"Wedge vs. Shieldwall" Topic

Some time back I read a piece of fiction in which one side formed a wedge to attack and penetrate a shieldwall. I know very little about tactics in ancient/medieval warfare. Would this be a viable way to attack?

The only medieval game I have ever played was DBA. It does not seem to me that this would be an viable tactic in those rules. If wedge vs shieldwall is a viable tactic what rules set would simulate this?

So supposedly this technique was fairly popular in Viking/Saxon warfare where it was known as the 'Boar's Head'.

-Will

I never did understand why in man-to-man combat it supposedly is advantageous to hit the enemy line at a single point (the tip of the wedge). This works for metal tools because of the concentration of force at the tip (F = MA). Are we saying that the leading warrior in the wedge is smashed against the opposing shield wall with greater force, thus obtaining an advantage???

MH

I suppose the wedge focusses greater moral pressure on the part of the enemy line targetted. The tip of the wedge is comprised of the very best fighters and the warriors facing it are in greater danger than the rest of the line. Not too much of a problem if they too are the cream of the army but otherwise they are in trouble.

A wedge quickly becomes a line when it doesn't pierce through. I think this is more romance then anything else. In larger formations there is some advantages to be found in attacks in echelons. This wedge is really more like a column, some psychological benefit of seeing a dense mass coming at a single point. The wedge shape is really not necessary at all.

The guy at the point of the wedge better be Conan, that's all I'm saying.

I though the zig-zag, multiple wedge formation was used, occasionally, in *defense*, since it forced the attackers to break up a line.

As a general rule, I usually assume that if people in history did something often it probably worked and if they didn't do it that's probably because it didn't work.

War Of Ashes: Shieldwall is the only game I know of that explores this idea. The troops meet, usually in lines but you could arrange them otherwise if you liked, and as you take casualties holes are created. You then have the option of having your fighter step forward into that gap to continue the attack or stay in formation. Some of your moves are spent filling gaps in your line, etc. It's in between the Warhammer/Sword and the Flame "platoon is a unit and figures are it's hit points" level of game and the type of game where every figure moves independently.

I imagine that either the shieldwall being charged would start to buckle before the "point" arrived as people decided they didn't trust their shield to stop the maniac with the giant axe running right at them, or the wedge crashed into the wall and flattened out in short order.

It's also possible that the wall would "bunch up" defensively to where the wedge was going to hit, leaving gaps that the rest of the wedge could exploit.

Saxo Grammaticus describes a Scandinavian wedge, though in a mythological section of his History:

"For this man, in arranging the system of the columns, used to take special care that the front row consisted of two, the second of four, while the third increased and was made up to eight, and likewise each row was double that in front of it. Also the old man bade the wings of the slingers go back to the extremity of the line, and put with them the ranks of the archers."

But Snorri Sturluson, writing in the 13th century, treats it as a perfectly historical formaton:

"Where Eilif was, one heart and hand, The two chiefs had in their command; In wedge or line their battle order Was ranged by both without disorder."

Vegetius said: "There is also a method of resisting the wedge when formed by the enemy. The wedge is a disposition of a body of infantry widening gradually towards the base and terminating in a point towards the front. It pierces the enemy's line by a multitude of darts directed to one particular place. The soldiers call it the swine's head. To oppose this disposition, they make use of another called the pincers, resembling the letter V, composed of a body of men in close order. It receives the wedge, inclosing it on both sides, and thereby prevents it from penetrating the line."

"Wedges" are really columns, or formations stacked very deep to apply greater numbers at a specific point.

An actual triangular formation was very rare and required drill to maintain it. Obviously if standing on the defensive the formation would be more likely to last longer than if moving. (I believe that this is what happened in the Roman's vs Boudicca battle – blanking on the name: the undrilled Britons were received between the wedges, thus exposing the flanks of the Britons to the better shield and sword work of the better drilled Romans.)

Medieval battles seldom refer to any kind of wedge. One that I can recall is the knighthood of "Lamorie" charging en masse at the battle of Pelagonie (1259) into the German mercenaries of the Byzantines. The column was supposed to pierce the thinner German line and allow continued movement off the other side of the battlefield. Initially successful, because of denser numbers on the spot, the tactic failed due to the perfidious use of other mercenaries in the Byzantine army, horsearchers, being directed to shoot into the entire mass, hitting friend and foe alike, but definitely unhorsing the Franks of Lamorie in short order.

