The length of battles

Read the iliad.
Warfare takes place of multiple days and they all sleep in camps.

>>3058633
Battles were usually a few hours or less, consisting of troops engaging each other back and forth intermittently. Close combat is incredibly exhausting, and sustaining such for a long period is incredibly unlikely. It's only the advent of modern weaponry that battles (due to their long range nature) can go on for days.

>>3058709
>The Iliad
>Accurate warfare
That's wrong anon. The Iliad is pants on head retarded for the average person to try and replicate, it's reserved for mythological heroes. Alexander barely got away with it, and he nearly fucking died 3-4 times trying to be Achilles.

>>3058633

Battles typically did not last very long, even ones involving immense numbers of people. The reason is that battle was physically exhausting back them. Fighting with swords, spears, and shields is a very intense ordeal. The human body simply cannot sustain that level effort for very long. Also, you didn't have things like land-mines and snipers to slow down the pace of battle.

>>3058633
That one famous battle in the war of the roses lasted about 6 hours if i'm not mistaken. It was pretty big for the time.

>>3058781
>>3058847
Ffs, do you really think, that battles looked like those portrayed in Hollywood? People fought in formations, they didn't mix with each other and fought like retards all at once. That's why, when you exclude instant routes and massacres, battles could last many hours of constant fighting, and in Renaissance+ periods even weeks.

>>3059229
>and in Renaissance+ periods even weeks.
And you got not a single source for this. Not one example for a battle, not a siege, a battle that lasted weeks!
Idiots like you are the cancer of this board.

>>3058633
Duration of battle usually did not depend of the size of the army.

>>3059244
Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhovti_Vody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_(1621)
Kinda disappointing, asking for example is expected, but masking own lack of knowledge and screaming "idiots" is sad.

>>3059272
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhovti_Vody
>series of battles, siege of a fortified camp
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_(1621)
>The Battle of Khotyn was a combined siege...
Congrats, when everybody thought you couldn't get any more stupid, you topped yourself!

Are there any documentaries/academic articles about war back when guns didnt exist yet? (Not including canons and shit)

>>3059283
>The Battle of Khotyn was a combined siege...
Fights happened outside of fortress.
>series of battles, siege of a fortified camp
Anon, I....
Do you actually think, that
>battle lasting few weeks
means, that they were fighting without interruptions? Like, it's a middle of the night and we can't see shit, let's do some fighting nonetheless!
And you went full retard with fortified camp. With that logic battles like Agincourt or Crecy count as sieges, because they were in fortified positions! Who would have fought, that outnumbered army will fortify themselves.
And read description of first battle, and you will see what "series of battles" means.
>On May 13, 1648, Khmelnytsky met with representatives of Stefan Potocki, who debated turning over their artillery in exchange for safe passage.
>However, after give cannons, Khmelnytsky broke the agreement, deputies imprisoned, and Colonel Kryvonis escaped. The next day there was an attempt to break out of encirclement, Poles along with tabor began to walk towards the small fortified town Kryliv. They were, however, stopped at the cost of hundreds of soldiers captured by the Tatars.

>>3059306
Only a polack possibly can be this stupid!
Read your fucking wiki artices you dumb shirt!
Thats not a field battle, thats a fight for a fortified area with an ongoing siege and several small battles occurring every now and then.

>>3059362
Nice cherrypicking.

>>3059373
Talk shit, get hit!