Aubrey | 06 Jun 2015 8:44 a.m. PST |
I've been listening to the soundtrack to Braveheart whilst doing some work. One thing struck me that I'd never really thought about before. Its the scene during the Battle of Stirling (Bridge) where the English Knights charging straight into the Scottish Infantry with Mel going "Hold, Hold, Hold". I'd always thought that horses would be unwilling to charge into formed bodies of men and instead a charge relied on the infantry being disordered or breaking before contact or being caught in the flank. So is this scene possible or is it another piece of dramatic licence in the film? If it did happen can anyone name any examples where a successful charge of this nature (i.e. frontal into formed infantry that stand their ground) took place ? And finally if Knight's warhorses were willing to do this why weren't Napoleonic mounts not willing to charge into Squares ? Sorry for the long question but its really bugging me and I'm sure someone will know the answer. |
Silent Pool | 06 Jun 2015 8:52 a.m. PST |
I have read that during the English Civil War cavalry mounts would not attack the sharpe end of an infantryman's pike when levelled against a cavalry attack. Something like musketeers or cannon were used to blast holes or disorganise the pikemen in 'hedgehog' formation to allow cavalry an opportunity to exploit. Think that was the same at Waterloo. Hollywood perhaps? |
Ron W DuBray | 06 Jun 2015 9:17 a.m. PST |
Have you ever seen trained crowd control horses work. They plow right in then kick and fight and if they face a wall of points they try to jump over and plow in. but they can make their own hole in any kind of line. Its just that lines of pikes make for higher losses. |
tberry7403 | 06 Jun 2015 9:20 a.m. PST |
I believe that Mel was waiting until the knights were so close that when his men raised the "pikes" the horses would not be able to stop in time. But then again the whole movie was pure Hollywood. |
StCrispin | 06 Jun 2015 9:25 a.m. PST |
im not usually the guy to rant about Hollywood and its historical ignorance, but I will say that Braveheart is probably the least accurate film I've ever seen. I wouldn't think too hard about anything that happens in that film! but im pretty sure that medieval warhorses were trained to plow in there so that the lances could do their work. one thing to remember is that medieval charges were made at a trot at best, not an all out gallop like in movies. long spears and pike would probably make the horses stop though. I remember reading that the horses at Agincourt stopped short of the archer's wooden stakes, which threw a lot of riders to the ground, only to be killed by daggers. How un-chivalrous! |
kallman | 06 Jun 2015 9:35 a.m. PST |
While the film Braveheart clearly gives some on this forum apoplexy, it is a good movie, but of course takes many liberties with actual history. As the OFM has oft time opined, and I paraphrase, "… war gamers should not ever be film critics or film makers." In regards the question at Bar, most historical evidence suggests that determined infantry with a hedge of spears and other pointy things would cause the horses to shy away on the charge. I am sure there were some who could force their mounts to go on but with predictable results for the rider and the poor horse. The Battle of Hastings is an excellent example; as the Saxon line held firm during several charges of the Norman Milities (Knights). The Norman mounted forces were forced to switch from a couched thrust of their spears (calling them lances at this point in history is a stretch) and going to an over arm and less effective stabbing attack. Many of the mounted Normans and Britons even began to throw their spears overarm in order to score some kind of damage on the Saxon ranks. It was not until a feigned charge against the Saxon right flank that cause the Saxons to break ranks and attempt to follow what they thought were beaten mounted Normans that things fell apart for the Saxons. The Normans then wheeled about and the slaughter and the seminal change in the history of the British Isles began. At Bannockburn, determined Scottish Schiltrons (pike formation) positioned on high ground held firm against the English's mounted charge. Again, as at Hastings, the horses refused to come to contact and the English battle lines floundered. At push of the pike with the energy of the mounted charge dissipated, the Scott's made short work of Edward II's chivalry. The high ground also provided impetus to the Schiltron's counter attack and soon all was disaster for the flower of England. The Medieval weapon system of a well trained, heavily armored man at arms, with a lance or couched spear, and other implements