"Catching Routing Infantry" Topic

I understand that the majority of casualties (specifically, deaths) in war, from the ancient period to the gunpowder age, were caused when one faction's main body of infantry broke and fled. Was this only true, however, when the opponent had cavalry to catch the routing infantry? Or were enemy infantry also able to pursue and inflict significant damage on opponents fleeing from melee?

A yeoman can catch another yeoman, and anybody more heavily armed. Infantry catch routing infantry all the time in all periods and all places on the globe. The Maoris made an art out of it, by their swiftest runners catching and stunning/disabling the fleeing enemy and continuing on, to let the following warriors finish off those who had been knocked down. Extremely high fatalities occurred as a result. I don't see medieval battles that way. The object was plunder and ransom first. Sometimes outright murder was the prime objective, as during the WotR in some battles, but not commonly….

If the infantry ran when the enemy was close then they would lose heavily. At Maida in 1806 the French Legere broke and ran when very close to the British converged Light Infantry. They lost hundreds.

Routs usually start from the rear. Those pressing forward don't know that their friends have gone. The enemy can see this and is elated. At Maida the brigadier leading the French was captured as he was leading an attack that had pretty much disappeared. Some others actually crossed bayonets with the British before discovering they were pretty much alone.

British Light Infantry, having just been trading fire with the enemy at close range saw the enemy turn and run. Many of the light bobs sprang forward and bayonetted the slow. A visitor to the hospital after noted the British were all wounded in front and the French were mostly wounded in the back.

So if you run from enemy infantry, run early, before the range is close. Nothing inspires the killer instinct like seeing the backs of people who just recently scared you silly.

On the battlefield, infantry catching infantry would be fairly easy due to the confusion and press of enemy troops running through each other. Not only this, but think how fatigued that front line would be after a short time fighting. Compare this to the fresh guys from a few ranks back now charging at them.
Immediately after the battle its the cavalry's job. For a few days after the battle organised bodies of victors on foot would still be catching isolated bands of fugitives. This would all factor into the casualties of the battle itself.
Those shiny, heavily armoured front line troops are definitely easy meat.

Terrain like hedges or dikes could further cause troubles for a panicking mass of infantry trying to cross it quickly, before the pursuers catch up with them.

Same with bottlenecks like bridges.

And trying to cross a river in panic could lead to a number of men drowning, especially if they did not know how to swim or wore heavy armour.

General Archer was captured at Gettysburg when he could not get over a stout fence before a large Yankee sergeant got hold of him. A number of his men had similar trouble with the fence.

I considered a rule for AWI where infantry defending behind a fence would take less damage when they ran because the enemy had to scale the fence. Likewise they would take more if they had to scale a fence (or any other delay) while running away.
Seemed more finicky than I usually like.

Towton…

According to Xenophon the Greeks needed cavalry to catch fleeing Persians, though this is possibly due to the supporting Peltasts being low enough in number that they could only safely take a few of the routing enemy.

Would they want to pursue though ? They have charged the enemy and fought them and broken them. They have won the battle. Would the average footsoldier then want to chase down the enemy and kill them ? Maybe they would prefer to rest, tend wounds, loot the enemy camp, etc.

At least on some occasions.

I recall reading about a major event in the WotR, but some were confined by a river, or stream, adding to the slaughter.

A big factor is that routers are going to throw. away their shields, spears etc I n order o get away. They are thus likely o be in a poor position to defend themselves if caught. Groups retreating in good order get left alone as, when your side has won you are not going to take undue risks against desperate men.

I guess its logical that some of the victor's fastest runners will be able to catch some of the loser's slowest, especially those losers hampered by wounds.

David F Brown

I think a lot depended on circumstance. Given that this is on the 18th century board, a fair observation would be that many 18th century infantry units were not trained/encouraged/inclined to be spontaneous – and were often trained to fight in ordered bodies. While some unfortunates would be caught/killed if a unit disintegrated and took to its heels, I suspect most of the routers would get away – whether they ever rally is another thing

I suspect this would be when you'd want cavalry, especially if the other side doesn't have any, to be able to pursue and run down, at will.

There is a well-known fact in unarmed combat training – you can't outrun a man charging at you with a knife from any distance up to about 20 feet. The act of turning to run from a man who is five feet from you is thus certain suicide. Try it some time. Get a friend to stand facing you, 20 feet away. Now try and turn and outrun him as he lunges at you. You get nailed every time.

Depressing really, because it's the one thing I bet they never told you when you joined the poor bloody infantry in an ancient army!

Depressing really, because it's the one thing I bet they never told you when you joined the poor bloody infantry in an ancient army!

I seriously doubt that. It was probabaly a well-known fact in ancent armies too--maybe even more so considering that most combat was close combat… Ever wonder why they stood so long even when death was imminent from the front anyway? That, and the tendency to run long before the enemy was within 20 feet. [The French facing the Fusilier brigade at Albuera comes to mind…]

From what I'm reading of the Linear Warfare era, troops were only to pursue under certain conditions, to prevent being caught in a feint, and to prevent the breaking of formations. Even if infantry were to give way before a battalion, a single unit would not break the continuity of the main line, because that would subject nearby friendlies to flanking attacks which could roll up the line and cause a counter-rout. Pursuit is for hussars.

Also, the routed troops could have much to fear from the local populace as well, if they have treated them poorly in the Little War, by ravaging their crops or their daughters. IIRC, the fleeing French were massacred by the Bavarian peasants after Blenheim.

Given that this is on the 18th century board, a fair observation would be that many 18th century infantry units were not trained/encouraged/inclined to be spontaneous – and were often trained to fight in ordered bodies.

On the other hand, in many of the more irregular (tribal) armies of earlier times it might even be difficult for the chieftains to restrain at least some of their men from pursuing. Though for how long such spontaneous pursuit would last until the said warriors would decide to start plundering instead might be a different issue.

I would also think that it depends on a units stated goal or mission. If it is "defend this hill" or "drive those guys from the woods" isn't that what the troops do when victorious. Now if it is a matter of "we've to kill these rebels/loyalist/infidels/smelly Frenchmen" and one side turns tail and runs then I think the troops would pursue with vigor.

There was the actual battle quoted in the film "The Man who would be King". I forget the name of the battle. But a Highland unit was shot up by Pathans and broke. A Highland sergeant turned back to get his sporran which had been shot off (along with a certain body part). Others rallied and followed him. This impromptu counter-attack caught the tribesmen looting the fallen and broke them in turn. I believe the sergeant won a Victoria Cross for this.