How accurate was this depiction of a double envelopment? Also

>>2001659
>not leaving a hole for enemies to flee
That was retarded
>so many bodies it's an obstacle
Fucking 300

>>2001659

That entire battle scene was the dumbest shit from start to finish

>>2001659
That scene was not accurate at all and frankly completely ridiculous. For one thing, the bodies couldn't possibly be stacked that high in that small of a space, they'd fall down. Things like that just didn't happen, especially in medieval combat.

Also, it was extremely rare for an army to envelop an opposing army and allow them no means of retreat. They cite Cannae but Cannae didn't work like that, the encirclement was closed by cavalry - cavalry which apparently disappeared after the initial charge.

Dont get me wrong that was one of the best GoT episodes so far, but it's anything but historical.

>>2001745
Thanks for the well thought out, non-meme response. Any idea on the civil war claim? I've done some light research and couldn't find anything remotely close to their claim.

Also I understand it's just a fantasy show so their not going to do an accurate depiction of battle but what are some good examples of one done right?

>>2001745
It seemed to make sense to me. Bodies absolutely could be piled that high, just look body disposal during world war 1 or 2. Especially because horse corpses were in that pile too.

The encirclement was mostly done by Hannibals african veterans on the flank, the cavalry closed the envelopment only in the back.

The cav all died in the beginning of the battle because the boltons charged their cav first and the starks had to charge their cav as a countermeasure. Thats how the big ass body pile happened.

I will say, the lack of shields and helmets in GoT battles is odd, but its a fake world so whatever.

>>2002098
It still doesn't change the fact that not leaving your enemy an escape route is an extremely dumb decision that was never done in Medieval battles. You want your enemy to break and run, not force them into a corner where they have to fight you and cause you more casualties. If you let them run away you can easily mow them down at little cost. Indeed, most of the deaths in Medieval battles almost always occurred in the pursuit of a fleeing army, not in the actual battle

About as accurate as every other aspect of the fantasy show

>>2001659

With line battles it wasn't too unusual to have localized "hot spots" of violence in which casualties were far higher than average. I imagine they read something to that effect from memoirs and, while true for some small section of battlefield, it wasn't indicative of the battle as a whole. For example at Shiloh there are accounts of nearly 90 Confederate dead from the 18th Louisiana filling a single ravine.

File: Child’s armour 1645.jpg (58KB, 435x728px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 435x728px

>>2001659
>>2001745

Agincourt

>Piles of bodies the height of a man or of a spear are commonly referred to in ancient and medieval sources, almost always in the context of a battle where the losers had been subjected to a double envelopment followed by a full encirclement and the same kind of compression experienced at Agincourt. In describing the results of such a combat, the chroniclers or contemporary historians often remark that many died without striking a single blow, or that more were killed by crushing and suffocation than by wounds.

>In its allegorical description of Agincourt, Le pastoralet describes the dead lying “one on top of the other, in piles, heaps,” adding “many died lying among the dead without receiving a single blow.” John Hardyng, who claimed to be an eyewitness, agrees that thousands of the French at Agincourt were “slain unsmitten,” “dead through press.” Many other chronicles, French, English, and Scottish, support the basic accuracy of this statement. Thomas Elmham, Jean Juvenal des Ursins, the English Brut, Thomas Basin, and the Liber Pluscardensis, all describe the same phenomenon: how “the living were pushed towards death[;] the living went under the dead; the battle lines, sinking to the ground, piled up into heaps”; “the noble French fell one on top of the other [so that] many were suffocated”; “so thick, each on top of the other, that a great number of them were slain without making any stroke,” “and were suffocated in the crush”; “heap upon heap, extinguished by the thousands.”

>The count of Richemont was found alive after the battle pinned under two or three corpses, which would have been a pile three or four feet deep, or more if, as is likely, he was not at the very bottom of the stack. How many bodies would have to be piled on top of a man before he would suffocate to death “unsmitten”? Four or five, perhaps? That would produce a pile as high as a man.

File: La danse macabre des femmes- La nouvelle Mariée, la Femme grosse.jpg (274KB, 1000x654px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1000x654px

>>2002285

Dupplin Moor

>This was particularly true at the battle of Dupplin Moor (1332), which was almost a preview of Agincourt, minus the cavalry charges and on a smaller scale. The English adopted the same sort of formation, with men-at-arms and spearmen four deep in the center and archers in forward-leaning wings; the Scottish vanguard had some initial success, then stalled under cross- re until the main battle piled onto it from behind, leading to mass death by crushing and suffocation. There, ten different chronicles attest to the tall piles of dead.

>According to the Lanercost Chronicle, “Each crushed his neighbour, and for every one fallen there fell a second, and then a third,” until the pile of bodies reached the height of a spear. The English infantry and archers surrounded the heap of wounded, dying, and dead Scots, many of them suffocated, to kill the survivors. Mar and Bruce died this way, along with perhaps as many as 58 other knights, 1,200 men-at-arms, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of foot soldiers. The English lost only 2 knights and 33 soldiers.

>>2002325

Nervii

>According to Caesar’s eyewitness account, when his legionnaires fought the Nervii: “As the first among them fell, the next ranks stepped up onto the fallen and fought from atop their bodies; when they too were cut down, and the corpses heaped up, those who were on top of them hurled their weapons at our men as if from a mound [or hill].”

>>2002285

>In fact what the Gesta says on this point is “our [English] men climbed up on those heaps, which had risen above a man’s height, and butchered their enemies down below with swords, axes, and other weapons.”

>>2002350
What kind of madmen are gonna be stacking bodies in the middle of a battle?

>>2003862

the english