Meme infantry formations in Europe.

>>3147809
Because for most of the middle ages cavalry were the decisive element

Hence why the medieval infantry formation you name was developed specifically to counter cavalry

Consider the cost of maintaining and equipping a professional army; even today It takes a lot of the states budget. After the fall of the Roman empire, the imperial system of legions became unsustainable due to the small size of the succesor states, so the infantry was mainly composed of badly equipped, poorly trained levies and mercenaries. The heavy cavalry, on the other hand, became the main force in warfare until the development of pike and shot formations

>>3147846

Absolutely false

>>3147856

What this guy said.

Horsemen were rarely used as shock troops en masse until around the first crusade because they were incredibly expensive and impractical for small time nobles to field. Hastings helped to transition military thinking of the time in that direction somewhat, but even then consider what impact the horsemen had on the battle - it wasn't until the later stages they played any role at all, and even then they were in the process of leaving the hill before someone accidentally memed King Harold.

Weren't shield walls always a thing

File: Carolingian Cavaryman AD768-986-32.jpg (3MB, 3669x5037px)

3MB, 3669x5037px

>>3147856
>badly equipped, poorly trained levies and mercenaries.
LOL, maybe in the British Isles.

In the Early Medieval Ages: the real answer is: infantry in the medieval ages was a jack of all trades deal. You had men who owned many kinds of weapons and can perform many roles in the battlefield. You want spear-walls nigga? They got you. A shield wall? Can do that to. Light infantry? Yeah they can armor down for that role. