Walking or Running into battle

[Doug Marnick]

I have been giving much thought and study to footwork after absorbing the prodigious article by director John Clements. Concurrently, I have been reading 1776 by David McCullough. This led to thoughts about soldiers marching in formation toward the enemy before a final charge, and more specifically what happened before the age of gunpowder.

One of the many benefits of studying RMA is the opportunity to dispel the many Hollywood myths that are so prevalent. Almost every medieval or renaissance era film (even the average fantasy movie) shows the sides facing off in dramatic fashion filled with requisite tension. Then, at the peak of suspense, one side calls for a charge. The two armies charge forward at an all out run similar to an NFL kickoff. Then they clash with great force and the battle begins. Is this a myth?

Can anyone provide historical evidence about medieval or renaissance infantry tactics (not Roman legion, etc.) that can demonstrate how these troops moved, how they maintained formations prior to and during combat, and did the infantry more or less WALK toward each other before engaging in armed combat similar to what was used by bayonet troops in later centuries? Was there a final charge when the range was closed? Or did the formations move toward each other in a multiplied version of one on one personal combat with careful approach before an attack was made?

Please note, I am referring to highly trained troops, not peasant armies; nor am I asking about cavalry charges, defensive spear/pike walls, archers, etc.

“Then the English, seeing this signal, began suddenly to march, uttering a very loud cry, which greatly surprised the French. And when the English saw that the French did not approach them, they marched dashingly towards them in very fine order, and again raised a loud cry as they stopped to take breath…
Then the French seeing the English come towards them in this manner, placed themselves together in order, everyone under his banner, their helmets on their heads…
Thus they went forward a little, then made a little retreat, but before they could come to close quarters, many of the French were disabled and wounded by the arrows; and when they came quite up to the English, they were, as has been said, so closely pressed one against another that none of them could lift their arms to strike their enemies, except some that were in front...”
Wayrin, Jehan de,. Chronicles, 1399-1422. trans. Sir W. Hardy and E. Hardy (1887); Keegan, John, The Illustrated Face of Battle: a study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. (1989).
“The Battle of Agincourt. 1415” Eyewitness to History. www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2006).

Doug Marnick
NYC

[Stacy Clifford]

I would imagine that an all-out run would be too chaotic to maintain order as the fast separate from the slow, but the U.S. military jogs in formation every day for exercise, so there may well have been a marching pace that was above walking, but still slow enough to stay in formation. That would make sense to me, but I'm curious to hear the answer myself after my marching post last weekend.

[s_taillebois]

Depends on the battle, as M. Marnick noted in the 100 years war the British often goaded the French by arrow storms. And although the French were cavalry heavy in their armies a understandable reaction by anyone subject to some 30,000 plus arrows would be to get out of the zone of fire or at the enemy line as quickly as possible.

The other aspect is Saxon shield wall warfare. In that case successful movement was contingent on keeping that shield wall intact, which would have limited speed somewhat. A modern shield wall can do a slow jog, but that's about it if its going to maintain cohesion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXTULeBY ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FEdriMo ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czl716bA ... re=related

(Loades "Weapons that made Britain")

Until the breaking of the ranks the shield wall at Senlac stayed close to its original location, which infuriated the Normans.

Pike squares those were the predecessors of the bayonet line, but having a four front nature movement would have been slower.

The old James Burke Connections programs had a scene about how a Pike Square could move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo406jm2vF8

Beserkers and the like, well rational movement wasn't a factor.

[Benjamin Parker]

Hollywood is completely wrong about formations, nor are all pike sqaures defensive, they generally did that when there were enemy men-at-arms on destriers around, pike squares charged head on into one another and the ensuing clash was called press of pike, usually they clashed and jabbed at one another in close order with their pikes while missile troops shot the pike square up, the most stubborn side won (hence the vicious no-quarter battles between the swiss and landsknechts) meanwhile skirmishers (halberdiers, swordsmen, two-hander wielders, etc.) would engage from within the pike square or attack another pike square (sweeping pikes aside and hacking at their less mobile pikemen opponents) while the skirmishers were looser their formations were still coordinated, some sources note that pikemen in the front ranks on both sides did sometimes throw their pikes down and clash with swords while the newly created front ranks thrust with their pikes.


As for charging in formation, they might have done what cavalry did, shorten the maxium distance from which they were allowed to charge and then start out at a walk and build up speed until charging range. That's just a theory though.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Keeping a formation of running horses together is tough, I'd assume keeping a formation of running people together is also pretty tough. It seems likely that there'd be a marching pace, a double-quick marching pace (read: jogging or thereabouts) for use when under duress (missile attack of some kind would count), and when a hundred paces or two hundred paces from the enemy the order could be given to charge, of course, which would be basically a short run or sprint, much like cavalry have trotting, cantering, and galloping (I think those are the descriptions of speed for horses, anyway, my equestrian terminology is a bit weak).

[s_taillebois]

Likely that would be the case, maneuver at a reasonable speed than at closing get up to a quick step.

Most of the weapons of the time (excluding the long bow and arbalest) had relatively short ranges. Javelins, Franciscas, spears and the like would be within 25-50-100 yards. So perhaps no need for quick movement until within range of the enemies missile weapons.

