"Medieval field tactics vs. ancients" Topic

How much difference was there between how medieval armies fought a field battle and those from ancient times? Was it all about holding and breaking the line, or were medieval fights less linear?

Depends entirely on what period you are referring to as "medieval".

VERY generally speaking, medieval battles were just as "linear" as ancient battles.

Tactically the major changes from Ancient warfare to Medieval would be introduction of the stirrup making the mounted knight a potent shock cavalry force. That and better archery and of course armor and the crossbow. Later you are dealing with early cannon and firearms. However, many battles still continued to be linear in fashion. As MajorB stated much depend on where in the time period you are considering.

You could make the argument that medieval battles tended to be tactically simpler than those of the ancient era (at least those of the ancient states with well developed military arts). As for stirrups, a well secured high cantled saddle is far more important to making shock cavalry effective.

Doug

Tactically the major changes from Ancient warfare to Medieval would be introduction of the stirrup making the mounted knight a potent shock cavalry force.

Edit – Doug's already nailed this one

As to the nature of medieval warfare, I favour continuity with late classical practice, especially if one keeps East Rome, i.e. Byzantium in mind.

Tactics from a broad perspective, are pretty much the same. You soften the enemy up with missile fire from light troops. Heavy troops then move straight ahead killing anything in their path. Even Roman tactics was basically this. They had the added advantage of their multi-line drill but ultimately, it was still a move in and kill affair.

According to a guy who teaches mounted combat these days, the stirrup primarily aided horse archers. It also allows me to get on and off horses without the loss of dignity.

In the early medieval period in western Europe (the Dark Ages) There was a reversion to barbarian infantry slugfests – holler, throw darts/javelins/whatever and charge. This accompanied the breakdown of the western Empire and the rise of barbarian kingdoms. In time this morphed into feudalism and the rise of the armored knight (a mounted thug rather than one on foot).

About the time of the rise of nation-states, fire power tended to increase (longbows, crossbows, cannon). Disciplined infantry came back in the west. Late medieval/early renaissance tactics were much like classical with gunpowder.

That's my overly simplified two cents.

In the West, one feature that differentiated medieval from ancient was the decline of standing armies. Apart from Byzantium in the early medieval period, armies comprising long serving troops (e.g. Roman legionaries serving for 10 years plus) disappeared. As feudalism came more to the fore, most men tended to be called up as and when required and only had to serve a limited number of days after which they could go home. There were still some 'professionals' such as a lord's personal bodyguard, plus there were mercenaries or routiers, but these were outnumbered by the arriere ban. Also, command and control at the higher levels was not so clear cut. Roman emperors could order several legions to march hither and yon more or less at the drop of a hat but a medieval monarch would have a much harder time raising an army.

As feudalism came more to the fore, most men tended to be called up as and when required and only had to serve a limited number of days after which they could go home.

Until you get to England in the mid to late 15th century when "Bastard Feudalism" led to the creation of professional forces once more.

Complicated innit?

And instead of so many legions (of possibly similar strength) it was a case of your brother in law and his 150 retainers, then your cousin and his 75 retainers, etc.

I prefer to think of the 15th century English forces as home-grown mercenaries rather than professional. They'd show up for more than 40 days but were trouble if you couldn't pay them.

In the early medieval period in western Europe (the Dark Ages) There was a reversion to barbarian infantry slugfests – holler, throw darts/javelins/whatever and charge. This accompanied the breakdown of the western Empire and the rise of barbarian kingdoms. In time this morphed into feudalism and the rise of the armored knight (a mounted thug rather than one on foot).

About the time of the rise of nation-states, fire power tended to increase (longbows, crossbows, cannon). Disciplined infantry came back in the west. Late medieval/early renaissance tactics were much like classical with gunpowder.

My view as well, and what I meant by tactics being simpler. You work with what you have, and even if the medieval soldier may have been in some regards a better WARRIOR than the ancient soldier of an organized army (Romans, Macedonians, Greeks, etc.), my impression is that the ancient solider was a better SOLDIER.

Doug

Generally it remained linear with variations based on the proportion of infantry, to cavalry, to missile troops.

There was less difference than otherwise, when it came down to the fighting. The way armies were raised and maintained varied a lot across the centuries that we refer to "the ancmed period". And the OP specifically asked about how ancient armies and medieval armies differed in fighting a field battle.

Other than a few exceptions, ancient armies were as ad hoc as medieval ones. So the command control wasn't there for either period. Regular troops were a rarity at any time. And never more so than during the medieval period.

But once an army was arrayed, either on the defensive or the offensive, the way the troops fought was not that different. Hand missiles did not change significantly. Bows (and later crossbows) were used the same way by nearly everyone. A few rare exceptions existed, e.g. the English system that produced a greater mass of archers than had been seen on foot before. Pikes were used the same way, with the more proficient drill allowing for "ancient" mobility, e.g. especially the Swiss and follow-up Landsknecht. Cavalry, which had always been auxiliary to infantry in ancient times (with the exception of various horsed nomad types), became dominant for an extended period during the medieval period, but never completely replaced infantry. And in many places infantry remained the dominant force, e.g. the Italian city states and their militias.

Tactics were usually as simple as could get the job done with as little risk as possible. That's why field battles remained a rarity. It would be even more rare to have more than one during a warrior's lifetime. Mostly warfare was skirmish, raid and siege.

This notion that "heavy" cavalry was somehow less effective in ancient times than in medieval times is less true than as asserted. Even before the advent of stirrups very heavily armored cavalry were using long lances to make massed charges. Throughout the ancmed "period" this mechanically worked against unsteady, irregular or disordered troops, and rarely did well against firmly arrayed infantry on the defensive, backed by missile troops.

I believe that a "general" in the ancient period would be quite in his element on a medieval battlefield and visa versa….

If the middle ages begin in the 4th or 5th century and last until the end of the 15th century, covering 1100 years of history, technological change, Asiatic invasion, Islamic explosion, a plethora of tactical innovation and brilliant leadership from a passel of nations, why are we attempting to provide a too simple question with general answers which cannot be complete or accurate. Sorry, don't mean to be a jerk, but come on . . .

According to a guy who teaches mounted combat these days, the stirrup primarily aided horse archers. It also allows me to get on and off horses without the loss of dignity.

As they are primarily to aid balance, they are also very useful in melee.

My view as well, and what I meant by tactics being simpler. You work with what you have, and even if the medieval soldier may have been in some regards a better WARRIOR than the ancient soldier of an organized army (Romans, Macedonians, Greeks, etc.), my impression is that the ancient solider was a better SOLDIER.

Full time regular troops in Greek city states were the exception. Then, of course, we have to consider the organisation of the allies and opponents of the Macedonians and Romans in relation to classical warfare, i.e. career regulars were still the exception.

I believe that a "general" in the ancient period would be quite in his element on a medieval battlefield and visa versa….

Agreed

why are we attempting to provide a too simple question with general answers which cannot be complete or accurate

I think that it was a fair enough question, as long as it's understood that any answer would be similarly couched. I was wondering though, as I read through your examples, of what was genuinely innovative. Did you have anything particular in mind?

Full time regular troops in Greek city states were the exception. Then, of course, we have to consider the organisation of the allies and opponents of the Macedonians and Romans in relation to classical warfare, i.e. career regulars were still the exception.

When did anyone say full time regular troops or career regulars? I certainly didn't. Even in a greek polis in which the soldiers (with the likely exception of the cavalry) were also full time farmers or potters or whatnot and only part time soldiers, they were trained by the state to be soldiers rather than warriors.

Doug

My apologies Doug,

The Greek example you give would be militia, in my opinion, which is subtly different from being a soldier. The latter being commonly used to refer to a paid, full time professional – unless further defined by adding 'part time', 'child', 'citizen' etc. As it stands, your description of a soldier would encompass members of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, for example. Is that your intent?

would be militia, in my opinion, which is subtly different from being a soldier.

soldier n. a person who serves in an army.
link

A soldier is anyone who serves in an army. So militia are soldiers too (albeit probably not very good ones).

The latter being commonly used to refer to a paid, full time professional

I've never heard of the definition being so restrictive.

As it stands, your description of a soldier would encompass members of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, for example. Is that your intent?

I'm sure it was his intent. It would certainly be mine.

These answers are very helpful, even if the question has a lot of exceptions.
The reason I was asking is that I was thinking about my fantasy armies in my collection and how they might fight if they had really existed. Seeing as how the weaponry is similar to medieval counterparts, it made sense that they might have similar tactics. However, with large battles few in number compared to sieges, I started looking further back for greater numbers of references of large field battles -- hence the question about how much tactics had changed. If there had been regular battles between 20,000 combatants a side in medieval times, I was thinking they would probably still be linear affairs similar to large ancient battles.
From the answers I have received, that does appear to be the case. Which leads me to think that a fantasy army would have similar tactics seeing how troops and weapons would be similar, even if wielded by elves or orcs rather than humans.

A soldier is anyone who serves in an army. So militia are soldiers too (albeit probably not very good ones)…I've never heard of the definition being so restrictive.

Assuming that you don't normally mix with people using a US-style gangster dialect, if someone told you that they are a soldier, MajorB, would you not think that they are in full time employment in an army unless they qualified that statement in some way?

I'm sure it was his intent. It would certainly be mine.

If it was then it sits very badly with his previous posts. If you go back, you'll see what I mean. It's a question of (in)consistency

if someone told you that they are a soldier, MajorB, would you not think that they are in full time employment in an army unless they qualified that statement in some way?

In the 21st century then yes. However, in previous centuries this was not always the case.

If it was then it sits very badly with his previous posts. If you go back, you'll see what I mean. It's a question of (in)consistency

Sorry, I don't see that in his posts at all. He was making the distinction between a Warrior (one who has fighting skills) and a Soldier (a person serving in an army). You can be a soldier without being a Warrior and vice versa. In his post he actually said that both ancient and medieval troops were soldiers. Being a soldier does not imply being one full time. For many years my father served in the British Terrtorial Army – an army of part time soldiers. They were still soldiers even if they only served at evenings and weekends…

As it stands, your description of a soldier would encompass members of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, for example. Is that your intent?

Not really. I think we're getting caught up in semantics.

In my opinion "warrior" and "soldier" are not mutually exclusive classes. Both are, rather, characteristics of a fighting man (or woman, more rarely). My point really is that the fighters of an ancient greek polis (or at least the ones with good armies), or of Alexander's or Phillip's armies, or of a Roman army, regardless of whether or not they were full time professional fighters, were (in my opinion) better soldiers than the fighters of the medieval era (until perhaps late in the period). On the other hand, a medieval fighter might be a better warrior.

The difference to me is that "warrior" encompasses an fighter's individual fighting ability, the quality of his kit (which might include his horse and his horse's kit), and so on. "Soldier," on the other hand, encompasses the way that fighter is trained to work with other fighters, to obey commands, and so on. A medieval man at arms might possibly clean the clock of a Macedonian foot companion one-to-one (depends on the individuals), but my impression is that a commander would have more tactical flexibility commanding a unit of foot companions than one of medieval men at arms.

Doug

Isn't there the famous example of Leonidas who points out that the other Greeks at Thermopylae are butchers bakers and candlestick makers, only the Spartans are 'soldiers'.
The big difference between mediaeval and ancient armies would be that mediaeval cavalry would generaly be able to wipe the floor with ancient cavalry in hand to hand combat. I say generally because there were effective mediaeval cavalry such as genitors who were capable of using tip and run tactics little different from those of the Roman cavalry of Hadrian . The emphasis on hand to hand combat is because Ancient cavalry were often better at scouting and outpist work than most Western mediaeval cavalry. though its doubtful if steppe cavalry were better or worse between the periods. A point of interest towards the view that the Byzantine army is the Later Roman army continued is that the Byzantines frequently cannot cope with the Westerners head on, they do not have the aggression or the weight of arms and appear to the aeuropeans as 'sergeants'.
Mediaeval infantry are mostly at a basic level compared to their Ancient forebears. Technical advances in bow and crossbow design give the mediaevals some edge in penetration, but they have a huge negative in terms of manoeuvre against the better Ancient armies. Byzantine infantry looks more useful if we believe their manuals, but significantly they too are largely passive/ defensive and there to act as a suppirt and refuge to their cavalry.

Thanks for the clarification Doug.

