Fighting in say....C.1066?

[Brent Lambell]

And they would be very wrong IMHO. Just try holding, nevermind moving efficiently, even the smallest of heater shields (even though I believe those were used for tournament jousts) in the same manner you would a buckler and it quickly becomes clear that they are quite different animals. It seems to me that sword & buckler has more in common with the much later sword & dagger, than with sword and shield.

Good point Will. I would definitely agree that the size and shape of the heater made it a different tool but the argument that they have some fundamental relation to the buckler makes sense in the same way that a longsword and spear have some similar fundamentals. I think that just by using your hands independently with sword/heater, sword/buckler, sword/dagger or whatever you are building some basics that apply across all two weapon forms. Of course, individual weapons still have their strengths and weaknesses in the end.

Maybe it would have been somewhere in between the small buckler and the cumbersome judicial shield? The heater style seems to be somewhere between the buckler and judicial shield in size, but then form does not always dictate function.

[Scott A. Richardson]

Actually early cavalry of that time were just soldiers that were wealthy enough to own a good horse and knights were well displined, the only instance that I know of where they broke formation to show off their own prowess was at agincourt

Study the Crusades. There are numerous examples of this kind of behavior. And the Norman "knights," which is actually something of a misnomer, were far more than mere soldiers on horses. They were highly trained combat professionals who, on occassion, would give in to the tempation of showboating.

[s_taillebois]

"Circa 1066, the fighting style is mostly going to be spears, spears and shields, more spears, some swords and shields (but mostly in the hands of nobles), some axe fighters (Dane axes), and some archers. At that time period we have yet to see the couched lance (holding it under the arm). Knights would carry a spear, but throw it before they hit the enemy lines.".

Quite right M. Braun the couched lance comes later due to various developments including the improvement of horses able to bear greater shocks and weights.
In the Bayeux tapestry there's also some indications that the lance may also have been used in a downward thrust. And the pennants on these lances would be indicative of a thrown lance.

And as indicated by others Harold Godwinson wouldn't have lasted as long as he did (up on the Hastings crest) if he and his troops were not capable of group discipline. So they're fighting style would have been nothing like that of the initial tube video which prompted this discussion.

As far as showboating by the armor plated aristocrats, gods yes. They would have been prone to it because of the status obsessed nature of their culture. To be seen in battle was important to them, in part because the heralds recording the events would be marking such things down.
As Mr. Richardson noted the crusades have quite a few examples of this tendency. Outside the walls of Jaffa Richard had several horses taken out from under him which may have been a result of this tendency to battlefield personal theater. To some extent he may have been 'showboating' to impress both his men and Saladin. It worked so well that during a truce Saladin sent some horses over to replace Richards horses which had been killed.

Actually one of the best surviving sources for trying to assess the fighting styles of the year 1000 era would be the Bayeux Tapestry...but finding a website which shows all the panels is problematic usually it's just the Harold is killed scene which is provided.

[Cooper Braun]

Actually early cavalry of that time were just soldiers that were wealthy enough to own a good horse and knights were well displined, the only instance that I know of where they broke formation to show off their own prowess was at agincourt

In an word NO! The organized cavalry charge is a thing of a much later date than 1066. While at places like Hastings and the "Battle on the Road to Jaffa" from the third Crusade, we see one powerful commander holding his knights in check and then telling them to charge when he wanted hem to. In general it was considered knightly to be the first to reach the enemy, so all the knights would charge as fast as they could at the enemy, usually without regard to their commander's wishes (it lost St Louis his crusade outside of Cairo). There is a quote from Fulcher of Chartre (I sure I am messing the spelling but my crusades books are all in storage) from his chronicle of the first crusade where he says something to the effect of "And it was if all our knights had sworn an oath that one would not charge before the other, so together they struck the Turkish (he called all Muslims Turks) line and broke it." This is from the battle outside of Antioch where the crusaders broke a much larger army, partly because their knights pulled off what seems to be a ranked charge (which to Fulcher was something he had never seen)

Outside the walls of Jaffa Richard had several horses taken out from under him which may have been a result of this tendency to battlefield personal theater. To some extent he may have been 'showboating' to impress both his men and Saladin. It worked so well that during a truce Saladin sent some horses over to replace Richards horses which had been killed.

The funny thing about this story is that if you read the source material (both Christian and Muslim) it is noted that Saladin first sent Richard a lame horse, but sent him a better one when Richard sent the first horse back.

s_taillebois - where are you in Colorado?

[s_taillebois]

"The funny thing about this story is that if you read the source material (both Christian and Muslim) it is noted that Saladin first sent Richard a lame horse, but sent him a better one when Richard sent the first horse back."

Very likely Saladin was sending a little moral tweak at Richard to remind him to show some humility. Both of them were somewhat brutal people, but in general Saladin took his religious obligations somewhat more seriously. Richards family were people who were somewhat cynical about religion and attendant behavioral obligations-as is evident from some of his fathers actions and that of his brother. His mother doesn't remedy her ways until late in life, sort of....

But the legends about the Counts of Anjou (the Angevins) being descended from the daughter of Satan seemed to appeal to Richards cynical sense. He once said "What wonder if we lack the natural affections of mankind we come from the devil and must needs go back to the devil.

And massed charges did occur much later. At Hastings the cavalry tactic seems to have been to wheel in front of the Saxon line and then to wheel away (as much a possible given panicked horses and the general chaos).
The saddles, stirrups and horses of the period where not developed enough in 1066 to permit couched lances and linear mass charges. But these did develop quickly thereafter. However it is possible that if Harold's line had held, infantry would have remained more dominant in Europe for somewhat longer.

Location the far south in Colorado....

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Just wondering (as someone still learning), what style of fighting they did in the early years? Was there similar knowledge that were written in the manual ARMA uses today?

I just watched this mess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-KqQ5M ... re=related

and was wondering...In battles in history, did they look like a silly mess like this? No real sword skill, just comical wailing??

Anywhere I can also research this?

Thanks for your help.

One good source: Viking sagas.

-B.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Actually early cavalry of that time were just soldiers that were wealthy enough to own a good horse and knights were well displined, the only instance that I know of where they broke formation to show off their own prowess was at agincourt

No, that was Crecy. At Agincourt they mostly dismounted--the small mounted contingents that were supposed to work around the English flank blundered into the English front instead and was so hugely outnumbered by the English archers and men-at-arms in front of them that they would have gone down anyway regardless of whether they were disordered or not.

Both disciplined charges and disorganized individual attacks probably saw use throughout the entirety of the European Middle Ages. I wish people would stop trying to argue that medieval men-at-arms used only one or the other, since the evidence we have tends to indicate the concurrent existence of several different tactical paradigms.

In an word NO! The organized cavalry charge is a thing of a much later date than 1066.

Wrong. Organized cavalry charges were already present during Carolingian times at the earliest, and might never have disappeared at all (i.e there might have been a great deal of continuity between late Roman and early medieval European cavalry tactics). Have a look at Bernard Bachrach's article about this very subject.

I think the biggest myth of all is that there was one tactical method that all medieval mounted men-at-arms subscribed to. In reality, methods would have varied from region to region, from company to company, and even from man to man; and just like in the modern world, in medieval times there would have been top-notch disciplined cavalry coexisting with horse-mounted rabble that barely even deserved the name "horsemen."

There's another interesting article about medieval Italian warfare that described a German "regional style" that relied on tighter formation and discipline than those used by the contemporary Italian observers who wrote about them.

While at places like Hastings and the "Battle on the Road to Jaffa" from the third Crusade, we see one powerful commander holding his knights in check and then telling them to charge when he wanted hem to.

How is that different from a "controlled" charge? Even in the 19th century, with all the sophistication in the command-and-control system of European armies, it as still widely recognized that you couldn't control your troops once you had committed them to battle. The ones you could control--at best--was your uncommitted reserve, and this was exactly the role that medieval men-at-arms often played in war.

In general it was considered knightly to be the first to reach the enemy, so all the knights would charge as fast as they could at the enemy, usually without regard to their commander's wishes

The myth of "they all did it the same way" again. Give it up, please.

This is from the battle outside of Antioch where the crusaders broke a much larger army, partly because their knights pulled off what seems to be a ranked charge (which to Fulcher was something he had never seen)

Fulcher might have never seen such a thing before, but is that a guarantee that a solidly disciplined charge had never happened in European warfare during his lifetime? I'm afraid the answer is no.

[s_taillebois]

"Wrong. Organized cavalry charges were already present during Carolingian times at the earliest, and might never have disappeared at all (i.e there might have been a great deal of continuity between late Roman and early medieval European cavalry tactics).'

M. Curtis no doubt quite correct and there may have been an extant link to older cavalry traditions. There was a fair amount of diplomatic contact between the Byzantines and the Carolingian Emperor, to the extent that he tried to marry the Byzantine Empress and had his engineers try to adopt Byzantine technologies. Charlemagne and the Franks probably had their own already existing cavalry tactics and traditions...but he was obsessed with proving himself the equal of the Byzantine Emperor. And one of the attributes of empire was the ability to field large units of cavalry. However there is some historical squabbling over whether the Franks had all the equipment needed to make cavalry as effective as it later became. In a late 9th century bronze of Charlemagne himself he's shown mounted, but such as stirrups were not evident. And the horse itself is quite small (which could however be symbolic)

The ability to field cavalry was obviously an effective tactic, but it was also a political and status statement. No doubt that's one of the reasons nations tried to keep it in use long after it had exhausted its overall military utility.

[Jay Vail]

Both disciplined charges and disorganized individual attacks probably saw use throughout the entirety of the European Middle Ages. I wish people would stop trying to argue that medieval men-at-arms used only one or the other, since the evidence we have tends to indicate the concurrent existence of several different tactical paradigms.

Wrong. Organized cavalry charges were already present during Carolingian times at the earliest, and might never have disappeared at all (i.e there might have been a great deal of continuity between late Roman and early medieval European cavalry tactics). Have a look at Bernard Bachrach's article about this very subject.

There's another interesting article about medieval Italian warfare that described a German "regional style" that relied on tighter formation and discipline than those used by the contemporary Italian observers who wrote about them.

Truly excellent articles. Thanks for pointing them out.