Obviously when the cannon came about the equation changed.

Other factors would be fear (which could affect movement either way), and such as fatigue and hunger. Especially during the 100 years, and wars of the reformation the countryside was often stripped bare-so some of these local units might have been fatigued and quite hungry.

Another element in the Italian area was many of these units were mercenaries. So they may have been willing to put on a rush for show, but would be disinclined to be marching all over the countryside. They needed their energies for looting the peasantry.

[Tom Reynolds]

It sounds to me like marching and/or fighting in formation was one major controlling factor on speed. Maybe that would be one indirect way to research this question? If there's no direct documentary evidence on the speed with which armies marched or fought, there almost certainly is evidence on whether they marched and fought in formation, or what types of formations.

Sounds to me like an excellent place for some actual historical experimentation. Get some friends together, and see for yourselves how fast it is possible to move in different types of formations.

Steven's point about mercenaries is another good one. The older and more experienced a soldier got, the less interested he probably became in taking unnecessary risks. I know it's out of our time range, but I remember reading that this was why you saw more set-piece sieges later in the American Civil War. The veteran soldiers were simply less interested in rushing headlong into battle!

[Stacy Clifford]

One thing probably worth remembering is that the faster everyone in a group is moving, the more space they need between them for their legs to stretch out and run even if they all match speed perfectly and stay in line. I would guess that kind of spreading out would make the formation potentially more vulnerable to penetration and scattering.

[Tom Reynolds]

Stacy Clifford wrote: One thing probably worth remembering is that the faster everyone in a group is moving, the more space they need between them for their legs to stretch out and run even if they all match speed perfectly and stay in line. I would guess that kind of spreading out would make the formation potentially more vulnerable to penetration and scattering.

Tom Reynolds wrote:

Very true. Also, where projectile weapons are involved, it would decrease the density of fire.

[Keith Culbertson]

yeah, when I was on the formation run team in the Army, we had to very careful about distance and pace---but the advantage is that running moving with a group has a reinforcing psychology to improve overall speed and coordination---never ran as fast before or after my time with the team

[s_taillebois]

Probably quite similar in the historical period.

When Saxon shield walls formed up they often seemed to have recited parts of the mead oath, a reminder that if they did move en masse they were doing it as and for comrades.

So a reinforcing psychology by words, which reinforced tactical movement such as the boars snout.

Another factor would have been the various horn calls, which by training all would have to know, and some of which would raise adrenaline and morale.

So perhaps much more to the movement of medieval and Renn. units that what's implied by too many movies of being a mob of people running at each other.

[C.Scott Relleve]

Throughout history, marching, formation and positioning is one of the main keys of success in battle, and although large scale formations are not applicable in modern day combat, small scale squad-based formations as well as tank formations still exist.

Anyway, I do agree that the Hollywood depiction, as usual, is terribly inaccurate. Just as mentioned earlier, it's best that order be maintained and the chain of command is unbroken due to chaos, so they'd pace themselves properly, and will probably only pick up the pace once they've come under fire by enemy projectiles. Probably not a slow walk, but not a quick sprint either, since that'll break the formation.

Running full force is not too smart anyway, since stamina would be a factor in maintaining effectiveness in combat, and getting within the opponent's range while breathing hard would only mean an easy death for the exhausted soldier (and even if not exhausted, it does deplete stamina). That and the ability to stop and establish one's footing in combat, as running forward with an intent to attack is easier to counter and prevent as you can see the attack and its direction farther away, and the man running has to slow down in order to make effective attacks, so the transition from the "running full force like a fool" to normal battle stance are precious seconds wasted.

Perhaps they would only do a full force charge once they see a gaping hole on the enemy defensive lines, and intends to take advantage of that before the enemy re-establishes their formation. Unlike in Hollywood depiction, where they charge full force against a well-established defensive position and somehow breaks it -- in reality, such attacks would barely make a dent on the well-established defensive lines unless the charging foe greatly outmatches the defensive lines.

Mounted cavalry may probably pace themselves at a faster rate than foot soldier does, and they can charge in, destroy the enemy formation, then disengage to reorganize the formation in order to make another attack until foot soldiers are given the order to break through (and thus, the dominance of cavalry during certain eras of history).

[nathan featherstone]

from my own experience in large scale reenactments holding a tight formation is key. i have seen small units of 6 people slowly take down units of 20 due to keeping a tight formation and slowly advancing. now real battles VERY different but i see it time and time again rushing in breaks up your spear or shield wall quickly once that happens and gaps are formed your line is weakened.
in big battles such as Hastings etc i have seen only a rush in the last few steps say 6 feet or so by this stage then wall is tight and only rushes in for impact.
that being said the highland charge is the only running charge i know of and this did help to break up English musket lines but how deep etc i dont know. plus if both sides charge in Hollywood style you will likely end out fighting friend as well as foe as the lines would get so messed you wouldn't know which side you were on.
plus most battle lines had strong in front week behind etc and if you rushed each other you leave your rear open the enemy could simply keep running and destroy your baggage etc.