xpalpatinex | 03 Mar 2014 11:34 a.m. PST |
Everyone was extremely helpful in my search for sources on the battle of Lansdown so I'm asking for help again. In Lansdown and Stratton, it looks like Royalist pike, especially the forces commanded by Bevil Grenville, charged uphill (or marched steadily) and either pushed back or held the enemy forces. Some of this was even against dug in or fortified enemies. I know traditionally having the high ground gives a huge advantage to the defender
so this seems like a pretty big deal. Were there other times during the ECW that primarily pike formations succeeded in this way? Acting offensively, going uphill against a dug in enemy? Names of battles would be great for me to further research. Thanks in advance! -Brinton |
MajorB | 03 Mar 2014 11:40 a.m. PST |
Given that it occurred in at least two of the dozen or so major battles of the war, I would suggest that that is plenty enough precedent that when they needed to, they could. The question really is, why does high ground give an advantage to the defender? I suspect it is mainly a morale advantage ("I'm the king of the castle") rather than a physical one. It seems that pikemen in the ECW could overcome this advantage – perhaps because of the long reach of their weapons? |
olicana | 03 Mar 2014 12:14 p.m. PST |
I suspect it is mainly a morale advantage ("I'm the king of the castle") rather than a physical one. Except that climbing any kind of hill with military equipment is physically taxing. It must also be remembered that combat in itself is very tiring (due to stress levels and adrenalin as much as anything) so I suspect going up hill would make combat doubly hard work. |
xpalpatinex | 03 Mar 2014 12:42 p.m. PST |
Fighting up any kind of hill would be very hard work. Takes more effort to march and less effort to lose ground to a opponent fighting downhill. More of a persons weight can be put behind a weapon etc
. I was actually looking at a couple instances of this happening early in the war from Cornish troops (Stratton and Lansdown) and was hoping someone either A) Had other examples showing this to be not that rare an occurence or B) Not many (or no) other examples showing what happened at these two battles to be the exception. Make sense? -Brinton |
advocate | 03 Mar 2014 12:52 p.m. PST |
Fighting uphill isn't normally easy for the reasons given. But I could imagine that it might be difficult for a pike block to fight effectively downhill? I could see the rear ranks not being able to support as effectively. |
Timmo uk | 03 Mar 2014 12:54 p.m. PST |
On the basis that very little ground is actually flat I'd suggest that almost every combat in the ECW saw one side attacking 'up-hill'. |
steamingdave47 | 03 Mar 2014 12:58 p.m. PST |
Advocate makes a good point. I can see that "Highlander" style fighting might get an advantage from charging downhill in terms of sheer impetus and terror factor, but maintaining a moving formation on hills, either up or down would be difficult. Body position coming down a hill tends to be thrown slightly backwards and that would make it awkward to direct a pike towards your opponents body. |
MajorB | 03 Mar 2014 1:17 p.m. PST |
Except that climbing any kind of hill with military equipment is physically taxing. Except that most "hills" are not actually so steep as to preclude advancing and/or fighting up them. As Timmo says, very little ground is actually flat. |
MajorB | 03 Mar 2014 1:20 p.m. PST |
Not many (or no) other examples showing what happened at these two battles to be the exception. Even if you find no other examples, I would still say that 2 out a dozen or so is not that much of an exception. What is your concern? Two good historical examples clearly show that it was both possible and effective when the circumstances demanded. |
xpalpatinex | 03 Mar 2014 6:27 p.m. PST |
So I was looking at a successful charge uphill, against dug-in and fortified troops, as being a rare occurrence during the war. Something sort of unique or special. I'm not really talking about normal battlefield undulations or slight rises. I know the natural contours don't match our flat table tops for most supposed flat battlefields. The battles in question however had discernible and defensible hills (at least as far as I've seen). I know of two occasions right now. Judging the size of the battles, there are at least 20 more of the size of engagement of Stratton or larger in the ECW. This leaves us with less than 10% of battles having this type of successful charge uphill. I'm just canvassing TMP's superior knowledge on the battles trying to find other examples so i know whether this was really a 10% phenomenon (something rare) or something that happened every other battle and is nothing unique. Thanks |
Mac1638 | 04 Mar 2014 3:31 a.m. PST |
140 years earlier the Pike of the Scots came unstuck attacking up hill at Flodden. |
Patrick R | 04 Mar 2014 4:16 a.m. PST |
Being uphill gives you better overview, even mild slopes tire the enemy, makes it a little harder to attack in a coordinated fashion, makes you harder to hit with ranged weapons etc. |
Kadavar | 04 Mar 2014 6:07 a.m. PST |
I've not tried Pike, but I've attacked uphill with spears in Dark Age re-enactment. A lot of the issue is keeeping formed as you get more slippage and bodies coming back down rather falling to the floor. Most 'level' battle fields have their share of rabbit holes, boulders etc but these get more difficult when on a slope. If you get gaps in shield walls or pike blocks they are open to exploitation. Also steeper hillsides can crumble under armoured weight rather than compress. I went up a challenging slope (about 45deg) with a few other Huscarls and we made slow progress as the slope was falling away under our foot steps. |
MajorB | 04 Mar 2014 8:33 a.m. PST |
there are at least 20 more of the size of engagement of Stratton or larger in the ECW. Are you sure of that? I reckoned there to be only about 15 major battles of the war of which Lansdown and Stratton are two. so i know whether this was really a 10% phenomenon (something rare) I wouldn't consider a 10% probability that rare. |
Ron W DuBray | 04 Mar 2014 9:41 a.m. PST |
they must have had the numbers to make the attack work. or they used their numbers to attack on a small front/point of attack and took any advantage away from the defenders. also think of this: your behind a dirt wall with a line of troops armed with a mix of weapons from swords to poll axes the longest being 9' long and a block of pikes moves up to your wall with 20' long weapons and slowly start killing your troops and you can't even reach them to fight back. except to shoot some bolts at them and throw some rocks and spears. Pikes attacking a fixed low defensive point is like shooting fish in a barrel. Also having the high ground or a wall with pikes means only your front rank can angle their weapons down at the opponents |
Ilodic | 04 Mar 2014 12:04 p.m. PST |
Isn't an uphill fight by definition difficult? ilodic. |
Stickler Mitchell | 04 Mar 2014 2:14 p.m. PST |
Isn't an uphill fight by definition difficult? Not when you have a just cause and God on your side! |
MajorB | 04 Mar 2014 4:02 p.m. PST |
Isn't an uphill fight by definition difficult? Depends how steep the hill is. |
Baccus 6mm | 04 Mar 2014 4:26 p.m. PST |
It may pay not to get too carried away by romantic tales of dougty cornishmen and heroic if needless demises of Wst Country gentry. It may just be possible that the pike attack took all the human interest while ignoring the fact that the massed Royalist shot on the left threatened the Roundhead flank ultimately causing a retreat from the field. It may also be possible that the Royalist centre, far from storming the hill were actually halted and facing a torrid time at the hands of the opposing horse. Once halted they would also have made a wonderful target for Wallers musketeers. I'd suggest that they were actually posted too far back from the ridge and masked by their own horse to really make this tell. Perhaps the pike did their job and diverted the attention of the Parliamentary forces to their front and in doing so grabbed all the headlines. Perhaps the above is all rubbish, but massing an army's pike for all out assaults was not the norm and it stands out as being so because of that. |
olicana | 11 Mar 2014 3:45 a.m. PST |
Depends how steep the hill is. I think that, given that our flat war games terrain represents gently undulating ground (in most cases), a wargame hill should generally represent something more than this. IMHO, and from battlefield visits, most war game tables 'count' too many hills. A classic example is Kolin. Most gamers put a couple of big hills on the Austrian side of the table, and the Prussians have to battle up them, counting 'up hill' factors at the 'war game slopes'. But this should not happen, it should count as a superior position when firing artillery at long range, and perhaps for morale, but will not effect fighting ability in melee or with musketry. The slope from the ridge to the Kaiser Strasse is one very long shallow slope -
What might give the Prussians more of a problem are generally not represented on this table-top battlefield
.
..the significant earthworks, dug during the TYW, at the top of the slope. |
Oh Bugger | 11 Mar 2014 5:05 p.m. PST |
"140 years earlier the Pike of the Scots came unstuck attacking up hill at Flodden." No, they came down a hill and had to cross a minor stream that disrupted the impetus of their charge. |
Elenderil | 20 Mar 2014 12:09 a.m. PST |
It's worth noting that the hill at Lansdown is a steep one which probably made the attack more memorable. IIRC wasn't the fight described as "if pun the Eaves of a house" in other words the slope was as steep as the slope on a house roof. I have walked up that hill in musketeers kit when I was a younger, fitter man and I found it hard work. They were tougher men then us because of their lifestyles but it was still an impressive feat. |