of martial combat was the premiere fighting arm of the Middle Ages. Part of the tactic of the heavy armored mounted charge was the fear induced by the thunder of the pounding hooves and all these often "faceless" armored foes bearing down on you. It took discipline and firm resolve on the part of any infantry to face such an impending onslaught. As you can imagine ill trained and equipped serfs or conscripted vassals were fair game for such an attack and even better trained and equipped infantry sometimes lost their nerve. It is at this point that the heavy armored cavalry charge becomes brutally potent and tends to lend credence to knights charging home against formed ranks. No, those ranks would have begun to waiver and lose their coherence that otherwise would have stopped the mounted charge. Once the knights were among the ranks and laying about most infantry would be looking for better accommodations. Part of the study or Medieval military history is the many attempts made to counter the effectiveness of the heavy armored mounted man at arms. The Swiss brought this counter effect to high form with their combined arms of well drilled and disciplined pikemen blocks supported by halberdiers and handgunners, and latter a well developed artillery train. The Hussites developed their Wagon Burgs which many can see as the forunner of tank warfare. These wagon trains bristling with cannon, handgunners, pikes and halberds and two handed flails made many a mounted German knight rethink his priorities. |
sillypoint | 06 Jun 2015 10:25 a.m. PST |
A complicated question, that spans a long period of time, different armies, locations and assumptions. Apologies in advance for some Hollywood historical turn of phrases… Narrowing to Scotland c. 1290, who were the formed foot proir to this time? Feudal levies, town militias, Garrison troops in the pay of the Lord? Were these the formed troops, to stand against the mounted charge of the armoured Knights with lance? Where were the shield wall of Harold's Saxon Army? What was the effect of the Norman's conquest of England and how did they supplant the ruling aristocracy and clergy? Let's assume that the proffessonal army with paid militias/yeomen was the English army, and here's the Hollywood history, Wallace wth his classical education from the continent taught his Scottish patriots the use of pikes, and wth the use of ropes, the ability to stay in formation. So movie logic dictates he must now encourage them to stand firm, now they are formed troops with pikes. This saving throw does not apply to archers etc. unless they have pits, stakes, broken ground, mash and may be supported by dismounted Knights. In passing, Napoleonic squares: so Napoleonic lines do not count as formed troops? When did cavalry stop training to charge with lance, sword or Sabres? Why didn't they stop after Agincourt? 😜 |
Aubrey | 06 Jun 2015 11:08 a.m. PST |
Thanks for your replies. Lots of really good food for thought. Just to be clear on the Braveheart thing. I am aware of its multitude of sins (but enjoy it as a film). I was just intrigued by that one small segment. |
tberry7403 | 06 Jun 2015 11:14 a.m. PST |
I think the "sanest" thing for historians/wargamers to do look on all of Hollywood's "war" movies as Historical Fiction and leave it at that. Of course the same thing could be said for much of what comes from The History(sic) Channel. |
DS6151 | 06 Jun 2015 11:56 a.m. PST |
Or most of what is written, and held up as "true". Especially by wargamers. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 06 Jun 2015 12:53 p.m. PST |
FWIW I'm a fairly competent rider and experienced with horses. I say no. Firstly although in a modern context police horses can be trained to barge into crowds the crowds are not armed with long iron tipped sticks, are not disciplined enough to stand fast so that a horse is not risking almost certain death by getting into close quarters. Furthermore police horses do not charge in full gallop in a situation like that – it would be an injury lawyers' funfest if they did. No animal is going to deliberately kill itself which is what a horse charging into a wall of spears is going to achieve. Even if it were possible to do this, and horses are incredibly contrary beasts, why would you want to? If you are the knight atop the horse in question you have just been catapulted twenty feet to land on your heavy, armoured backside in the middle of a big group of armed men who want to kill you. Your extremely expensive, hard to train warhorse is dead and is now a huge fat obstacle for your fellow knights to negotiate and their enemies to hide behind. The big advantage that heavy armoured cavalry has is speed and mass. If your horse has just impaled itself you've lost both. As someone else says above the threat of this attack, the noise, vibrating ground, scary ironclad look, of a charge might well have been expected to un-nerve undrilled medieval militia so that they broke. Or troops already disordered through missiles or other combat would make a prime target. Otherwise mounted knights would have broken off IMO. Mass charge of knights into a wall of steady spears or pikes? No way. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 06 Jun 2015 1:27 p.m. PST |
