to be tactically insignificant and rarely used is vast overestimation of one formations stragetic capabilities and severe underestimate of Europeaon commanders tactical knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | To say it isnot gross at all in any era is massive oversimplification. Columns can do many things which lines can't, when you have mass of troops utilizing very long weapons (etc pikes) to amass several points forward at different ranges, protect different troops troop types from attack and deploy as needed, relief exhuasted front line troops,and keep discouraged moving forward becuase you can use more disciplined and eager troops moving behind as impetus to keep moving. The crown formation was used extentively by the Scots to protect missile troops and as a way to make sure that heavy calvary couldn't ramn through them or flank them. The column formation use extensively utilized you can see this battlefield artwork and battlefield accounts. To say that another another formation was so ineffective as to be tactically insignificant and rarely used is vast overestimation of one formations stragetic capabilities and severe underestimate of Europeaon commanders tactical knowledge. |
Again, sorry, I thought the discussion was mainly for the *early* middle ages, i.e., roughly Viking era or before. There weren't any pikes then, were there? And yes, I know the Scots used the schiltron, but I'm not sure we can drag that back into the "early" period--I just don't know how far back the sources go for that. Besides, it *could* be argued that a schiltron or circle or square is just a *line* with the ends bent back to make a closed formation. But I won't mention that if you prefer!
Columns certainly had their place in the Renaissance and early modern era. I just thought that was outside the discussion. It should be noted that even a commander using columns was still concerned about being outflanked, which implies linear thinking, to me.
I never said that other formations were "ineffective" or "insignificant", only that the line was the fundamental basis of warfare. Which it was. It doesn't have to be the *only* formation or form of warfare.
I also certainly don't underestimate the capabilities of medieval armies or commanders! But even if you're a brilliant commander who has a bunch of spearmen who drill once a month and would rather be milking the cow, plus some armored cavalry who just want to kill things and think they're too good to listen to you, your options are not unlimited. If the opportunity presents itself you can try some fancier moves, but it's hard to go wrong by putting everyone in *line*. They all know that one just fine, and are comfortable with it.
Wait, weren't we talking about greaves and vambraces?
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | To say it isnot gross at all in any era is massive oversimplification. Columns can do many things which lines can't, when you have mass of troops utilizing very long weapons (etc pikes) to amass several points forward at different ranges, protect different troops troop types from attack and deploy as needed, relief exhuasted front line troops,and keep discouraged moving forward becuase you can use more disciplined and eager troops moving behind as impetus to keep moving. The crown formation was used extentively by the Scots to protect missile troops and as a way to make sure that heavy calvary couldn't ramn through them or flank them. The column formation use extensively utilized you can see this battlefield artwork and battlefield accounts. To say that another another formation was so ineffective as to be tactically insignificant and rarely used is vast overestimation of one formations stragetic capabilities and severe underestimate of Europeaon commanders tactical knowledge. |
Again, sorry, I thought the discussion was mainly for the *early* middle ages, i.e., roughly Viking era or before. There weren't any pikes then, were there? And yes, I know the Scots used the schiltron, but I'm not sure we can drag that back into the "early" period--I just don't know how far back the sources go for that. Besides, it *could* be argued that a schiltron or circle or square is just a *line* with the ends bent back to make a closed formation. But I won't mention that if you prefer!
Columns certainly had their place in the Renaissance and early modern era. I just thought that was outside the discussion. It should be noted that even a commander using columns was still concerned about being outflanked, which implies linear thinking, to me.
I never said that other formations were "ineffective" or "insignificant", only that the line was the fundamental basis of warfare. Which it was. It doesn't have to be the *only* formation or form of warfare.
I also certainly don't underestimate the capabilities of medieval armies or commanders! But even if you're a brilliant commander who has a bunch of spearmen who drill once a month and would rather be milking the cow, plus some armored cavalry who just want to kill things and think they're too good to listen to you, your options are not unlimited. If the opportunity presents itself you can try some fancier moves, but it's hard to go wrong by putting everyone in *line*. They all know that one just fine, and are comfortable with it.
Wait, weren't we talking about greaves and vambraces?
Matthew |
Well, you brought up any era and definately before is an overstatement. Tesutdo has great type of shield column formation to advance safetly from under missile fire in siege or battle. Also, saying a crown formation is line formation would be like saying lines and circles are the same thing, which get you scolded by any geometry teacher. Also, in that hypothetical scenario, I would suggestion column would work better, this an be shown in WWI.It is one thing to uncomfortable in marching anything more basic than line, it is, as you described in this scenario, to have large group of people unwilling to kill. In large horizontal line, the stab shy Spearmen could just turn around and leg it and the armoured has no incentive to listen to you. make a double column, with the bloodthristy calvary behind the infranty and give them permission to kill those who run away and the spearmen are are more likely to fight because they known if they run it means certain death. It very hard to move backwards in a column, as anyone who who been a marching band, military or paramilitary unit can attest. Also he effectiveness to having group of men threatening the group in front is well attested in examination of army practices in WWI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | To say it isnot gross at all in any era is massive oversimplification. Columns can do many things which lines can't, when you have mass of troops utilizing very long weapons (etc pikes) to amass several points forward at different ranges, protect different troops troop types from attack and deploy as needed, relief exhuasted front line troops,and keep discouraged moving forward becuase you can use more disciplined and eager troops moving behind as impetus to keep moving. The crown formation was used extentively by the Scots to protect missile troops and as a way to make sure that heavy calvary couldn't ramn through them or flank them. The column formation use extensively utilized you can see this battlefield artwork and battlefield accounts. To say that another another formation was so ineffective as to be tactically insignificant and rarely used is vast overestimation of one formations stragetic capabilities and severe underestimate of Europeaon commanders tactical knowledge. |
Again, sorry, I thought the discussion was mainly for the *early* middle ages, i.e., roughly Viking era or before. There weren't any pikes then, were there? And yes, I know the Scots used the schiltron, but I'm not sure we can drag that back into the "early" period--I just don't know how far back the sources go for that. Besides, it *could* be argued that a schiltron or circle or square is just a *line* with the ends bent back to make a closed formation. But I won't mention that if you prefer!
Columns certainly had their place in the Renaissance and early modern era. I just thought that was outside the discussion. It should be noted that even a commander using columns was still concerned about being outflanked, which implies linear thinking, to me.
I never said that other formations were "ineffective" or "insignificant", only that the line was the fundamental basis of warfare. Which it was. It doesn't have to be the *only* formation or form of warfare.
I also certainly don't underestimate the capabilities of medieval armies or commanders! But even if you're a brilliant commander who has a bunch of spearmen who drill once a month and would rather be milking the cow, plus some armored cavalry who just want to kill things and think they're too good to listen to you, your options are not unlimited. If the opportunity presents itself you can try some fancier moves, but it's hard to go wrong by putting everyone in *line*. They all know that one just fine, and are comfortable with it.
Wait, weren't we talking about greaves and vambraces?
Matthew |
Well, you brought up any era and definately before is an overstatement. Tesutdo has great type of shield column formation to advance safetly from under missile fire in siege or battle. Also, saying a crown formation is line formation would be like saying lines and circles are the same thing, which get you scolded by any geometry teacher. Also, in that hypothetical scenario, I would suggestion column would work better, this an be shown in WWI.It is one thing to uncomfortable in marching anything more basic than line, it is, as you described in this scenario, to have large group of people unwilling to kill. In large horizontal line, the stab shy Spearmen could just turn around and leg it and the armoured has no incentive to listen to you. make a double column, with the bloodthristy calvary behind the infranty and give them permission to kill those who run away and the spearmen are are more likely to fight because they known if they run it means certain death. It very hard to move backwards in a column, as anyone who who been a marching band, military or paramilitary unit can attest. Also he effectiveness to having group of men threatening the group in front is well attested in examination of army practices in WWI. Also, we should probably create own threead for this or move it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Well, you brought up any era and definately before is an overstatement. |
Um, I think I wasn't clear again. "Early medieval", which I did indeed define as "Viking era or before", meaning "medieval before Viking", which kind of implies post-Roman. Though yes, I'm not the only one who tends to toss in comparisons to other eras and cultures when they seem applicable or just useful to the conversation. In that vein:
| Quote: | | Tesutdo has great type of shield column formation to advance safetly from under missile fire in siege or battle. |
I don't think there is much evidence that the testudo was used outside of sieges, when the enemy is ensconced behind fortifications. Having been in a testudo before, I can tell you that it seems to me to be a very unsafe way to approach an enemy in the open! Visibility is limited for the front rank and almost zero for those behind, and movement is slow. It's too cramped for using weapons--heck, we don't even draw them for fear of putting a gladius into a friend's thigh. It's a very specialized formation.
