"Block of soldiers vs skirmishers" Topic

What advantages and disadvanteges would a block formation and a skirmishing formation have charging each other. Lets say both sides are knights armed with swords and shield vs a skirmishing unit of the same value. I know obviously the skirmishing unit has better mobility but iam more interested in an all out assault on each other.

Would knights armed with swords and shields have ever fought in a skirmishing formation? And are you talking about mounted or on foot?

During the period when Knights had swords and shields and fought on foot most skirmishers would have missile weapons only so they would evade and charge by the Knights (i.e. run away faster).

I can't see the result being any different for mounted or dismounted.

If the scenario is just Fantasy then make up the result – isn't that what fantasy means.

The skirmishing unit is going to be run over or dispersed. Without being ranked up they simply don't have the raw mass to deal with the momentum of a formed body. Equipment and such isn't really relevant in this case.

-Will

Kinda like a running back with no blockers…

Military doctrine, and most rule sets, do not allow for skirmishers to charge. That is because the point of skirmishing is to harass and avoid engagement hence the loose formation. Even if the scenario is fantasy, assuming both are humanoid combatants of roughly equal sizes, orcs vs humans say, the laws of physics would still apply and the skirmish formation would die or be brushed aside easily!

Maybe the question should be troops in tight formation vs loose formation?
Like a pikeblock running into a mass warband (or vice versa)?

That's kinda what I ment to say saltflats1929, sorry poor choice of words.

Fundamentally, the tighter/close formation troops have more men on a given frontage, and they are going to have folks close behind them (unless charging in a single line) that can reach over their shoulders and/or provide them with extra protection. Hypothetically, a loose or open order body might have a man every 4 to 6 feet. Close order would be more like every 2-3 feet. So, 2 men to fight every one of the loose/open order folks.

The loose/open troops would be able to move more quickly, as they have room to make small adjustments and would be less concerned about being in formation/shiled to shield, etc.

On the other hand, if the ground is significantly uneven or covered with objects (rocks, mud, trees and bushes), the close order troops are not going to be able to keep formation, will be getting in one another's way, tripping over one another, etc. This is likely to distract them from fighting effectively, and reduce their abilities to the extent that troops in looser formations might well be able to beat them in such terrain. Needless to say, most close order troops fighting styles depend greatly on having those extra fellows close to them – think about the Norse "shield wall" that is often stated to have made its members more vulnerable if it were broken.

Generally, in some mock medieval combat when I was much younger, these lessons held true…

Close order vs. Open (but not skirmish) order is a different question. However, often troops would 'tighten' up their formation when entering combat; so troops might maneuver in a more open formation and then fight in close order. This is likely true for most shield+spear/sword/whatever or pike equipped troops from the ancient world up to the Renaissance (and during the Renaissance for pike-armed troops). It's true as Ashurman points out that some formations are just generally 'tighter' than others and then you get into questions of frontage per man, etc. But it would really be unusual I think for a unit to enter melee in a truly 'open' formation; it would be close formation for hand-to-hand combat, and how 'close' is 'close' depends on the fighting style, terrain, etc.

-Will

If nothing else is different , then the block formation will win every time. They will be cohesive (i.e. they will see all of their comrades doing exactly the same thing) and their leaders will have a greater effect over many more of them (being much closer).

Basically, the troops in the block will perceive every combat against the open order knights as a 100:1 fight, and the knights fighting as individuals as a 1 against 100. So pretty much all the open order knights would run away if they could.

Close order has morale advantages.
Each soldier's "open" unshielded side is covered by the man next to him.
A soldier can block a blow he sees headed for the man next to him and threaten or even hit an opponent of the man next to him.
When someone is knocked down there's a fair chance someone can cover him or maybe he just gets pushed back upright.
It's kind of huge.

More open order units like Romans had nearly these advantages with the plus each man has a bit more wiggle room.
They had some process which swopped men out the fighting line for fresh men from behind and fighting progressed and they got tired.
Nobody knows exactly how it worked because anyone mentioning it in writing at the time just assumed everyone knew.

Truly open order units could move far quicker through close terrain and because they expect to fight as individuals anyhow had no problem fighting round trees and rocks.
They are at a big disadvantage against cavalry because the horses will charge home whilst they will not vs close order infantry. They see close order infantry as a brick wall effectively.

Basically.

Open order are good in close terrain and bad in open terrain.
Close order are great in open terrain and bad in close terrain.

Ancient skirmishing is a sort of speciality. As others have pointed out they are really a sort of close range missile unit which dances about chucking darts or slinging stones or whatever at other units whilst hoping they can keep well out of range because they are terrible in close combat. Unless maybe in very close terrain or whatever so the unit "fighting" them can't do it's thing.
Modern skirmishing is different because you have rifles and whatnot.