Depends on circumstances. I've seen a horse panic and run headlong into a solid fence. Also, how much visibility did horses have – for example, were their eyes partially covered to protect them, thus reducing vision? Training – train a horse to run at people and make sure those people dodge at the last minute – in war, the horse would be conditioned to think that would happen until it was too late. Also, to flinch you have to have somewhere to go – at speed, turning may be difficult if you have other horses penning you in on either side. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 06 Jun 2015 1:42 p.m. PST |
I've seen horses do plenty of stupid things, granted, but running a horse at a wall of pikes is just going to make the horse shy and cause a pile up. Horses eyes are on the side of their head, blinkers are worn to limit their vision to the side, not the front. Again, why would you want your warhorse to die? It would be like deliberately crashing a Ferrari into a brick wall. And you, the knight, are now on foot (or more likely your butt) surrounded by your enemies. I don't think most people understand how un-nerving facing a horse charge would be. The ground really does shake when a large group of horses thunders by. I once worked on a big historical film which featured a cavalry charge using about 60 horses. It is really scary to face even knowing there are safe lanes for the horses to race through. Double that number coming at you intent on doing you harm? I can well imagine foot troops getting disordered then. |
Parzival | 06 Jun 2015 5:05 p.m. PST |
Why do you think the French knights dismounted at Agincourt? Stakes don't lose cohesion, and horses don't charge stakes. |
janner | 06 Jun 2015 10:07 p.m. PST |
From my own experience with horses and reading of the primary sources, I don't see a medieval warhorse, i.e. a trained, but aggressive stallion, necessarily shying away from even formed spearmen. Then put him in a tightly formed mass of other stallions, ridden by a warrior elite with a cultural disregard for their foes, and you've a very different situation than mounted police officers seeking to restore public order. Moreover, that men-at-arms might charge schiltrons is backed up by accounts of the battle of Falkirk, for example. Medieval battles were rare, so it's not as if a man-at-arms were risking his expensive mount on a monthly basis, and there is evidance to support the use of horse armour at this time. |
goragrad | 06 Jun 2015 10:42 p.m. PST |
From fiction, there is an instance in 'With Fire and Sword' where a Polish knight deliberately sacrifices his horse by charging into a Cossack pike formation to break their ranks. Have no idea if this was based on any historical tactics, but it would make sense that having a 1000 pounds or so of horse crash into your ranks would be disruptive. And ultimately, whatever your regard for your mount, breaking a formation to enable your comrades to win a battle could be considered a good trade. As to the later middle Ages and Renaissance there was also a lot of horse armor being used. One would presume that this would provide a better chance of success when charging home on formed bodies of infantry. |
Olivero | 07 Jun 2015 2:15 a.m. PST |
Ahem, I have seen/read about that discussion, well, about a hundred times. It (almost) always comes down to "a horse will not" vs "you can train a horse". But what about the secondary aspects here? If horses will never charge a solid line of spear/pike, why would thoses weapons have a pointy end on the other side and be planted well into the ground at least by the first line of soldiers? Didn't they know horse would never charge them? And why would cavalry charge several times? If the enemy line didn't waver and/or run the first time, it would be even less likely to do so the second time. By the third charge that didn't make contact I expect to see the infantry sitting down for a smoke and yawn while those lunatics would try to show off once more (maybe that's how they did it ) What I emagine is something in between. Some horses would stop, some would shy (and throw their rider off sometimes), some would try to jump, some would try to find a gap, some would and some wouldn't, and sometimes the line would break, and sometimes it wouldn't, and the cavalry might try again. Of course there would be examples where the infantry ran away on first sight, and there would have been commanders who realized the probabilities of smashing a block of pike isn't really worth it, but there must have been at least the chance/danger of a cavalry charge taking effect in order to explain the measures taken against it, I recon. |
