Dissertation results!

[Casper Bradak]

Basically, broken down to the smallest unit level on the battlefield, when it comes to infantry, having a man to your left and your right gives you only a small fatal funnel to keep you occupied. If the enemy were to flank your line, or cause a break or disruption in it, they'll exploit it by basically flanking inside the line, which is more than one man can handle.
If they don't press back and quickly compensate and manage to reform, the broken line will quickly fall like a stack of cards with people becoming casualties rapidly. After that mess the entire formation could easily scatter depending on their discipline.
It's as simple as one man can't fight or attack a line of 2 or 3 head on.
The usual B.S. braveheart everyman for himself run at the other guy and whoever's left standing wins is absolute suicidal garbage. It not only goes against common sense but instinct and the soldiers will to increase his chances of survival when fighting. Casualties (and friendly fire kills) would be extraordinary and an army would be crippled after one battle, whereas in real life units would normally withdraw after sustaining a certain pecentage of casualties, which couldn't happen if things were done in the usual modern view of medieval cluster mess warfare.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Steve,

The reason they kept using horses into the 16th Century is because the COMBINED ARMS concept works!

NOTE!!!: I said MASS OF SPEARS. In order to have that you need DISCIPLINED INFANTRY. How do you shake them up? You disrupt they formations with COMBINED ARMS!

I don't know... You soften them up with arrows. Dispersion is a logical reaction to a missile attack - then the infantry are a viable a target to mounted forces. Coordinating your missile systems with maneuver units is basic theory for miltary forces, yes?

Of course, not every unit could remain disciplined against a heavy cavalry charge.. which is why I suppose they stayed around. The guys on the ground had to hold tight... if they broke and ran they were prime for the cavalry's prime mission - pursuit and slaughter of enemy forces.

I never would suggest that cavalry was not important! But not alone is it superior.

Peace,

[Casper Bradak]

Quite a few cavalry units turned to pistoleers, using the charge when firing their pistols before veering off to break them up for other units.

[Steve Thurston]

I better state first that I'm not looking to much at Europe but specifically at the English way of doing things. This is partly because there are different ways of doing things on the continent and also because "the Englsh, the English, the English are best, I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest" (Flanders and Swan) <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Contemporary accounts at Towton state that the Yorkist archers first took out the Lancastrian archers then started on the other troops.

I have a mate who has been doing archery for over 20yrs, British longbow soc. etc. some of the guys who are shooting over 100lb draw wieghts think that it is debateable whether arrows will go through armour on footsoldiers, certainly the Brigandine at the royal armouries has what looks like minor damage from an arrow that has not completely penetrated.

The situation would be different if you were travelling at nearly 30 mph on 1/2 ton of horse, the combined energy would be quite likely to cause the arrow to penatrate plate armour.

This theory is supported by the English dismounting to fight, and using very few unarmoured footsoldiers after 1400.

Without upsetting anyone too much I've heard lots of post renaissance terminology and talk of military common sense but little real evidence.

The copies of the Roman military principles by Vegetius that date from the 15th century refer to training at the pell and all sorts of stuff but I can't remember much on fighting formations being strick line formations. This would appear odd as the Romans knew the effectiveness of such a formation, so why don't medieval documents proffer the same theory? Probably because it didn't make sense to them as I feel it wont represent the traditons of the Angles, Saxons or Normans that
are the basis of later medieval life in England.

Does any one know of pictures or documentary accounts that would support the idea that people stood in big lines a couple of meters apart prodding each other with pole arms?

All the tactics that people reffer to I'm familiar with in the ECW, or Napolionic wars but when did it first start being used in Europe?

Personnaly I think it was the Swiss that brought the idea into military frameworks, Henry VIII's army seems to have used these principles, but then his is the first national army in Europe, it is highly trained and well supplied by royal funding and contains no levied troops unlike those from the rest of Europe.

Realistically a levied army wont have the training or disapplin to hold regimented formations and hence the Lancastrian rout at Towton.

As far as I can descern the term 'regiment', in reference to military groups, doesn't come into use till Tudor times.

Also if fighting in close formation lines as you guys are suggesting why are the so many hacking pole weapons and not just loads of spears? Why do knights and the heavily armoured use pole-axes/hammers?

I would also have to say that medieval crafts at least do not have a developed sense of uniformitty as do other aspects of medieval life, so I find it hard to believe they would have developed such a ridged formation in an aspect of their lives that was ultimaelty quite rare.

As I said before common sense usually isn't, it is usually a tried and tested method that many people know of, it is common sense to not put your fingers on the hot radiators in my house, but my little girl is still finding this out. Common sense cannot be viewed as a justification of the transpostions of later military concepts onto a period were little is truely understood of military behaviour.

I suggest that the Braveheart style is as about as accurate as as the styles that are used in re-enactment, you have to remember that medieval re-enactment (in the Uk) developed out of the ECWS in the early 1980's and many aspects of its structure were transferred to medieval societies.

I still think we need to look at the existance of Higher Medieval Martial Arts that use wider movements (Doesn't Vadi say something about the wider steppings of our ancestors) as an indicator that battle field traditions were different.

I suspect that as the rapier becomes more predominant with the thrust, rather than the hack, you will see military formations that focus on thrusts, hence the increased popularity of the pike.

I know I'm going to have to do a lot of research to get this theory expcepted but I think the period from the 5th century to the 16th century will prove to have different military traditions to later warfare, with a development towards the lined formation fighting during the latter years of the 15th century and the 16th century.

Steve
Late medieval battle re-enactment and living history for 14 years. WMA 5 yrs.

[Steve Thurston]

Is weapon evolution not a possible indicator of changing tradition?

Swords develop from cutting weapons to thrusting weapons, pole arms move from hacking weapons to thrusting weapons all during the 16th century!

Is this not reflective of changing martial traditions?

Steve

[David Craig]

Is weapon evolution not a possible indicator of changing tradition?

Swords develop from cutting weapons to thrusting weapons, pole arms move from hacking weapons to thrusting weapons all during the 16th century!

Is this not reflective of changing martial traditions?

Steve

Steve,

If you have strong interest in this topic, i suggest you check out Martin Van Creveld's, Technology and War, as well as Contamine's, Warfare in the Middle Ages. I tend to agree with you in the sense that if you are arguing that medieval forces did not fight in well-ordered lines, columns, etc., you are probably right. Most European forces of the time were made up of warriors, not soldiers in the modern sense. Individuals who might be excellent fighters, but who lacked discipline and the training to fight specifically within an organized unit. This applied particularly to knights, who did not take orders well, particularly from commanders were not their direct liege lords. This isn't to say, however, that rough lines and other formations wouldn't be seen on the battlefield, simply because that was often the most effective way to oppose the enemy. But aside from a few exceptions, the use of specific cohesive fighting formations, such as the Swiss revival of the phalanx, the Spanish tercio, the Landsknecht tactics, etc., tend to appear in the late medieval, early renaissance era. The reemergence of actual military drill, marching in step, etc., is usually dated to Maurice of Nassau of the Netherlands, where the first military drill books were published in the early seventeenth century.

Anyone doubting that European medieval armies were lacking in discipline and military professionalism should take a look the campaigns of the mongols. The discipline, tactics, mobility and leadership of the mongols enabled them to defeat European armies of far greater size, despite the fact that European troops, particularly knights, were arguably superior individual warriors.
Since you are specifically interested in England, many military historians consider Cromwell the originator of England's first truly professional army.
Note that all this is really too complex and covers too wide a time period to fully discuss in posts on the forum. One could certainly point out, for example, that at Crecy the English fought in a defensive line, used what could be considered fairly sophisticated tactics, and exhibited some degree of discipline. But that's the problem with making gerneralizations.

David

[Joachim Nilsson]

Swords develop from cutting weapons to thrusting weapons, pole arms move from hacking weapons to thrusting weapons all during the 16th century!

I hope you are not, by making that statement, indicating in some way that the evolution of swords and pole arms have been following a straight line...

[Casper Bradak]

Well, there is a few thousand years of experience behind the middle ages. They did have the classical texts they used as much of their doctrine. But their fighting styles were different.
There's an entirely different type of cohesion from a uniform line of pikemen or of men with spears and shields. It doesn't work the same, but that doesn't mean they must not have used any formation among other things. I have a hard time finding any evidence to support the claims that they didn't.
A line of various polearms and other weapons doesn't have to be as tight or uniform as a pike formation, but the simple fact remains that keeping a line was neccessary and they often said so. It doesn't have to keep them in perfect order, it doesn't have to limit their ability to strike down at the enemy, it just has to keep them in a rough front to keep them alive and in order. I can't think of many books that do anything but advocate they did, other than a few obviously biased general ones that give no historical accounts.
I think you're just trying to compare it too much to specific uniform weapons formations like the phalanx or roman standing armies, but it just doesn't work that way. Like you said, the weapons are different, they must fight with them differently, but that doesn't change the neccessities of war.
It's not too complex. In medieval europe they generally always used the same beginning formations for travelling and combat. The 3 rectangular formations called battles. How well do you think cavalry could disrupt an infantry unit if they didn't hold some sort of line, but randomly charged in by themselves to be captured or killed? How did infantry resist the cavalry if they were just a bunch of individuals? How would an army survive one battle? Strategy would break down to nothing more than "Do we outnumber them so greatly that we won't be completely crippled after one battle, even if we defeat them?" Would you like to run at the other guys and do your best, alone in the crowd? Or would you and your buddies keep them from surrounding you, protect your self from the enemies maneuvers, and use 4 to 1 odds taking down the enemies far more quickly and safely?
Knights often fought just to the front of their backup (the smallest unit in the medieval army called a lance) after the initial attack, not only bacuase they had the skill and equipment to get away with it, but because their whole code encouraged it. So there's some of that lack of dicipline. This is also what helped break the enemy lines for the lesser equipped infantry. But like I said, it can't be compared to classical armies, it's different. But even that was sometimes of necessity. If their was too much arrow shot, the armoured men may have to advance before those less so, and knights and men at arms were often used in the front line even on foot to break the enemy lines for the infantry to follow and exploit.
The feudal system alone changed it so units (in general) were not as disciplined as a standing army, and individual martial skill came more into play, we can't argue against that, but the concept of entirely undiciplined and individual warfare is absolutely preposterous. I think the big problem is the comparing of it to classical armies.

[Steve Thurston]

OK, one bit at a time!

Weapon evolution - as far as I can see evolution in any area has rarley been a straight line, niether do I suggest that evolution means better, personally I much prefer the earlier fighting stlyes which are perhaps not quite so "formalised" (OK I don't know to much about later fighting styles to compare accurately, but all this talk of timings and such is beyond my comprehension, a fight should flow with the rythm of the moment - before and after is about as much as I can handle when someones trying to hit me! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

I also haven't been to clear on period or location either.

At the present my research has been limited to post Norman England stopping somewhere in the early 1500's.

I can't comment too much on European stuff and when it comes down to it I haven't really investigated too much in the English stuff yet either.

These are theories I'm looking at due to the archaeological research I've done, and without being funny archaeological material isn't bias, it can be interpreted in a bias manner but so can any document which, having been written by a human being is inately bias (we all have opinions and we all know we are right <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> )


Archaeology

Towton shows lots of guys were killed with blows to the back of the head.

Wisby shows that lots of the guys were hit to the back, and quite commonly the back of the head.(I've not looked at this myself yet but I'll take my dissertation supervisors word for it)

Fishergate, York 1150-1500 shows lots of injuries to the back of the head, about the same % as Towton.

Fishergate, York c.800-1150 shows lots of guys hit in the rear, not so much focused on the back of the head but c.75% into the back of the head and back of the spine.

Saxon England source http://www.geocities.com/stillers_1999/Dissertation.html#TRAUMATIC HEAD. Ok this only looks at cranial injuries but most of those go to the back of the head.

The point I'm trying to make is that Historians have always presumed it is common sense that past armies fought in a manner we are familiar with, however the archaeology seems to say something quite different! This wouldn't be the first time archaeology has proved historians wrong.

I'll see if John doesn't mind putting my diss in the research area for a wee while (I can't put it out perminantly as I'm hoping to publish and Uni wont be too impressed if I've made it available for free)

(sorry I've had 3/4 of a bottle of wine and I'm losing where I am
<img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> , so I appologise now for the disjointed flow of points.)

England post 1400 should not be compared or included with the rest of Europe, we did things quite different after then, "hammered on the anvils of different gravities" if you get what I mean.

I'm not saying that they didn't use lines or any concept of formation, just that it may not be quite what we have been led to presume, like a lot of history. eg the French call the English "rost beouf" because of our tradition of eating loads of beef, funny considering it was a habit we developed from the Gauls during the Roman occupation.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, just there is enough flaws in the argument between the history and the archaeology for us to start re-assessing the medieval ways of combat, and I'll be blown if I'm going to let the archaeologists tell me that pre renaissance fighting was random violence because of hits to the posterior aspect of the skeleton.

I'll probably look at this in the morning and regret it, but hay what was alcohol designed for if it wasn't to make you open your mouth and stick you foot in it!

Steve

[Joachim Nilsson]

*sticking my foot in it*

The fact that remains found in mass graves connected to various battles and battlefields bear marks showing (sometimes) numerous hits to the back of the head doesn't neccesarily mean that they fought without any kind of formation; they might as well have been hacked down by the opposing forces after breaking formation and routing.

Even sources like the old Viking sagas speaks about how the men engaged in battle fought in grouped formation (The saga of Egil Skallagrimsson for instance). And the Viking sagas aren't the only accounts that hints and/or tells about the use of formations and group tactics in battle, there are sources from later times that point to the same thing. Without the use of tactics and formations; what use would there be for different types of troops (archers, spearmen, cavalry etc etc)? None really. The mere use of different types of armed troops more or less makes it neccesary to use some form of more advanced tactics. And please note that I'm not saying that they used as advanced tactics as the armies of later dates but they still used some form of tactic. Mankind was netither more dumb or rash (on the whole) during earlier times, but rather as sensible as we are today, and to assume that the tactics of the Roman legions would not have been adopted by those who came after the Romans is a wee bit risky in my mind. In fact, when I think of it, there are accounts of how the Germanic tribes actually used tactics of their own when encountering and beating a Roman legion (when the Roman army of the East were destroyed much thanks to the good use of heavy cavalry by the Goths at Adrianople in 378 A.D.) The think that an experienced commander wouldn't employ tactics based on different formations is... well, that's to disrespect his ability as a military leader. Not matter what century he lived in.

As for the osteology from Visby: Bear in mind that the victims found in the massgraves on Gotland contain the remains of an "army" made up of mostly old, half crippled men and young boys and whatnot. A totally unproffesional army that went up against -and eventually became surrounded by- a professional army comprised of Danish and German troops. No wonder the skulls show a lot of blows to the back of the head. A battle, as soon as the battle is truly joined, is chaotic to say the least. Almost anything can, and probably will, happen. Especially when morale faulters on one side and people start to run.

To me, blows to the back, doesn't neccesarily mean that they fought without lines or formations. What it does point to is the chaos, confusion and brutality that occurs during armed conflicts when battle has been joined and the opposing lines have clashed. The remains that can be found in the massgraves are, after all, not the remains from the successful fighters, but from the ones who fell. The circustances under which the fell might have been many. They could have been surrounded, routing and on the run, or even have received additional cuts to the back as they were spinning around and going down.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that: yes, there is a difference between the way historians and archaeologists percieve the past. The difference to me though is that historians often look to the more brutal and warlike side of mankind and the results which are born thereof, while archaeologists tend to assume that mankind, all throughout it's history, were a bit more timid and peaceful. Something which I do not agree with at all. Why this is I don't excactly know. It could be because archaeologists are more used to lying on their knees in the dirt excavating some old village or settlement and therefor go for the old "everyone was a peaceful farmer and this is just a farming tool and that is just a farming toool and that is that" line of thinking. This is at least the impression I've thus far gotten from some archaologists I've talked to. They are (often) more used to making assumptions about the things they are more used to see during their working ours (settlements, graveyards, burial-places and whatnot), whilst the historian is more used to basing his assumptions on the ducoments he has studied. Very often documents that are in some way connected to the art of war and all which that brings with it. And please note: I am fully aware that it's the archaeologists that have excavated all the massgraves that can be found all over Europe and not the historians. And I'm not saying this to insult you in any way. Far from it. In fact: I have myself applied for the basic course in Archaeology for this upcoming fall. With the intention of later on perhaps studying osteology. I just think that sometimes, just sometimes, the archaeologists (not all of them, but some) need to consider the warlike aspects of mankind a bit more. And to think that (advanced) tactics weren't used just because a lot of the bodies bear marks of blow to the back is, IMHO, a bit drastic. To me, there's plenty of evidence to be found that to a very great extent enables one to presume that they did employ tactics and formations.

Hope I've made at least a wee bit of sense with my late night ramblings. But I'll probably look at this in the morning and regret it too. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Regards,

[TimSheetz]

I think the evidence suggests that they were killed while in flight after breaking, or that they were executed after surrender/capture.

Killing by blows to the back of th ehead was a preferred method of certain Despotic elements in Cambodia.. garden hoes being the tool of choice.

Didn't The forces at the first battle of Pointiers stop the Islamic forces because of the use of formations of heavily armored infantry vs lightly armored horse?

Tim

[Steve Thurston]

OK

"to assume that the tactics of the Roman legions would not have been adopted by those who came after the Romans is a wee bit risky in my mind. In fact, when I think of it, there are accounts of how the Germanic tribes actually used tactics of their own when encountering and beating a Roman legion (when the Roman army of the East were destroyed much thanks to the good use of heavy cavalry by the Goths at Adrianople in 378 A.D.) The think that an experienced commander wouldn't employ tactics based on different formations is... well, that's to disrespect his ability as a military leader. Not matter what century he lived in."

Are you saying they would employ Roman tactics? To me your German example could support the theory that they wouldn't; why use a formation that had proved to be less effective than one from your own culture (ie sub-Roman, it was pretty much the same all over Europe)?

"To me, blows to the back, doesn't neccesarily mean that they fought without lines or formations. What it does point to is the chaos, confusion and brutality that occurs during armed conflicts when battle has been joined and the opposing lines have clashed."

I don't think its the "chaos" I think it is part of the Martial Arts Traditon that is missed in the books on the interpretation of fighting styles 1380-1500/1500. Looking at Tolbers stuff he acknowledges the basic priciples of footwork and then uses them as the basic method (IMHO conforming to a more familiar post renaissance tradition). In Vadis' work there are a lot of clues to the methods of widder stepping footwork but Porzio and Mele seem more interested in showing it as a predecessor to what are generally post renaissance traditions (IMHO they're right).

I think that the fighting style was different, its not just mass graves, it's civillian graves that also display these characteristics after ?1150 and before they are simply not focused on the head, but there does tend to be lower numbers of hits to the arms legs as can be seen in the later graves and the manuals (sorry I keep using the term, I know its not an accurate description).

According to an English guy called Oz, and (I think) Steve Hicks, the timing put forward for Silver would not only allow but suggest a half step with the lead leg before moving the rear. Oz used to teach in Bradford and this intrepretation brought attacks to the back of the head, its was what got me interested when I started looking at the Towton stuff.

However, to use this in a battlefield environment would require more space, and therfore I feel the lines were not the formation we see in medieval re-enactment in the UK.

'Ah!' I hear you cry 'But this is all swords and we all know they were not the most common primary weapon on the field!'

But do the 'manuals' not also tell us that the basic principles are common to all weapons.

(Sorry appear to have gone off on one ther! <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" /> )

"while archaeologists tend to assume that mankind, all throughout it's history, were a bit more timid and peaceful."

Don't know about that one! I would say a lot of history tends to be a little bit too grousome, left over from the Victorians perception of the past being more barbaric on the principle that it hadn't had them in it. If you really look at the historical documentation you spend years going through household accounts, glebe terriers, probate inventories, buisness accounts, tax roles, ships cargo lists, guild documents, apprentice indentures, property deeds. To find the military stuff is actually pretty hard work.

The archaeology does tend to disagree with the notion of considerable violence to some extent. Quite a lot of skellies don't display evidence of any form of interpersonal violence, but there is nearly always a good sized minority in urban cemetaries I think. However the violence is usually seen as quite horriffic.

I'm just finished at the Uni that produced Blood Red Roses and they seem pretty keen for use to understand that once we'd evolved to Homo Sapien Sapien we were a intellegent as we are now, it was simply that our culture hadn't evolved and they were capable of everything we are now. As our uni has also excavated mass graves from the former Yugoslavian states I figure they are pretty aware of we can do, now, when we say violence is really bad.

I don't know, sometimes the US seems a little more PC than England, so perhaps things are interpreted differently over there, I have certainly been led to believe this is the case in some areas.

"And to think that (advanced) tactics weren't used just because a lot of the bodies bear marks of blow to the back is, IMHO, a bit drastic."

I agree whole heartedly, but perhaps from a different direction.

Steve

[Steve Thurston]

The asumption about the rout and/or execution is due to not being able to percieve a method of combat they are not familiar with.

If they are right that it was rout/execution then it means that the mojority of people who died from blade injuries during the higher medieval period were either in a rout or executed, and there is unlikely to be any examples of a man using the martial traditions depicted in the manuals.

OK I haven't looked at the whole country yet, however, this trauma pattern seems to be acknowledge by the archaeologists without them acknowledging its a pattern.

Out of the 300+ skeletons I've investigated with sharp-force trauma from 600 to 1500 over 75% have wounds to poaterior aspects. When in cemetaries the individuals suffering from sharpforce trauma usually makes c.25% of the total number of individuals.

How would you explain it?

Steve

[Casper Bradak]

I go for the idea that they were striking those who were being routed or who had fallen. Many have argued they were executed but I personally don't go for that one due to the number of injuries on many of the skeletons.
As for using chivalry or honour as an excuse to kill, that's an entirely different argument all together. What better reason to kill than that? I believe in it, and unlike long ago, it's not even necessary to get by in the world now.

[Steve Thurston]

Have you tried standing behind a man and hitting him on the occipital bone (where a pony tail is tied in the hair)?

If they were running away when hit I think you'd probably find a lot of skeletons with a foot missing.

If they turned and fought, using the conventional interpretation of the medieval tradions, then it would bring blows to the lateral aspects, and there is little evidence for that.

They could be executions, but sometimes there is considerable trauma to the head and other areas which would suggest men who weren't sitting there when they were killed.

I think I'm beginning to sound a bit crabby so I'm off to get some sleep

Steve