It only stands to reason that if a thicker formation contacts a thinner one, without some other factor to mitigate the advantage, the deeper formation will break through the thinner one….

I have spoken to a number of SCA folks who claim that wedge works because the defenders opposite the point tend to flinch away, creating a gap in the line. When this doesn't happen, the wedge flattens into a mob. I have no idea if this worked in antiquity, but there must have been SOME reason why the formation was used.

Bearing in mind that the principle close quarter weapon was the thrusting spear for much of the Early Middle Ages and the potential to use a shield to bind an opponents shield and/or weapon, it is not logical that the elites of both sides would want to forgo those advantages and get into a shield on shield pushing match. Here, the weapon master could do little to fence spear thrusts from deep in the enemy line, but was vulnerable to a ceorls dagger.

If anything, the problem would be getting less enthusiastic warriors to enter striking range at all – which brings us to the Boar's Head and wedge, offensive formations designed to close with and break into an opposition's line.

I suggest that we should view them less a scrummage/steam roller and more along the lines of expert spear fencers acting in concert with sword and axemen, and supported by close range shooting from slingers and/or archers on occasion, who overwhelm their opponents based on a combination of skill and focused violence. Hence the tip was made up of the very best fighters – working as a team.

Just a thought.

But Snorri Sturluson, writing in the 13th century, treats it as a perfectly historical formation:
"Where Eilif was, one heart and hand, The two chiefs had in their command; In wedge or line their battle order Was ranged by both without disorder."

This translation from skaldic verse is really rather loose. The Old Norse uses the word fylkja (to draw up in battle array) and does not specify wedge or line. Snorri does not actually use svínfylking (wedge, boar's snout formation) at all as far as I can tell.

I had a look on ONP and svínfylking only occurs twice in Old Norse prose, although ONP lists one entry twice, thus effectively giving three entries.Svínfylkja (to draw up in a wedge formation) occurs five times. Most of these entries refer to legendary sagas, suggesting that the wedge formation was possibly a romanticised idea associated with the distant past, rather than a reality to medieval Scandinavians. The small number of entries in the corpus also suggests that if the formation were used, it was not common in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in Scandinavia when the sagas were written down.

What all this says about Viking Age warfare is debatable. I'm not convinced that the saga authors were thinking of columns because the visual imagery of svínfylking is too precise, but that does sound like a viable alternative. I suspect what it means really is that the svínfylking was not used by Vikings, or not to any great effect, at least. Some solid ideas have been put forward above about how such a formation might be arrayed in reality and how it might work, but they must, I think, remain speculative, due to insufficient solid evidence, although Vegetius et al. do provide additional grist for this mill.

One positive thing that has come out of this is that I have been reacquainted with the word svíngalinn (mad/drunk as a pig). Such a glorious image! Perhaps you had to be svíngalinn to adopt svínfylking.

I may be going out on a limb here, but isn't that how the Thebans broke thru the Spartan phalanx? While not exactly a wedge they used a formation of depth (50 shields deep)vs line that simply, thru shear weight of numbers, annihilated the Spartan line before them.

A wedge formation doesn't necessarily mean there's only a couple of guys out in front. I read (if memory serves me right) that one modern scholar believed that when an ancient historian used the word wedge, for a military formation, he could be describing a column. I've seen the Franks formation (when they invaded Italy in the 550's vs Narses) both described as a column and a wedge.

Either way, worked the 1st time, not the 2nd.

Do you not think it was a command and control tool?

The commander with his best troops at the 'point' could select a weak area in the enemy line. A gap between two units or momentarily disrupted unit.

Once he had found this gap he could quickly lead the shouting follow me or just moving forward. No complicated orders, It allows him to seize that fleeting advantage.

yeah, i think our definition of wedge is not what they used, and i always envisioned more as a column, with the guys at front getting behind there shields and running, pushing, shoving, and being shoved from behind that breaks a line..

probably really only effective when the force making the wedge has more numbers than the force being the defensive wall. which is probably why is wasn't used very often because in medevial battles it was hard to estimate numbers and it was probably also a good tactic that if you had the higher number just have your troops in line as well, which will be longer than the smaller army and so wrap around the flanks.

so probably only used the wedge when the smaller force was obviously smaller and had flank protection / anchors.

Weight of numbers, such as in a column, can provide morale benefits, as well as the ability to rotate tired troops. However, if that mass constrains the ability of those at the front to use their weaponry effectively, it can be counter productive.

Thanks for svíngalinn, Dr B

The classic description of an army in wedge is Casilinum in 554. There the Franco Allamanic army forms with a solid wedge in the middle and then two wings angled back. The Byzantines form with a strengthened infantry line in their centre , the line is broken, but not catastrophically anf troops arriving plug the gap, those breaking through are dealt with. Of course the better disciplined Byzantine army is more likely to be able to deal with a local breakthrough than a 'barbarian' army. In the quest for momentum and density its also very likely that the Germans did not have the control necessary to stop ,nturn and attack the flanks of the line they had just broken.
We should be careful of worrying about the density of a column affecting the ability of troops to use weaponry if the column maintains its momentum. Frederick the Gtreat reportedly had his grenadiers attack with shouldered muskets in order to maintain momentum rather than them stopping to fire. At the head of the column or wedge the men are at a definite dipsadvantage if it stops, because the flanks will be outnmumbered by the local enemy. Indeed, some think that the German keil was a column that became wedge like as the men on th flanks inclined inwards. It is most likely that the effect was about speed, density and the immediate opponent panicking than actually fighting hand to hand. For that a line would be more effective.

I was reading Duffy last night he reports the conclusions of a post war conversation between Frederick and Marshal De Saxe on the column that it was vulnerable to cross fire and on the flanks.

As happened at Casilinum.

The only medieval game I have ever played was DBA. It does not seem to me that this would be an viable tactic in those rules. If wedge vs shieldwall is a viable tactic what rules set would simulate this?

In most big battle rules such as DBA, this sort of thing would be going on within the units themselves. When you move your element of viking blades into contact with saxon spears, there may be some boar's head wedges being formed by the men making up the element. As the army general you order the units to attack, and how they actually do it is out of your control, so is not (and does not need to be) explicitly modelled within the rules.

The Teutonic Knights formed a wedge. The Russians called it the Iron Pig. Been awhile since I read Urban, but I'm sure they also used it against the Prussians and Estonians so it must have been effective vs a shieldwall.

Wedge and shield wall are both featured in the Peter Pig longships game. If the wedge does not "penetrate" it is in trouble.

martin

Janner – surely rotating tired troops would render them not only even more tired, but dizzy too.

Tell that to dervishes

Late Medieval German Knights seem to have formed wedges which are illustrated in a serias of woodcuts. The purpose seems to have been to protect the flanks and narrow the point of impact. Forming men/horses into a "Spear" shape will not make them any more able to "penetrate" and enemy line.

Thebans v. Spartans depth seems to be intended to win battle of attrition as "pushing" aganist friends really doesn't work very well.

DBA3.0 now models Shield wall and Knight Wedges explicitly. Foot "wedges" are still just modeled as Warband.

TomT

That Bernard Cornwell, such a card!

Love the 'Saxon' series though…..

If the "big man" is in the middle of the front rank and yells "charge", the standard bearer waves his flag and the horn blower gives it his all and then they start haring towards the enemy….and the guys next to them set off after….and then those next to them….and so on till those at the extreme ends of the group start to move the whole thing has naturally become a wedge without any special drill or magical combat ability. It even has the big man and all his well armed and armoured mates right at its apex.
Maybe that's all it ever was….a shield wall that charges any kind of distance becomes progressively more wedge shaped…..and the saga tellers loved a good allegory.

Wegdes work like a rugby maul – you get in tight and push the front men forward. If it fails it 'pancakes', if it works you have a version of the 20th cent Schwerepunkt – you have massive local numerical advantage, and a chance to surround the enemy.

Wegdes work like a rugby maul – you get in tight and push the front men forward.

Rugby players are not trying to fight or wield a weapon at the same time. You try and fight while your mate is shoving you in the back …

If memory serves me well, in wrg 6th and other old school rules, the 2nd rank overlapped. This was the considered opinion at the time.

Rugby players are not trying to fight or wield a weapon at the same time. You try and fight while your mate is shoving you in the back …

Exactly

A good point @janner, but just maybe the chaps at the head of the wedge are not weilding as they crash home, just holding spears level and relying on intimidation and momentum to do the work. being in a wedge, even if blunt headed, must expose the men at the point where the front rank ends to fighting two oppinents at once. It is not a good formation for standing and fighting. The officer's nightmare must be that the wedge stopswhist the front rank engages in fencing, so it is inherently likely that missile preparation is done at a distance or by brave skirmishers who get out of the way once the wedge begins to move.
Ancient Iberians form a wedge in situ whilst they are skirmishing. Upon a signal a chieftain's sworn men form around him and advance upon the oppising line, presumably with other warriors packing in.to give weight.

That does sound like a sure way for the lead men turn themselves into tea strainers, LG

No I don' thnk it does, because momentum and density is what the wedge lies upon. The soldiers facing the point of the wedge are going to be more concerned about defence than attack so the point of the wedge is less risky. If the wedge is held that is a different matter. A wedge that advanced gently towards the enemy would have a real problem as those at the flank edge of the tip would face two warriors, particularly those with an open unshielded side.

It still feels like you are approaching defense as a passive activity, i.e. men cringing behind their shields. Moreover, the latter problem only exists in a world populated solely by right handed people.

Ha Ha If you introduce a left hander then there is a gap between him and the man next to him. Being a southpaw is an advantage in individual combat but introduces a dangerous weakness into a line, even if stepped back..
Have a look at Agathias description of the 'Frankish Wedge' at Casilinum.

If all the front rankers in a wedge did was duel with their opponents with shield and speak, as you imply in an earlier post, then why adopt it? The purpose has to be to apply psychological pressure and then physical force to an opponent defending in line. At Casilinum the wedge crashes through the Byzantine line at a weak point, but the shoulders of the wedge fail to push through and the gap is sealed.
The defenders are not cringing behind their shields, but throwing weapons at the advancing point and then bracing for impact.
For a source contradicting your idea that soldiers stand off and fence look at Amiantus' description of Argentoratum where the Romans push with their thighs against the pressure of the Germans.

For a description of Romans pushing barbarians with their shields we could look at Plutarch's Life of Gaius Marius: '. But Marius, sending his officers to all parts of the line, exhorted the soldiers to stand firmly in their lines, and when the enemy had got within reach to hurl their javelins, then take to their swords and crowd the Barbarians back with their shields; 6 for since the enemy were on precarious ground their blows would have no force and the locking of their shields no strength, but the unevenness of the ground would keep them turning and tossing about. This was the advice he gave his men, and they saw that he was first to act accordingly; for he was in better training than any of them, and in daring far surpassed them all.'

Now in no way would I describe pushing with the shield as the Roman's main way of fighting, but it is an option and a wedge attack is not normal line to line contact, it is a sudden attack with momentum and I would expect its style of fighting to be more direct and literally impactful than an advance in line, otherwise the line that is facing the wedge is going to know that it will stop in front of them and be at a numerical disadvantage. In which case why would the attacker bother?

Wedge – best made of cavalry or cheese, I feel.
link

I've often wondered at the assumption that a leftie creates a dangerous gap in the line. Whilst this is true when they are to the right of a right handed fighter in a line, there is no break when they are to the left of them. Moreover, the gap formed when they were on the right was seemingly manageable, the Roman Testudo being a case in point.

By the way, I did not propose that they 'only' fenced. As a reminder, I wrote,

I suggest that we should view them less a scrummage/steam roller and more along the lines of expert spear fencers acting in concert with sword and axemen, and supported by close range shooting from slingers and/or archers on occasion, who overwhelm their opponents based on a combination of skill and focused violence. Hence the tip was made up of the very best fighters – working as a team.

The Gaius Marius quote is a fine example of active use of large shields by troops standing 'firmly in their lines' to hem in their opponents and limit their freedom of movement. So it sits favourably with my description of team work. Similarly, whilst it possible the shield boss on shield language of the account of the battle of Strasburg may have been a literary device, I think that you are right that it happened in extremis. However, it was not the prefered approach as it left less room for well-honed team work to provide an advantage.

@Janner, I think I took your point about fencing with the spear as being that wedges did not crash into their opponents. Now most of the time that is how the warriors fight, thay line up oppisite each other,nthrow spears, javelins, axes etc and push forward with spear and sword to drive th opponent back without shield upon shield contact. Where We bith appear to accept that it is possible for the commander to order a push with shields, which might occur as part of the normal process, but is not the usual method. Incidentally, in Marius case the Romans are uphill of the advancing Teutones and physically push them back into the valley. Similarly at Argentoratum the Germans charge the Romans and physically crash into them , hence the Romans pushing back to retain their line. My contention is that a wedge is ' pointless' if it stops in front of the opposition line to exchange blows. Once you have momentum you want to maintain it.
On left handers, it would be interesting to see any edidence for placing them at the point of a wedge. I think there has been some discussion of this before so there may be some?