| Quote: | | Also, saying a crown formation is line formation would be like saying lines and circles are the same thing, which get you scolded by any geometry teacher. |
Luckily, battle isn't geometry, a class I actually did pretty well in. I didn't think you would like that analogy, ha!
| Quote: | | Also, in that hypothetical scenario, I would suggestion column would work better, this an be shown in WWI. |
Sorry? World War ONE? In which both sides carried the LINE concept to the ultimate degree and dug continuous trench lines across Europe? In which major assaults were launched by *lines* of infantry? If columns were sometimes used as well, fine, but there are clear accounts and photographs of linear attacks.
| Quote: | | It is one thing to uncomfortable in marching anything more basic than line, it is, as you described in this scenario, to have large group of people unwilling to kill. |
How do you know they were unwilling to kill? It seems to me that battlefields were full of willing killers, or there would have been much less danger. Just because some of the troops were not warriors born and raised doesn't mean they were all terrified or unagressive. John Keegan's "History of Warfare" points out how farmers are used to herding animals into tight spots and then calmly slaughtering them, a very useful skill on the battlefield. We're also talking about a time when it was apparently common for free men to carry spears in the marketplace, like a clothing accessory or status symbol, and there were laws governing the handling of such weapons in public. Obviously some men were better trained or more experienced than others, and certainly some would not have fought if duty had not required it, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that significant numbers of scared men had to be driven into battle, generally speaking.
| Quote: | | In large horizontal line, the stab shy Spearmen could just turn around and leg it and the armoured has no incentive to listen to you. make a double column, with the bloodthristy calvary behind the infranty and give them permission to kill those who run away and the spearmen are are more likely to fight because they known if they run it means certain death. It very hard to move backwards in a column, as anyone who who been a marching band, military or paramilitary unit can attest. Also he effectiveness to having group of men threatening the group in front is well attested in examination of army practices in WWI. |
As I understand it, battle lines were typically several ranks deep. It was common to put the most experienced men in the front. The less experienced men would still have been taught that it was safest to stay in formation, and we know of battles in which a solid infantry formation survived very well even if the army as a whole was defeated. In your arrangement, you have your best troops being used to terrorize your already shaky troops, which does not seem to have been a very common practice in the middle ages.
There were obviously times when infantry lines broke and fled! Even good troops will do that when things go bad. Columns of Landsknecht pikemen were all good troops, plenty aggressive and hardly "stab shy". The Scottish pike columns at Flodden were all more-or-less experienced men, but the formation was new to them and the ground was not optimal for it. On one wing the columns were successful and drove the English off, but on the other they were halted and chopped apart by the English *line* of billmen. (Just to drag in applicable illustrations from another era!)
I'm *supposed* to be in the basement working on a shield! To go with my spear. And it's a Greek shield so I WILL wear greaves with it, but not vambraces.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Well, you brought up any era and definately before is an overstatement. |
Um, I think I wasn't clear again. "Early medieval", which I did indeed define as "Viking era or before", meaning "medieval before Viking", which kind of implies post-Roman. Though yes, I'm not the only one who tends to toss in comparisons to other eras and cultures when they seem applicable or just useful to the conversation. In that vein:
| Quote: | | Tesutdo has great type of shield column formation to advance safetly from under missile fire in siege or battle. |
I don't think there is much evidence that the testudo was used outside of sieges, when the enemy is ensconced behind fortifications. Having been in a testudo before, I can tell you that it seems to me to be a very unsafe way to approach an enemy in the open! Visibility is limited for the front rank and almost zero for those behind, and movement is slow. It's too cramped for using weapons--heck, we don't even draw them for fear of putting a gladius into a friend's thigh. It's a very specialized formation.
| Quote: | | Also, saying a crown formation is line formation would be like saying lines and circles are the same thing, which get you scolded by any geometry teacher. |
Luckily, battle isn't geometry, a class I actually did pretty well in. I didn't think you would like that analogy, ha!
| Quote: | | Also, in that hypothetical scenario, I would suggestion column would work better, this an be shown in WWI. |
Sorry? World War ONE? In which both sides carried the LINE concept to the ultimate degree and dug continuous trench lines across Europe? In which major assaults were launched by *lines* of infantry? If columns were sometimes used as well, fine, but there are clear accounts and photographs of linear attacks.