kallman | 07 Jun 2015 11:44 a.m. PST |
Olivero makes some good points, in battle it is often easy to engage in the definition of insantity,i.e., doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. As I stated above, it comes down to does the infantry stand its ground resulting in knight and equine shish kebab, or does the infantry at the moment before impact become disordered lose its nerve, so that the cavalry charge plows through. To translate this to war game rules this can be abstracted in a way that is playable yet plausible. I know of rules that require some type of morale check by infantry charged by armored cavalry, and/or gives rank bonus to spear and pike armed forces facing said cavalry attack. One could also use some type of opposing dice roll vs the potential devastating attack of armored cavalry depending on the tenacity of the charged infantry unit. |
Great War Ace | 07 Jun 2015 5:19 p.m. PST |
Our approach is like that: some infantry are immune from checking to "receive" charging cavalry (if they are planted, of course). Most infantry do have to check to receive, failure meaning a rout. If they stand, and have "stickers" (length is not important), the cavalry must check to keep their charge. Failure means the cavalry pull up short without any impact bonuses. In the subsequent melee, the length of "stickers" probably affects the infantry combat value, extra ranks, possibly differing drill with essentially the same weapon will confer greater effectiveness vs cavalry. Ex: Swiss were arguably the earliest, best "phalanx" and could even use their phalanx to charge with against just about anybody, with the exception being seriously arrayed heavy cavalry intent on charging the Swiss instead, then the Swiss would stop and ground pikes/polearms and wait until the cavalry stalled in front of them. One final effect is cavalry deciding to launch an attack on a phalanx in the first place. Swiss, again, require the cavalry to make a morale test, and failure means the cavalry refuse to attack at a charge. They can be persuaded to engage with less commitment than a charge, but anytime cavalry melee a phalanx and don't win at least half of their melee combats down the line, they have to make a morale check each turn this occurs, failure either compelling the cavalry to "withdraw from combat", or, rout if they don't have the drill to do a withdraw move…. |
Aubrey | 08 Jun 2015 2:41 a.m. PST |
Thank you again for some very informative responses. Sorry Olivero that it's a common question I wasn't aware. I did have a Eureka moment though in terms of answering whether there were any examples where a successful charge of this nature (i.e. frontal into formed infantry that stand their ground) took place . I made the mistake really of thinking about the Medieval period (which I know little about)hence the reason for the post. The 21st Lancers did this at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. The example is informative because it shows how dangerous and risky it is. Sorry for the resulting long post but I wanted to show that the charge replicates many of the comments made above. Ziegler compares the charge with that of the Light Brigade saying "they rival each other, not only in their intrinsic lunacy but also in the redeeming heroism of the protagonists". The background is that the 21st had no battle honours or seen major action and were being openly mocked within the army. It was said they arrived in the Sudan 'spoiling for a fight'. However, the more experienced Egyptian Cavalry were given preference in the campaign and at Omdurman itself. With the battle as good as over, the 21st were sent to scout ahead and came across 300 or so Dervish. The lancers began to ride to the flank to recce the position when the Dervish opened fire. The 21st then charged straight at them and it was only when they were 100 yds out did they realise behind them were 2000 or so more warriors concealed in a deep fold in the ground. These are described as a dense mass 12 ranks deep. Winston Churchill who participated in the charge wrote in his dispatch to the London Morning Post. "What followed probably astonished them as much as us. I do not myself believe that they ever expected the cavalry to come on. The