I believe that Medieval standing armies, such as Byzantine Tagmata, military orders, and military mesnee, as well as some mercenary companies, would give the best drilled classical troops a run for their money when it came to unit cohesion and small unit tactics. For example, Nordic/English recruited Varangians were arguably as tactically agile as better Imperial Roman Auxillary units, which were seemingly as good as regular legionaries. (When it comes to Byzantine foot, they were part of a combined arms force primarily focused eastwards and this discouraged offensive manoeuvre that might leave one's flanks open. They also increasingly suffered from a lack of indigenous manpower, which encouraged caution.)

On the other hand, as LG wrote, the militia, be they Flemish guildsmen or citizen hoplites, were much of a muchness: given some basic training in their youth and periodic refreshers, but needing a decent 'battle camp' before they were of any real use. An example of this might be Henry I's probable training of the fyrd in 1101.

As an aside, and to follow up on MajorB's closing comment, I was in the TA for a few years before receiving a regular commission in an infantry regiment (see user name and avatar) and, after taking redundancy, formed part of the Land team that periodically briefed deploying troops. If I asked a mobilised reservist what he 'did', he'd say bricklayer, mechanic etc. if I asked a regular, he'd say mortarman, signaler etc. When in the TA, we said we were TA and joked about being 'weekend warriors', but that's not to say that were couldn't compete with the regulars in minor tactics when 'battle fit'

I would extend janner's point run the essentially defensive formation of Byzantine foot somewhat earlier. Maurice has them as a defensive unit and their orientation in all the battles of Procopius and Agathias is as a defence for their cavalry, or at the least a defence against attacking infantry. In fact one distinction between Late Roman and Mediaeval foot is that only the Ancients move offensively with large bodies of infantry. I buy the point that units of the Byzantine army could well manage effective cooperation such as the Varangians with loose order archers at Durazzo . However, that ends in an advance that takes them beyond the suppirt of the rest of Alexiys Comnenus army. Where the big difference occurs is that the Ancient generals are capable of combining the aggressive movement of 40,000 infantry whereas the Mediaevals just cannot manage that. The Romans are not only doing this in grand tactical units of 5000, but of sending in a whole line of cohorts from the rear to support a line in difficulty. I suggest that is well beyond Mediaeval armies. However, complex cooperation such as that achieved by William's cavalry at Hastings does argue that Mediaeval armies of multiple divisions are capable of more sophisticated operations than was once popularly held.

As you allude to in your final point, I think this is more a matter of military culture than capability, i.e. certain Medieval military elites performed similar reliefs of troops in combat as the Romans, they just did it mounted. I believe that the twelfth century rule of the Templars, for example, describes just this process.

Whilst piecing together a fuller picture of the battle of Nájera, it became obvious that the Black Prince's army was capable of reasonably complex manoeuvre in 1367 – and I am sure that it was not unique in this regard.

Its an interesting point as to whether Ancient or Mediaeval troops trainedat a unit or at an army level. I assume that some weapon training is commn to all armes and periods. Cavalry trining under the Romans was sohisticatedcand ritualised with firmations such as the Cantabrian circle where mtd javelinmen move clickwise to keep the shield face to the enemy and concentrate shooting at one spot. in an enemy line. We know that ninth century European cavalry practised charging,nthrowing javelins and then retiring with their shields held to the rear to protect them. Arabs presumably practised Karr Wa Farr tactics, possibly even with infantry included so the footmen could take in their own cavalry and reform to hold off the arriving enemy. The Crusaders at Arsuf opened their infantry formation rapidly to allow knights to charge out and one imagines they practised this or else the risk of disorder and panic would be huge. there are instances if armies practising drills,ngenerally when they have been mustered for a campaign rather than in peacetime. One wonders whether even the Romans drilled any unit larger than a legion if there was not an assembly for a campaign.
Western knights also got training from hunting together and from the earlier tournaments which involved groups of knights fighting over wide areas of the countryside . In one of Henry 1sts campaigns he forms up the fyrd that he has taken to France and tells them how to use shield and spear. This is reminiscent of Byrhtnoth at the battle of Maldon and if it is not a classical allusion to something like Marius addressing his men before battle against the Teutones, it could be an argument for a very liw level if training in the Anglo Norman infantry,nbut then they were being asked to dona very simple task.