| Quote: | | It is one thing to uncomfortable in marching anything more basic than line, it is, as you described in this scenario, to have large group of people unwilling to kill. |
How do you know they were unwilling to kill? It seems to me that battlefields were full of willing killers, or there would have been much less danger. Just because some of the troops were not warriors born and raised doesn't mean they were all terrified or unagressive. John Keegan's "History of Warfare" points out how farmers are used to herding animals into tight spots and then calmly slaughtering them, a very useful skill on the battlefield. We're also talking about a time when it was apparently common for free men to carry spears in the marketplace, like a clothing accessory or status symbol, and there were laws governing the handling of such weapons in public. Obviously some men were better trained or more experienced than others, and certainly some would not have fought if duty had not required it, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that significant numbers of scared men had to be driven into battle, generally speaking.
| Quote: | | In large horizontal line, the stab shy Spearmen could just turn around and leg it and the armoured has no incentive to listen to you. make a double column, with the bloodthristy calvary behind the infranty and give them permission to kill those who run away and the spearmen are are more likely to fight because they known if they run it means certain death. It very hard to move backwards in a column, as anyone who who been a marching band, military or paramilitary unit can attest. Also he effectiveness to having group of men threatening the group in front is well attested in examination of army practices in WWI. |
As I understand it, battle lines were typically several ranks deep. It was common to put the most experienced men in the front. The less experienced men would still have been taught that it was safest to stay in formation, and we know of battles in which a solid infantry formation survived very well even if the army as a whole was defeated. In your arrangement, you have your best troops being used to terrorize your already shaky troops, which does not seem to have been a very common practice in the middle ages.
There were obviously times when infantry lines broke and fled! Even good troops will do that when things go bad. Columns of Landsknecht pikemen were all good troops, plenty aggressive and hardly "stab shy". The Scottish pike columns at Flodden were all more-or-less experienced men, but the formation was new to them and the ground was not optimal for it. On one wing the columns were successful and drove the English off, but on the other they were halted and chopped apart by the English *line* of billmen. (Just to drag in applicable illustrations from another era!)
I'm *supposed* to be in the basement working on a shield! To go with my spear. And it's a Greek shield so I WILL wear greaves with it, but not vambraces.
Matthew |
We should take the line, square, column, and rectangular war accounts to another thread, becuase I just realized than line, square and rectangle can resemble each other from different altitude and elevations and that we may talking past each other. Just to mess with your head, you are taking of Archaic Greek combination, using a shield designed to covered from the neck and thigh, strapped, and using knee on bare leg could be seen as an act of large conservatism of Medieval Infranty and Calvary instead of using long kite shield a defense and which cove ra which covers the entire 360 degrees and because the combination you described there is thousands of years older. In fact, chainmail in of itself is one of younger armour types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary T
Location: Missouri Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We're also talking about a time when it was apparently common for free men to carry spears in the marketplace, like a clothing accessory or status symbol, and there were laws governing the handling of such weapons in public. |
The Seax was a sign of being a free man among Saxons as opposed to being a slave.
It's interesting, many terms for military classification from the middle ages are some form of the word "servant" or "to serve".
If we look at this in a 21st century connotation, it looks demeaning.
However, from the standpoint of a middle ages warrior, it meant that they were often a landowner, or were at least fairly well provided for by their benefactor, and for this privilege they served in the military of this benefactor, which doing so was a sign of their social status. A very different context of the word "serve" than we now have.
| Quote: | | In your arrangement, you have your best troops being used to terrorize your already shaky troops, which does not seem to have been a very common practice in the middle ages. |
I believe it was a regular practice among the Khazars, Bulgars and other horse people in eastern europe to use their slavic "Allies" in this way. I don't think it was a real success, perhaps at best it kept casualties a bit lower for "home" troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Messent
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary T wrote: | It's interesting, many terms for military classification from the middle ages are some form of the word "servant" or "to serve".
If we look at this in a 21st century connotation, it looks demeaning.
However, from the standpoint of a middle ages warrior, it meant that they were often a landowner, or were at least fairly well provided for by their benefactor, and for this privilege they served in the military of this benefactor, which doing so was a sign of their social status. A very different context of the word "serve" than we now have. |
Just a nitpick, but I disagree with the alleged disparity with the modern 'serve'. Both now and when i was in the army, the military was frequently generically referred to as 'the service' and being in it is/was 'serving'. Soldiers are thanked for their service, people are asked if they've served. It is serving and it is referred to as exactly that, with nothing demeaning about it. I wouldn't have appreciated being called a servant, but that's largely a technicality, as some variation of the verb 'to serve' is used literally on a daily basis in the military. Hell, in official documentation we were referred to exclusively as SM or 'service member'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rolf Postma wrote: | | But the shins remain uncovered by regular shields. When held normally a kite-shield reaches to just bellow the knee-joint and as far as I know a round-shield ends even higher. one-handed swords and axes would obviously not reach up to the lower legs, but spears can. If you ask me, a little bit of exposure for a quick jab at a lower leg is worth the risk, since it can completely immobilise your opponent. |
Only if the shield is used as a purely passive and static defence and the user fights without any footwork whatsoever! Slipping the leg isn't much more difficult in a sword-and-shield fight than it is in single sword, and the shield itself can be moved around (sometimes lowered, sometimes punched out to intercept the incoming blow before it even gets close to the target) -- not to mention that the weapon itself is still available to provide an additional layer of defence (including by presenting a threat that the opponent would have to deal with if he doesn't want to take a fatal hit while going after the shield-man's leg).
Going over to the discussion on columns and lines, I think part of the confusion might be due to the fact that modern armies are articulated at a much lower level than anything before World War I and the corresponding changes in terminology can get a little confusing. Just a few weeks ago I had to ask for an explanation when a friend of mine -- a US Army officer -- used the term "column of lines" in a conversation, which sounded like an oxymoron to me since I'm used to thinking in terms of solid formations where a line is a line (much wider than it is deep) and a column is a column (much deeper than it is wide). He pointed me to some reference documents on US Army platoon and company formations and it turns out that a platoon can be in a "column of lines" if the squads (or fireteams) are arranged back-to-front as in a column, but each squad or fire team is deployed in line. The formation normally known as the "column" is called the "file," which makes sense given that it's usually small enough that the men can generally go in single file, but it gets funny when the US Army now prefers the term "double file" or "quadruple file" for the formation known elsewhere (including in earlier US Army practice) as "column of twos" or "column of fours." So it's worth noting that formation terminology taken from modern small-unit tactics can be quite different from those used up to WW1; as a matter of fact, I remember reading a pre-WW2 US Army publication on "small unit tactics" where the "small unit" meant whole platoons, companies, or even battalions, and there was no concept of individual squads (let alone fire teams) as distinct elements in fire and manoeuvre even though the text was published in 1938. (To be fair, the book was mostly about lessons learned from WW1, so might not accurately reflect contemporary infantry practice of the late 1930s.)
In short, to somebody trained in modern US Army small-unit formation terminology, a formation with multiple shallow lines (say, one line in front and another in reserve) might be a column even though it wouldn't have qualified as a column according to earlier terminology (or, indeed, according to US Army close-order drill terminology, where "line" and "column" still appear to retain their traditional meanings). That being said, I do think that Philip is misusing the term "column" since I don't know of any military force or military history publication in the world where a line more than one rank deep is called a "column," or where a line of cavalry deployed behind a line of infantry is a "double column." If a "vertical" (to borrow Philip's mode of expression) column of cavalry is deployed side-by-side with a separate "vertical" column of infantry, then that would be a double column.
(Caveat: I don't know whether this is general US Army practice -- it might be just the preferred terminology in his unit. And sorry for the pedantry -- I really, really need some stress relief tonight.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary T
Location: Missouri Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peter Messent wrote:
| Quote: | | Just a nitpick, but I disagree with the alleged disparity with the modern 'serve'. Both now and when i was in the army, the military was frequently generically referred to as 'the service' and being in it is/was 'serving'. Soldiers are thanked for their service, people are asked if they've served. It is serving and it is referred to as exactly that, with nothing demeaning about it. I wouldn't have appreciated being called a servant, but that's largely a technicality, as some variation of the verb 'to serve' is used literally on a daily basis in the military. Hell, in official documentation we were referred to exclusively as SM or 'service member'. |
OK, maybe the negative connotation applies to the Noun usage of and not the verb usage of 
But I'd agree that there are some uses of the verbage used in similar ways today, such as "protect and serve" by police departments.
But the overall connotations of the word "serve"is still more a negative than positive in today's world I think.
It is interesting that the most common noun used today for a "warrior" if you would is soldier, and that term has it's origins about receiving pay ( Medieval Latin soldarius, meaning literally, "one having pay"), as opposed to a form of the word "service".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Rolf Postma wrote: | | But the shins remain uncovered by regular shields. When held normally a kite-shield reaches to just bellow the knee-joint and as far as I know a round-shield ends even higher. one-handed swords and axes would obviously not reach up to the lower legs, but spears can. If you ask me, a little bit of exposure for a quick jab at a lower leg is worth the risk, since it can completely immobilise your opponent. |
Only if the shield is used as a purely passive and static defence and the user fights without any footwork whatsoever! Slipping the leg isn't much more difficult in a sword-and-shield fight than it is in single sword, and the shield itself can be moved around (sometimes lowered, sometimes punched out to intercept the incoming blow before it even gets close to the target) -- not to mention that the weapon itself is still available to provide an additional layer of defence (including by presenting a threat that the opponent would have to deal with if he doesn't want to take a fatal hit while going after the shield-man's leg).
Going over to the discussion on columns and lines, I think part of the confusion might be due to the fact that modern armies are articulated at a much lower level than anything before World War I and the corresponding changes in terminology can get a little confusing. Just a few weeks ago I had to ask for an explanation when a friend of mine -- a US Army officer -- used the term "column of lines" in a conversation, which sounded like an oxymoron to me since I'm used to thinking in terms of solid formations where a line is a line (much wider than it is deep) and a column is a column (much deeper than it is wide). He pointed me to some reference documents on US Army platoon and company formations and it turns out that a platoon can be in a "column of lines" if the squads (or fireteams) are arranged back-to-front as in a column, but each squad or fire team is deployed in line. The formation normally known as the "column" is called the "file," which makes sense given that it's usually small enough that the men can generally go in single file, but it gets funny when the US Army now prefers the term "double file" or "quadruple file" for the formation known elsewhere (including in earlier US Army practice) as "column of twos" or "column of fours." So it's worth noting that formation terminology taken from modern small-unit tactics can be quite different from those used up to WW1; as a matter of fact, I remember reading a pre-WW2 US Army publication on "small unit tactics" where the "small unit" meant whole platoons, companies, or even battalions, and there was no concept of individual squads (let alone fire teams) as distinct elements in fire and manoeuvre even though the text was published in 1938. (To be fair, the book was mostly about lessons learned from WW1, so might not accurately reflect contemporary infantry practice of the late 1930s.)
In short, to somebody trained in modern US Army small-unit formation terminology, a formation with multiple shallow lines (say, one line in front and another in reserve) might be a column even though it wouldn't have qualified as a column according to earlier terminology (or, indeed, according to US Army close-order drill terminology, where "line" and "column" still appear to retain their traditional meanings). That being said, I do think that Philip is misusing the term "column" since I don't know of any military force or military history publication in the world where a line more than one rank deep is called a "column," or where a line of cavalry deployed behind a line of infantry is a "double column." If a "vertical" (to borrow Philip's mode of expression) column of cavalry is deployed side-by-side with a separate "vertical" column of infantry, then that would be a double column.
(Caveat: I don't know whether this is general US Army practice -- it might be just the preferred terminology in his unit. And sorry for the pedantry -- I really, really need some stress relief tonight.) |
I wasn't insultating to basic lines. I never specified where or not the two units would be wides than they are long. What I trying to get across is column of infranty with the least combat shy spearmen urging the most shy spearmen forward with the calvary, with some spacing this they there faster moving unit, formed in behind in a column, I called it double column because the two are visually connected into continues formantions. The commanders as his personal body guards, I would assume would be on horseback, would behind the calvary keeping them in check ,then most obedient check the least obedient, then the combat happy keeps the combat sacred infranty in check. The least scared among the infranty are placed behind to keep the most fearful and so in and so for untit the front infranty can't psychologically do anything by march toward the enemy and fight because to turn and run would having to try to bowl over their fellows. If you have solid group off aggressive and well trainmen you split them up and but some in the front lines and some in the very back, that way the novices are pushed by the men behind and are given direction and guidance by following the movements of the front line men, but what Matthew was describing is are people than are militarily dysfunctional. Also, I don't think that the example of farmers surroundings a animal and calmly killing them proves much of anything, if people innately considered killing other human beings pyscholigcal equivalent to killing animals, I don't think we would see the long history of dehumanization in military war propaganda that we do, becuase it wouldn't have been necessary to motivate large enough groups or people needed to fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Rootslane
Location: Estonia Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
To solve the argument about which areas people used to hit and which they considered too risky to attack we should maby look at studies that cover injuries on skeletons found on battlesites.