@Janner, I think I took your point about fencing with the spear as being that wedges did not crash into their opponents. Now most of the time that is how the warriors fight, thay line up oppisite each other,nthrow spears, javelins, axes etc and push forward with spear and sword to drive th opponent back without shield upon shield contact. Where We bith appear to accept that it is possible for the commander to order a push with shields, which might occur as part of the normal process, but is not the usual method. Incidentally, in Marius case the Romans are uphill of the advancing Teutones and physically push them back into the valley. Similarly at Argentoratum the Germans charge the Romans and physically crash into them , hence the Romans pushing back to retain their line. My contention is that a wedge is ' pointless' if it stops in front of the opposition line to exchange blows. Once you have momentum you want to maintain it.
On left handers, it would be interesting to see any edidence for placing them at the point of a wedge. I think there has been some discussion of this before so there may be some?

OK, Agathias book 2 8,8 : 'The disposition of their forces was in the shape of a wedge ….like a triangular figure. the pointed part in front being a dense and compact mass of shields. ………….But all went well for Narses…..The barbarians charging full tilt and raising a terrific din as they went struck the Roman ranks with a violent impact, They immediately dislodged the centre of the vanguard and went careering into the empty space left by the Heruls. . The spearhead of the enemy's forces cut right through the ranks without causing many casualties and swept on past the rearguard.'

That's charging to contact in wedge formation fully described by a contemporary source. Fortunately for the Romans,nthe Herulian contingent was coming up into pkace, caught those who had broken through and destroyed them.

A contemporary poet, but neither an eyewitness nor a soldier. So despite providing such tempting details, he does need to be handled with care. However, if troops behaved as he described, by simply putting their heads down and charging in, then they deserved all they got – which brings us back to my earlier point about tea strainers

Moreover, I'm not convinced that Plutarch's text fully supports the argument that Gauis' men physically pushed the Teutones back. They may well have done, but his (Greek) text can be understood/translated in a number of ways I believe.

As an aside, I do not believe that an experienced warrior would need to be static in order to engage in close combat as part of a team.

A contemporary who wrote a well informed military history. So we can assume that he had good contacts orn good advice..I wonder if you are deliberately misunderstanding Agathias there. He very clearly says that the the point of the wedge is a debse and compact mass of shields and that, far from being reduced to tea strainers they break through the Roman ranks and head off towvards the camp, only to be dealt with by the Heruls who take them by surprise.
As far as sources go…and one can criticise any source, I'd believe Agathias, its not as if he has an axe to grind about how the Franks (largely Allamanni here) fight.
In Marius case its integral to Plutarch's story that the Romans physically push the Teutones back. You'd be on much stronger ground criticizing Plutarch as a source, but he is writing for a Roman audience who would know if a story was feasible and would have had contemporary accounts available to him, or to his sources.
As to the aside on being static, We both agree that the battle line can be mobile, can advance and retreat, but a wedge is a special tactic, it has to have a purpose and my belief and a quoted source say that purpose is breakthrough and breakthrough is more likely if the group at the front concentrate on physically crashing the opposing defence. Of couse. if they have locked shields into a fulkon like formation with a point then that would explain why they do not get stuck by their opponents missiles and spears.
What we await is a cite from your good self on a wedge operating differently. I am quite prepared to believe that it did, but on something a bit firmer than mere assertion please😉

We could try this from Vegetius:
' There is also a method of resisting the wedge when formed by the enemy. The wedge is a disposition of a body of infantry widening gradually towards the base and terminating in a point towards the front. It pierces the enemy's line by a multitude of darts directed to one particular place. The soldiers call it the swine's head. To oppose this disposition, they make use af another called the pincers, resembling the letter V, composed of a body of men in close order. It receives the wedge, inclosing it on both sides, and thereby prevents it from penetrating the line.'
Now that is a wedge that prevails through the concentration of missile power. Of course it still has to come forward to push the poopsing line out of the way. The pincers , used against the wedge , has the advantage that missiles thrown from the defender's left flank will be impacting on the shieldless side of the wedge (unless they have carefully arranged left handers there;-)) ). Vegetius of course is somewhat antiquarian, but I'd have no problem believing him.
That would refine the wedge tactics to an outnumbering with missiles and then a charge, with the speed and punch of the charge depending upon the amount of protection and depth that the opponent is deploying. If the line is thick it might need more preparation, if thin , as it was at Casilinum then igo for the crash through with momentum.. But again, any examples you can bring gratefully received .