Medieval warfare!
- Thread starter YouCallMeNighthawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just facepalmed harder than I thought possible. Ignorance and misconceptions, oh how wonderful they are. Do the words "frydmen" or "housecarls" or "billmen" or "man-at-arms" sound alien to you? I'd think so.Srdjan said:
True enough, knights were the core of any western medieval army. They fought mounted and their primary weapon was their lance, cavalry spear or demilance. Not the sword. Swords have the same function as pistols nowadays: status symbols and last resorts, not primary weapons. Today, the primary weapon of a soldier is an assault rifle, back then it was a spear or some other weapon that could be used in a formation.
The knight's status was due to their mounts, armour and skill of maiming lesser men into small bloody bits. They were the fighting elite. But they had supporting troops, each knight could field his own men at arms, semi professional troops, so to speak. "Professional armies" you speak of are mercenary armies, which emerged after the mounted and armoured knight was no longer virtually invulnerable. Standing armies are a product of a much later era.
And in case you have missed a significant part of world history, the English crown raised many battalions of professional longbowmen and billmen to support the king's wars. "A bunch of peasants" were quite a rare sight on the battlefield, they were of no use, as was was the work of professional warriors. Knights and their men-at-arms. Formations have been used throughout the medieval period, varying from the Saxon and Frankish shield walls of the 8th century to the Crusader spearmen and Ottoman Janissaries (halberds in the 12th century in a professional army right there) and finally to the voulgiers and billmen of the Hundred years war. A claim "there were no formations in the medieval era" is absurd and false.
Even cavalry, or should I say, especially cavalry, fought in a formation. Wielding weapons that are most effective in a formation. Knights and lances, whether in line or diamond formation, were the word of the day. Their goal was to break the enemy line in a single furious charge, which they often did.
And it isn't a medieval thing, it's much older. The Greeks, Macedonians Romans and the Carthaginians, Babylonians and Assyrians before them, all fielded their troops in formations, with something other than a sword as their primary weapon, whether it was a sarissa, pilum or flax. Large units of men always fight in a formation with as similar weapons as possible. Linebreakers, such as Zwei handers never fought as a single unit, they didn't have enough space to wield their weapon properly.
The 16th century rise of mercenary pikemen and the rediscovery of the phalanx was a natural evolution of the earlier shorter spears. And it was effective enough. Otherwise it wouldn't have been used in the first place.
oh, and by the way, you misspelled renaissance. And peasants. Fixed them for you.
A short shord and shield. Plus a spear, for the initial shield wall (I'd fight Saxon style, form a shield wall, coax the enemy to charge). Short blades are better: people instinctively want to swing a sword, but it's much more effective to perform quick thrusts. A short sword (such as the Gladius) is ideal for this, without being clumsy or cumbersome 
It is what made the Knights Templar a powerful force on the battlefield, a charge of well aromoured Knights in a solid formation would often break large holes in enermy lines, which would be exploited to devastating effect.Spitfire175 said:
If it's of any consolation, the tactics used in the actual book make more sense. They formed two rings to somewhat negate the enemy's numerical position, held their position on top of hills of rubble and let the enemy come to them.J. Reed said:
And while we are on the subject...
Anyway, I don't think I would ever want to be on a medieval battlefield. But if I really had no choice, I would probably want to be one of the Swiss peasants with a Halberd. Those things did wonders against knights. I would have chosen a bow (particularly how effective they were in Agincourt), but my hands tend to shake too much when using it.
Realistically, maybe 1 in 1000 posters would actually have a sword and armour. If follow my fathers line I end up in Northern France as a peasant so probably end up wearing little in the way of armour and fighting with a bill or spear. If I take my mothers side I end up as a lordling in Scotland, (assuming current family line is correct) So I may have a sword and some rudementary armour in that case. In any of those cases, I'm probably dead, but that has more to do with how the army functions than anything I can really do.
I may also end up as a peasant in England though and thats longbow territory (something I can see myself doing)in which case survival is slightly more likely (unless the French capture me...)
I may also end up as a peasant in England though and thats longbow territory (something I can see myself doing)in which case survival is slightly more likely (unless the French capture me...)
Indeed she does not... Mr. AmericanTheBluesader said:
Now give me back New Jersey! I'm the only real Viking here!
I would hang back away from the battle whilst concocting gun powder and chemical warfare (basic stuff, like how to improve boiling oil)
It would be fun to watch my enemies ignite. If I had to actually fight, I would use a fast weapon, more like a katana than a heavy shield. I don't plan to block, but rather to dodge and strike first.
It would be fun to watch my enemies ignite. If I had to actually fight, I would use a fast weapon, more like a katana than a heavy shield. I don't plan to block, but rather to dodge and strike first.
have you seen the gate? they would have barely enough men to block it at all, and would then be bombarded immediately from the trolls and whatelse standing ON the gateJ. Reed said:
the smart thing to do would probably fake surrendering or try diplomatics
I'd crush you like a wyrum.
Meh, I dunno. Get a massive army of archers and swamp the opponent, unless they decided they want to join me...
...And then booze and wimmenz for all.
Meh, I dunno. Get a massive army of archers and swamp the opponent, unless they decided they want to join me...
...And then booze and wimmenz for all.
so instead of sitting on a defencive position out of their ranged artillery and missle troops forcing them to break rank and engage your position on your terms... you intend to march upto a bottle neck which is flanked by THEIR defencive positions giving them a defelade against any and all attacks you could possibly make while they simply rain down death with impunity Ontop of the massive army of melee troops that are pushing against you...J. Reed said:
i would take my chances on the soft slopping hill, enveloping my archers in the center of my tactical circle allowing them full reign over all targets on the battlefield as i flank my positions with heavy armor close combatants.
just because they use a bottle neck tactic in '300' doesn't make it a superior tactic...
it depends entirely on the army group you are with.YouCallMeNighthawk said:Today i was watching something about medieval warfare and how it evolved and what not. It got me thinking would i survive a battle in medieval times!
They say battles would last hours maybe even days with terrible casualty reports on both sides. I can run for about 5 mins then get tired out so i doubt i would last hours swingin a sword being weighed down by heavy armour.
I would just try and stick with a few guys once the battle has commenced and form a small squad and skuttle around the battlefield trying to kill as many as i could. Also would have to have 2 small swords and a small shield attached to my arm.
So what i ask is, do you think you would survive in a medieval battle? What would be your weapon of choice? How would you go about fighting in the battle?
a funny thing that is usually wrong about mideval battle is that you always see the same people fighting on the front line through out the battle. this is acctually quiet untrue... as troops kill each other in line combat, they are rotated to the back of the collumn where they rest and recoop. the second row in the collumn then engages and repeats the process over and over again so long as the battle rages.
even though battles may go for hours or days at a time, often individual soldiers fought once every 1 or 2 hours. and most of the time, this fighting was individual 1 on 1 combat rather than the overly acrobatic and cinematic fights where one man slays several foes like we see in '300' and 'braveheart'
and inspite of massive gruesome battles which took horrific casualties on either side, you rarely took 30% casualties on one side or the other. this is because the language used to describe the casualties don't refrence the number slain, but rather how they are slain, as both living and dead where drenched in blood and death.
do i think i'd survive mideval battle?
i don't know.
mideval battles where decided by generals and commanders, not by the skill of individual troops. march your troops into a death trap and all the skill in the world can not save them... like wise, prepare a perfect ambush and it doesn't matter how amature your army group may be.
Macho answer- Grab a huge axe and rush into the fray with reckless abandon, possibly shouting something like "Blood for the Blood God!!!"
Realistic answer- Grab a long bow and pick them off long range. I'm crazy, not stupid.
Realistic answer- Grab a long bow and pick them off long range. I'm crazy, not stupid.
Let's get some of the medieval warfare facts straight:
- Full armor isn't even that heavy. The myth was perpetrated in a certain fictional story (where a knight needed assistance just to get on a horse) during the victorian era, but real full armor does for medieval times what full tactical armor did in the modern era (and nearly just as heavy as that). They're built so that you can still use the full range of your motion while protected from nearly all kinds of harm, with as little gaps on armor as possible, so just like weapons back then, they continually improve armor so that it comes close to being able to move like normal while still well-protected from harm. You lose some visibility and if you aren't trained in them, it'll slow you a little, and only nobility can afford full armor at the time, but greatly increased survival is its major advantage, and is worth the price paid while lightly armored soldiers and conscripts are getting mauled. Just don't get stuck in unfavorable battlefield conditions (ie getting stuck in mud) while longbowmen picks you off. The time it became obsolete is the time when gunpowder and muskets were introduced, as they can crush or penetrate armor from a distance.
- Rapiers were made and popularized during the renaissance era, so they never saw action in the medieval battlefields (and during that time, pikes, halberds, offhand sabers and muskets were used during wars, not rapiers). Rapiers aren't effective for field use anyway, since it's a civilian weapon for protection and dueling against fellow unarmored (or barely armored) civilians, and due to how thin it is, it can break more easily than a regular broadsword under normal battlefield conditions (regardless of what the Italian masters preach, which a weapons master like George Silver proved wrong). Broadswords, longswords, and knives are still better at exploiting gaps in armor, and maces in crushing it.
- People back then had shit tons of endurance, as they wield weapons, don armor and train using those weapons while being in armor for years of their lives due to necessity. Marching and running for miles while donning heavy gear, fighting for hours in battle, they're definitely physically well-conditioned, so it's not really that easy to outrun them or to try to pick them off using bows, unless you trained for years to do so (just as longbowmen are trained for years since they use it for hunting), as you too can be sniped using a bow if you become too much of a trouble.
- Full armor isn't even that heavy. The myth was perpetrated in a certain fictional story (where a knight needed assistance just to get on a horse) during the victorian era, but real full armor does for medieval times what full tactical armor did in the modern era (and nearly just as heavy as that). They're built so that you can still use the full range of your motion while protected from nearly all kinds of harm, with as little gaps on armor as possible, so just like weapons back then, they continually improve armor so that it comes close to being able to move like normal while still well-protected from harm. You lose some visibility and if you aren't trained in them, it'll slow you a little, and only nobility can afford full armor at the time, but greatly increased survival is its major advantage, and is worth the price paid while lightly armored soldiers and conscripts are getting mauled. Just don't get stuck in unfavorable battlefield conditions (ie getting stuck in mud) while longbowmen picks you off. The time it became obsolete is the time when gunpowder and muskets were introduced, as they can crush or penetrate armor from a distance.
- Rapiers were made and popularized during the renaissance era, so they never saw action in the medieval battlefields (and during that time, pikes, halberds, offhand sabers and muskets were used during wars, not rapiers). Rapiers aren't effective for field use anyway, since it's a civilian weapon for protection and dueling against fellow unarmored (or barely armored) civilians, and due to how thin it is, it can break more easily than a regular broadsword under normal battlefield conditions (regardless of what the Italian masters preach, which a weapons master like George Silver proved wrong). Broadswords, longswords, and knives are still better at exploiting gaps in armor, and maces in crushing it.
- People back then had shit tons of endurance, as they wield weapons, don armor and train using those weapons while being in armor for years of their lives due to necessity. Marching and running for miles while donning heavy gear, fighting for hours in battle, they're definitely physically well-conditioned, so it's not really that easy to outrun them or to try to pick them off using bows, unless you trained for years to do so (just as longbowmen are trained for years since they use it for hunting), as you too can be sniped using a bow if you become too much of a trouble.
I'd probably be an archer. Mainly because in medieval times, being English, I would have spent my entire childhood (for at least an hour every week) training at the water butts with a longbow (it was a legal requirement in those days in England), and so I would be powerful enough with it to do some damage. After I run out of ammo, I would then join my fellow archers in defending ourselves and basically covering the rear with crossbows and short swords. Pretty much guaranteed to survive provided we win, if we lose the battle (which with the tactics English soldiers used back then would be exceptionally unlikely) then I can just escape and desert.
History is on my side as an Englishman, if I was an archer I've got a massive chance of survival
History is on my side as an Englishman, if I was an archer I've got a massive chance of survival
Really? I find the whole Helm's Deep thing much more disturbing. They had elven marksmen up on the wall, not to speak of the bow-wielding humans. You'd think someone had the brain to... y'know... shoot the Orc with the torch running for the only weak point in the wall.J. Reed said:
OT: if I may be a little unrealistic... I'd prefer the job of an assassin like Ezio.
But else it's longbow everyday, I'm not stupid enough to go in a direct confrontation, seeing as footsoldiers had a life expectance similar to cats on Melmac.