There is one that coves the injuries from the battle of Wisy (later than early medieval i know), and i think many people had been hit in the lower leg.
a few years ago i was taking part of archaeological excavations in island Saaremaa where a bunch of guys had been buried with their ships after supposedly losing a battle or a skirmish. It think it was dated to about year 750. Anyway, many of the deceased had massive injuries in the forearm area, but suprisingly no-one was hit in the hand. Being a person who is used to delivering very fast stikes to opponents weapon hand with sword and spear ive always found that odd.
Does anyone know of other good sources about battlefield injuries from the medieval period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Well, you brought up any era and definately before is an overstatement. |
Um, I think I wasn't clear again. "Early medieval", which I did indeed define as "Viking era or before", meaning "medieval before Viking", which kind of implies post-Roman. Though yes, I'm not the only one who tends to toss in comparisons to other eras and cultures when they seem applicable or just useful to the conversation. In that vein:
| Quote: | | Tesutdo has great type of shield column formation to advance safetly from under missile fire in siege or battle. |
*snip*
I'm *supposed* to be in the basement working on a shield! To go with my spear. And it's a Greek shield so I WILL wear greaves with it, but not vambraces.
Matthew |
this does make me think , about how come the greek, and other hellenic style armies (like the early romans, and the carthaginians) seemed to use greaves, however... as far as i can tell close to none of their contemporaries in europe and the near east made regular use of them in the way the hoplites did, it's not like the saxon thegns would have been any less wealthy than your middle grade hoplite. their shields were not particularly larger or smaller, their spears were probably of similar length.....
what changed? i dont see archaic era middle class as being particularly wealthier than the later saxons,. the saxons were not exactly incapable craftsmen.
the reasonably regular wearing of greaves suggests that those fighters were worried about their calves being hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | this does make me think , about how come the greek, and other hellenic style armies (like the early romans, and the carthaginians) seemed to use greaves, however... as far as i can tell close to none of their contemporaries in europe and the near east made regular use of them in the way the hoplites did, it's not like the saxon thegns would have been any less wealthy than your middle grade hoplite. their shields were not particularly larger or smaller, their spears were probably of similar length.....
what changed? i dont see archaic era middle class as being particularly wealthier than the later saxons,. the saxons were not exactly incapable craftsmen.
the reasonably regular wearing of greaves suggests that those fighters were worried about their calves being hit. |
Back to the root of the question, yes! I think it's a combination of factors.
For starters, the Greek phalanx evolved in a society in which those doing the fighting (at least at first!) might be compared more to the medieval nobility than to the grunt infantry. They could simply afford more armor. Now, the whole topic of which classes served as hoplites is hotly debated, and of course things changed over time and there was a certain amount of state-issued equipment just to muddle things. And we can never be completely sure that *all* hoplites had greaves at *any* time, though it was definitely a trend to have the most heavily armored men in front.
Second, while it's true that the Greek aspis and the early medieval round shield were comparable in size, I think it's also true that the "strapping" system on the aspis means that it's not quite as maneuverable. You can't hold it out at arm's length, for instance. You can move it up and down simply by flexing your left elbow, but your reach is less overall. And while I do think that a Viking dropped into the middle of a Greek phalanx would get the hang of things pretty quickly, and vice versa, subtle things like shield mobility and general density of formation may simply have made the phalanx a place where you needed greaves more, if you could get them. You don't have the elbow room that another shieldwall might have, and your friends rely on your shield protecting them as well as you. So the shield movements are smaller.
It should be noted that greaves seem to become a lot less common overall as Greek armies become more professional, with more mercenaries and trained troops than the old levies. When you have full-time troops who spend more time marching and don't all have slaves or animals or wagons to lug their stuff, metal on the legs is the first thing to be ditched. No problem for officers, mind you! Hence we still find plenty of greaves in Macedonian noble tombs, for instance.
I can't help thinking that it just boils down to the man in the line not finding that the weight, comfort, and expense were worth the protection. And no one was at any particular disadvantage, since no one was wearing greaves!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic