"Books on unit tactics" Topic

Are there any books on latter medieval warfare that explain combat at the tactical level?

The sort of thing I am after is:
- what happened when pike block met polearms
- distances between individal men e.g. most rules class troops as close or open order, but what were the real spacings between files and ranks. Were troops packed as close as possible like a shieldwall or something more open like early Romans?
- how did spacing vary with the enemy being fought e.g. I believe a more open spacing of pikes was preferred when facing cavalry as opposed to armoured infantry.
- transformation of unit combat into general melee
- weapon use – did 2-handed swords ever get used other than as thrusting weapons.
- 2-handed swords inter-mixed in pike units. How did this work?
- cavalry – charge or trot into combat?

What you are asking for is the moon. These are the topics that keep wargamers, and some historians busy hacking at each other. If you read some original sources yourself such as Froissarts Chronicles or modern analyses such as Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages or Ardent du Picq then you can decide for yourself. But you probably want a quick solution which would mean relying on relevant Osprey titles such as Landsknecht og The Swiss at War. The answer to most of your questions is that no-one knows or 'it depends….' but many have an opinion.Start here ?
gutenberg.org/etext/7294

If you can find a copy, "The Face Of Battle" by John Keegan is what you need. It was published in the 70s I think.

He looks at three battles from the perspective of the ordinary soldier. The first is Agincourt.

Your questions indicate a lack of general understanding for the period. To get a better understanding of the military practices at the end of the middle ages I suggest Hans Delbruck, History of the Art of War, Volume III: Medieval Warfare

Rich

And Oman is good for some assumptions well thought out.

Another is Phillipe Contamine's "War in the Middle Ages". He addresses space per man and weapon usage.

You might find my Webpage useful for the earlier ("Norman") period.

1066.us

And here is a link to all sorts of free text on the suject:

link

- Greg

Thanks for the responses. The list of queries above is the result of reading "Weapons & Fighting Techniques of the Medieval Warrior" by Martin J. Dougherty.

link

Dougherty's book presents "broad-brush" information but doesn't back it up with specific references to source material. For example, swordsmen hidden in pike blocks. The 17thC film Alatriste shows how this worked in the 80 years war, but if medieval swordsmen were in full armour, did this require a looser formation of the pikes?

Again, with 2-handed swords, to swing the thing a space of about 10 sq.m would be required. Did this space really exist in combat? I have some heavy cavalry swords which require some effort to swing. Swinging a 2-hander would be even harder in combat and I find it difficult to imagine it actually happened that often. So were they really primarily employed as swords or as thrusting weapons?

Films like Braveheart presents hand-to-hand combat as fairly open order. The 2-hander could work in such a situation. I'm yet to find anything that describes how closely packed troops were once unit combat deteriorated into melee.

What I was hoping for was a book in the style of Mark Adkins' Gettysburg and Waterloo. I knew this might be a tall order. The books that I haven't read of the above are Keegan's and Contamine's. I was wary of Keegan's book as it covers several periods and these are usually skimpy on detail. Contamine's had mediocre reviews but it seems to be exactly what I want as the comments on Amazon say it is too detailed. One can never have too much detail.

I agree with your last sentence!

Going over your post, I have to say I don't know about an "80 years war" :)

Some misconceptions you entertain: wearing armor does not alter the space per man, or require that it be more than without armor.

Braveheart is a travesty if you are hoping to glean historical accuracy details from its depiction of battle. A much better film is Alexander Nevsky! Battlelines did not run at each other and penetrate from the front through to the back ranks, i.e. they did not approach in open order.

Once a battle dissolved into general melee with BOTH sides interpenetrated and broken up, spacing is moot. A battle like this would be a fiasco for both sides. Battles were won by ONE side remaining densely ordered and breaking up the other side.

Two-handed weapons when employed with full reach and mobility were always brought in on the flank, or placed out in front of the main battleline in a looser order. Otherwise, when used within the close order battleline, they were used to thrust with, and could be swung in a vertical arc (which is true of even single-handed swords and axes)….

I have to say I don't know about an "80 years war"

Also known as the Dutch Revolt or Dutch War of Independence, it is the conflict between Spain and United Provinces (Netherlands) from 1568 to 1648.

Two-handed Swords
"2-handed swords" cover a huge number of very diffrent weapons. The Zweihander (aka Schlachtschwert) used by a few landsknechts was a very diffrent weapon from the Greatsword used in the 13th century (oakeshott type XIIIa link the 15th Century longswords popular in Germany (Type XVIIIb
link )or the highly specialised two handed swords found in Denmark (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott2.html#typeXVIIIe)

These modern recreations should give you an idea of the size and weight of the types mentioned above:
link
link
link

You seem most interested in the Zweihander aka Schlachtschwert used in the 16th Century.
This is a misunderstood weapon due to it's size and the fact that few people have handled the originals or seen how much they actually weigh (rather than the claims of swords weighing 10, 20 or even 40 pounds)
A good starting point is thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
In many ways the use of the Zweihander has more in common with how polearms are used rather than with how you use a ordinary sword. The leatherclad Ricasso forms a second grip, often with 'wings' to protect the hand projecting from the blade. (Necessary beacuse even the armoured Doppelsöldner seldom used gauntlets)
The sword would then be used in a style called "half-swording" picture
which dates back to the evolution of the use of the longsword against armoured opponents during the 14th Century. link

The use of the Zweihander by the Doppelsöldner have been greatly exaggerated by modern writers, widespread use is not supported by the period sources. Indeed there is only a single source reporting a large number of men armed with 2-handed swords during the long wars in Italy. (A propaganda broadsheet from 1515 so not the most reliable of sources)

For the 16th Century military menthe Doppelsöldner was first and foremost an armoured pikeman as witnessed by for exampel the "Trewer rath" (probably written by Frundsberg himself) "…the Doppel-sölder, that is the armoured pike…" The Trewer Rath later shows a 21 ranks deep formation were the position and type of the landsknechts is carefully noted.

Each rank is 13 files wide)
1-4th rank: "Doppelsöldner"
5th rank: halberdiers
6-7th rank: "Mittelsöldner"
8-10th rank: "gemeinen söldner"
11-13th rank: "Führern, Furirern, Waybeln und Schlachtschwerter" together with the two ensigns
14-18th rank: "gemeiner söldner"
19th rank: "knebelspeiss"
20-21st rank: Doppelsöldner
The Hauptmann stod in the middle of the 1st rank while the Leutnant stod in the last rank.
On each side of the men with pikes, halberds and other melee weapons stod 23 ranks of men with firearms, each rank was 5 files wide. The first 4 ranks were made up of "doppel-schützen" i.e men armed with heavier firearms such as the musket or doppelhaken.

As we can see above the 2-hand swords were placed act as guards for the ensigns and the flags of the unit a role for which this specialised weapon was well suited. The renowned fencing master DiGrassi confirms the weapons role:

"The two hand Sword, as it is used now a days being four
handfuls in the handle, or more, having also the great cross, was found out, to the end it should be handled one to one at an equal match, as other weapons, of which I have
entreated. But because one may with it (as a galleon among
many galleys) resist many Swords, or other weapons:
Therefore in the wars, it is used to be place near unto the
Ensign or Ancient, for the defense thereof, because, being
of itself able to contend with many, it may the better
safeguard the same."

The limited number of 2-hand swords in use can be seen in the various unit regulations as well:

The regulations for the Imperial troops laid down in 1570 envsioned the following organisation
Each 400 man "fähnlein" (company) of Landsknechts were to have 100 "fully harnessed" pikemen armed with pistols(50 of these were to be doppelsöldner), 50 men with two-handed swords or other good polearms such as halberds also armed with pistols ("Good and experienced men to guard the standard") 50 unarmoured pikemen and 200 shot with firearm, good 'rapiers'and helmets. The only doppelsöldner were the 50 picked pikemen.

According to Junghans von Olnitz a "Fähnlein" of 500 men should have 200 arquebusiers, 200 pikemen, 45 halberdiers, 45 men with boarspears and 10 men with "schlachtschwert".

Wintzenberger have a Fähnlein of 300 men: 82 doppelsöldner with harness and pikes, 14 doppelsöldner with harness and "schlachtschwert", 18 halberdiers, 42 musketeers and 144 arquebusiers.

Spacing

I believe a more open spacing of pikes was preferred when facing cavalry as opposed to armoured infantry

You don't mean the other way around? Using open spacing against cavalry would be suicidal, all writers stress the need to assume the tighest formation possible when facing cavalry. Only the most solid and prickly of hedgehogs could resist the onslaught of armoured Gendarmes. (And even then the Gendarms could penetrate into and through the formation)

Against infantry you need more space to let the pikemen fight effectively.

Mounted charges
A mounted charge can be conducted at any pace, walk, trott or the gallop. All methods had their advantages and disadvantages and they also placed diffrent demands on the men and horses. Basicly well mounted expert horsemen had far greater choices in the attack than poorly mounted average horsemen.

As I indicated with an earlier post, you seem to mix medieval and Renaissance battle tactics without understanding the difference. This is no big thing. We were all there at one time or another. The solution is to read more. Nevertheless, here are some answers to you questions. I hope they help.

The sort of thing I am after is:


- what happened when pike block met polearms


This misunderstands medieval battle. Pikes and polearms were the weapons of the medieval communes. Generally speaking, communes didn't fight one another except in Flanders and a few other places. The primary enemy of the communes was the mounted armies of the nobility. In this type of situation the pikes of the communes were backed up by the smaller shafted polearms. The Flemish used a gutentag that literally means "good day". It seems to be a club studded with metal spikes. To back up their pikes, the Swiss generally used the halberd. The Scots used axes. The Hussites backed up their pikes with the war flail. The tactical approach with all these combinations was basically the same. It was the function of the pikes to break open the oncoming cavalry attack. Instead of allowing the men-at-arms to support one another, the pikes tried to break that up so single men-at-arms could be surrounded and taken down like wolves taking down elk. This was the job of the gutentag, halberd, axe, or war flail. These close-in weapons were designed to take down individual knights.

- distances between individal men e.g. most rules class troops as close or open order, but what were the real spacings between files and ranks. Were troops packed as close as possible like a shieldwall or something more open like early Romans? 


We don't have really a lot of information of this type for the medieval period. However, it is generally accepted pikes fought about 3 feet apart. They probably stood about 3 feet between ranks. The shorter weapons probably need a bit more room.

- how did spacing vary with the enemy being fought e.g. I believe a more open spacing of pikes was preferred when facing cavalry as opposed to armoured infantry.


When facing cavalry the pikes tightened up. The one thing you didn't want was for the cavalry to penetrate pike unit. Once inside the front ranks of the pike unit the cavalry would be pushing back the infantry that set up a wave like action. As infantry was pushed back they were pushed into the pikes behind them causing those pikes to be pushed upward where they were no serious threat to the penetrating cavalry

- transformation of unit combat into general melee


If by general melee you mean a free-for-all, that's not the way it went. The cavalry wanted to ride into and break the pike block. Even the Swiss of the 16th-century were ridden into and broken. The difference was that the Swiss had the discipline to reform after being broken apart.

At this time, men-at-arms generally fought each other on foot. They would form a single line called an array. Behind each man-at-arms would have a personal assistant to help him if wounded or exhausted. The English formed 4 such arrays at Agincourt. Each side wanted to pierce those arrays. Once the battle line (the collection of arrays) was broken It was every man for himself. This is where the killing really started. Thus, each front array fought the enemy before him. If he were wounded or too tired to continue to fight, his servants helped him to the rear and other fighters in the rear arrays would step forward and take his place.

- weapon use

– did 2-handed swords ever get used other than as thrusting weapons.

Two-handed swords were used in the same manner as the other short-shafted weapons. In the 16th-century, landsknechts using the two-handed swords generally came from the area of the lower Rhine. This was probably handed down to them from the earlier Dutch and German communes who probably used the two-handed sword rather than the Flemish gutentag.

cavalry – charge or trot into combat?

The trot question brings one to the 17th-century not the medieval period. The man-at-arms and his horse and lance dominated medieval cavalry. He generally charged at the gallop.

Rich