Lancers acknowledged the unexpected sight only by an increase of pace. A desire to have the necessary momentum to drive through so solid a line animated each man. But the whole affair was a matter of seconds. At full gallop and in the closest order the squadron struck the Dervish mass. The riflemen who fired bravely to the last, were brushed head over heel in the Khor. And with them the Lancers jumped actually on to the spears of the enemy, whose heads were scarcely level with the horses knees". The Lancers that survived fought their way through the Dervish troops and reformed on the other side. Some went back in to rescue trapped colleagues and for this 3 VCs and a number of other medals were awarded. The reformed Lancers rode to the flank, dismounted and fired into the Dervishes which drove them away (which is what they should have done in the first place). Casualties to the Lancers are given by Ziegler as 21 dead, 65 more seriously wounded and well over a quarter of the horses dead or maimed. Kitchener was furious. Ziegler says "they should have avoided any serious action, above all one in which they lost more men in their own ranks than were killed among the enemies." So the answer seems to be that it is feasible but very unlikely. The idea of a frontal charge is to get the infantry to break before contact and if they don't pull up and think of something else. If the charge does go in its worth remembering "it practically ruined the Lancers". Thanks again. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 08 Jun 2015 2:45 a.m. PST |
Great War Ace's ideas sound like they would give a plausible game interpretation of the situation. Chipco's Days of Knights is a commercial game which has heavy cavalry compell foot troops to make a test to stand firm, but IIRC it doesn't make the cav break off if they do. Just as pertinent to the fate of the horse is the fate of the rider. If the front rank of knights have all sacrificed their mounts what situation does that put them in? Imagine you rode a motorcycle at 30mph into some obstacle that stopped it dead. You would find yourself thrown 20ft forward to land in a heap, stunned or injured. Now add a big bunch of guys surrounding you with sharp weapons who want to kill you, and more 30mph motorcycles coming along whose wheels are not going to care whether you are on one side or the other as they plow in. Your horse would be dead and most likely you would be dead too. I really can't see that as a realistic tactic. |
janner | 08 Jun 2015 3:59 a.m. PST |
An important point with the 21st's charge was that the bulk of the enemy infantry were in a depression. This arguably aided their retaining cohesion against cavalry, ie they were not caught in the open, but in a position which was disadvantageous to the horsemen and from which they had no incentive to leave. This highlights the crucial point, in my opinion, of how foot respond once the horse to break into their formation. If they break, then they are in trouble, but examples from the Napoleonic period show experienced infantrymen under cool leadership were able to deal with cavalry that broke into their square or caught them in the process of forming one, such as 42nd at Quartre Bras. |
Aubrey | 08 Jun 2015 5:26 a.m. PST |
Janner you are right Omdurman is a special case. Which I guess is kind of my point. Its interesting that it was a trap i.e. the Dervish were trying to goad the Lancers (using the riflemen as bait) into attacking a much larger group. Another book I have that covers the battle (Asher) says that between the reports of the scouting patrols who said there were several 100 Dervish in the open, 2000 Spearmen were deliberately moved into the depression behind them. The point is also made that the more experienced Broadwood (the Egyptian Cavalry Commander) would never have fallen for it. Did the depression help the Dervish? Of course. Would they have stood up to a charge if they had been in the open? The Riflemen used as 'bait' did they are described as being "brushed head over heel into the Knor. In the books I have on the Sudan all talk about how incredibly brave the Dervish were and disregarding of being killed. Finally, Frothers Did It – interestingly the accounts I've seen of Omdurman don't say the Charge was stopped dead with contact. Instead the contact is described as like a bomb exploding and countless Dervishers being knocked over. The charge kept moving forward slower and slower and as the Dervishers got themselves over the shock they started attacking. How much trouble you were in seemed to depend on how deep the line was and how densely packed. However, I guess once again its arguable that Omdurman is a special case. Anyway thanks again. Its been fascinating. |
Great War Ace | 08 Jun 2015 7:39 a.m. PST |
Omdurman: so less than 400 cavalry with lances can ride through over 2K spearmen and emerge out the back side with the loss of fewer than 25%. That would look pretty damned cool on the gaming table! Then they ride to a flank and shoot up the spearmen and run them off. Cooler still! I'd love running the cavalry. And I would consider that charging into formed infantry does work. "Special case" assertion. Shouldn't this term be defined? Isn't every "case" that we examine as evidence a "special case"? If it weren't, we could point to other cases that were the same. We can't. Hastings, The Standard, Crecy, all HYW and WotR battles, in fact, ALL medieval battles, or any battle of any period, including especially the particular engagements that make up the over all battle, are "special case" situations. That is why the rules ought to provide for randomized outcomes based on possible or conditional factors. Infantry might run away, or they might not have to even check in the first place; and then the cavalry might not attack at a charge, being wary; and then if they do attack without a charge bonus effect they might still win the melee through dint of hard hand strokes, but they might likely lose instead. If they charge, will they continue into the formation and win or will the formation defeat them instead? Only the dice (and the Shadow) know for sure and it is for we the gamers to discover how this "special case" is going to turn out…. |
Aubrey | 08 Jun 2015 7:57 a.m. PST |
Great War Ace – I use the word "special case" in the sense that the Lancers didn't know until the last moment that they were there. Would they have done it if they knew they were there. Who knows? Maybe so, especially considering as I've pointed out that they were absolutely 'spoiling for a fight' and were being mocked by the rest of the army. The charge didn't break the infantry. It was the shooting them up in the flank that persuaded them to leave. And they didn't break then they just left. Some might say after job done. The 25% casualty rate (and this was killed and seriously wounded) meant that the Lancers were incapable of further action. So in terms of whether it worked. Yes they went through a large number of them but they wrecked themselves in the process and had to resort to firearms to see them off. It would be nice to game it. I wonder if anyone has and how they got on. I think you are spot on with your last paragraph. That's what makes the hobby so fascinating. |
Mako11 | 08 Jun 2015 7:59 a.m. PST |
"Your horse would be dead and most likely you would be dead too. I really can't see that as a realistic tactic". How is this any different than the fate of foot troops in the front lines, in battle? Seems to me mounted cav would be much better off than guys on foot, since they have heavy, well-trained mounts to rely upon to cause panic in the enemy's ranks, and/or to run them down if/when they don't. Plus, they have the option of engaging/disengaging at will. |
Lewisgunner | 09 Jun 2015 10:19 a.m. PST |
An interpretation of the Flemings shown on the Courtrai chest. A line of levelled long spears is shown, backed by men wielding the two handed club like 'goedendags' and others carrying falchions and bucklers. It looks very much as though the formation is designed to stop the charging knights with the spears and , if individuals get through the spear hedge, or are stopped in front of it, to knock them off their steeds and despatch them with the sword and buckler. Again my interpretation, but the Hastings formation will fit well with a front of shielded spearmen backed by javelinmen with axemen ready to step through the front line to attack stalled knights . An American academic , Kelly de Vries who claims a fourteenth century revolution in the effectiveness of infantry emphasises that in the battles where infantry stand up to knights they form behind a terrain feature that slows the charge. That might just be prudence, but it might also indicate that the infantry were not confident of resisting a charge unless on a hill, Hastings, or behind a brook , Courtrai. |
Great War Ace | 09 Jun 2015 11:20 a.m. PST |
There had to be a real difference visually between knights massed at the charge approaching, and knights negotiating difficult terrain to get to weapon range. So yes, "not confident" would be typical of just about all medieval infantry when facing massed heavy cavalry. That is why Anglo-Norman infantry included, nearly always, dismounted knights in the front rank(s). Their presence "stiffened" the resolve of the infantry behind and they wouldn't break. Massive weapons in their uniformity accomplished this too, when accompanied by good drill of course (Swiss). Mounted French knights as wings rode around the Flemish flanks and got into their rear at Roosebeke. And I read somewhere a detail about the Flemish formation that they had roped themselves together so that they could attack without losing the close order of their formation. In any case, the pressure placed upon them by the twin flank-rear attacks caused massive death through that compression rather than the "point of lance" so much. The same tactic of pinning with dismounted MAA in the center, and attempting to sweep the flanks with strong mounted wings continued for a while (e.g. Agincourt, where it miscarried due to terrain not being cooperative)…. |
Aubrey | 10 Jun 2015 5:33 a.m. PST |
All informative and fascinating comments so thank you. I was particularly struck by Lewisgunner's comment An American academic , Kelly de Vries who claims a fourteenth century revolution in the effectiveness of infantry emphasises that in the battles where infantry stand up to knights they form behind a terrain feature that slows the charge. Coming back to my (way out of period) example of Omdurman, as I'm sure I've already said the Lancers hit the Dervish at full speed. The couple of books I have emphasise that this was to give them the momentum to take them through the formation. Now my school boy physics tells me that Momentum = Mass * Velocity. Asher the author of one of the books I have seems to have made this connection saying "the men increased their pace to gain the momentum to carry them through. ….. Seconds later, 440 British horsemen slammed into the Dervish line at twenty miles an hour, with a mass of two hundred tons". Of course some of the other questions are whether the infantry stands, whether the cavalry are actually dissuaded from charging in the first place or impeded on the way in (I'm thinking of casualties / stakes etc). For which I think there has already been a great deal of knowledgeable comments from you. |
janner | 14 Jun 2015 10:09 p.m. PST |
It was Clifford Rogers who first dragged the concept of military revolutions back the fourteenth century, but, unfortunately, the infantry revolution hypothesis performs poorly in the light. Consider, for example, the high degree of cohesion required of the crusader foot en route to Jaffa in 1191 and then the numerous examples of foot being ridden down by heavy horse after the alleged infantry revolution. The imposition of military revolutions on the past is more a product of the current, and equally problematic, concept of a Revolution in Military Affairs, than anything else. |
uglyfatbloke | 25 Jun 2015 4:44 a.m. PST |
Kallman…the Scots did n't have to stand and wait for an English attack at Bannockburn, they marched down to the open plain and advanced to contact. Janner…English cavalry at Falkirk failed to charge home initially, but were able to make progress once the archers had disrupted the schiltroms – and yes. Cliff Rogers' hypothesis is somewhat weak. |
Lewisgunner | 25 Jun 2015 6:31 a.m. PST |
I do think that there is a military revolution in he XVII century ,Its around the use of battalions and the printing of drill books Suddenly European armies can manoeuvre and deliver firepower in a way that makes them hugely effective on the battlefield. lets say its relatively sudden. In 1600 the Turk is still formidable, in 1660 he is beatable unless the aeropeans make a silly mistake. The establishment of thos organisational and tactical advantage puts Western armies not one, but two steps ahead of Eastern armies and they maintain that advantage until the end of the nineteenth century. The claimed revolution in the fourteent century does not give its supposed beneficiaries such a huge advantage as to be called revolution. It might be truer to say that as knightly forces push out into the periphery of Europe the inhabitants of those areas, the Scots ,the Swiss , the townsmen of Flanders find ways of fighting successful defensive battles, but they really do not get topush outward and conquer territory unless we include the English in the list. |
uglyfatbloke | 25 Jun 2015 12:35 p.m. PST |
The Scots had had 'knightly' forces for at least 200 years before Wallace and Bruce and much the same would apply to Flanders. |
Lewisgunner | 26 Jun 2015 6:39 a.m. PST |
But both had. such a small propotion if knights as to render their force unlike the knight dominated armies . The Flemings of Courtrai are a different force fromnthe forces of the count of Flanders, because they are town frces. Indeed they compel their knights to dismount , in part to stop them running away(always a privilege if the cavalry) and to strengthen the solidity of the infantry mass. i'd also suggest that , compared to the large body of French cavalry, the mounted men in a Flemish force would ge grossly outnumbered. The Scots are similar in that they have too few knights to engage in a massed cavalry fight, whereas individual challenges were a different matter. One has to bear in mind that Meciaeval Scotland is a very poor country which must impact on the ability to provide mounted forces. |
uglyfatbloke | 26 Jun 2015 8:19 a.m. PST |
One has to bear in mind…. Medieval Scotland was not a poor country at all, that's why Edward I was so anxious to conquer her – beware of English nationalist history books, of which, admittedly, there are quite a few – Gardiner, Oman, Bryant and Jones come to mind. Naturally – having a much bigger kingdom and a very similar average wealth per person – English kings could recruit many more men-at-arms than their Scottish counterparts for occasional large campaigns, but not for the day-today business of a prolonged war, however Scottish kings could muster 1000+ men-at-arms when needed. One has to bear in mind…. that in the majority of armoured cavalry clashes between the Scots and the English, the English came second. The count of Namur had a similar experience near Edinburgh. The English were able to conquer territory that was not part of a unified national structure, namely Ireland and Wales, both of which were largely acquired through aristocratic private enterprise. 'One has to bear in mind'…. that the English nation/kingdom did lose all of her medieval wars in Scotland and France. |
Great War Ace | 26 Jun 2015 9:24 a.m. PST |
On the points recently raised, vis-à-vis "revolutionized" warfare in the middle ages, and the relative numbers of MAA being somehow a decisive factor: Oman was the first, I believe, to hypothesize that evolving infantry is what put an end to "chivalry" dominating the battlefield. Yet his own copious research showed the lie of such a broad assertion. From the earliest "middle ages" there were infantry traditions which checked cavalry tactics effectively. It was in fact the invention of gunpowder weapons on a massive scale which changed warfare, not "evolving" infantry tactics per se. One thing that never went away: the "sticker" on the end of a long "stick" to dissuade cavalry from charging home. Finally it was the bayonet. In all permutations of the "sticker" the infantry grounded their formation, even their weapons, and awaited the onslaught, which seldom materialized, which was the whole point of presenting "stickers". Without some form of the "sticker" the cavalry would have had less concern about charging in most cases. MAA were always a function of the economy. Lowlands Scotland had the same wealth to person ratio, and even social structure as medieval England. But a goodly portion of Scotland's population were never part of that. So as I understand it, Scottish MAA are from southern Scotland almost exclusively. Now is the moment to chime in with "nuhuh", and tell me how it really was. In any case, the population difference between the two countries is what determined the available MAA. In a given battle both countries could possibly see the same number of MAA, but it would represent a full effort on the part of Scotland, and only a fraction of England's total MAA pool. Iirc, Scotland had somewhere around half a million total people throughout the middle ages. England had two to three million. France's advantage over England in total MAA was based on a population probably in excess of seven million people…. |
uglyfatbloke | 26 Jun 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
Only a very tiny bit of nuhuh….All the more significant (and some not so much) northern lords served as MAA in the conventional sense, but they (and their tenants) had to provide 'ship service' as well as 'knight service' so galleys stuffed with MAA makes for interesting wargame possibilities. OTH there is some evidence to suggest that Scottish burgesses were more likely to serve as MAA than their English counterparts..largely for social reasons and the extensive militarisation of Scottish society after the 1290s. |
janner | 28 Jun 2015 1:00 p.m. PST |
I'd understood that some of the knights not only made into contact, but were killed for their trouble at Falkirk, ufb. As to Johnny Turk, LG, he was also beatable in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 'unless the Europeans make a silly mistake.' |
uglyfatbloke | 28 Jun 2015 4:34 p.m. PST |
They did indeed make contact, they just could n't penetrate until the archers had done their stuff, OTH their casualties were not very heavy, so I suspect there was something of a stand-off with the odd MAA falling to Scottish arrows until the English archers came up and did their business. |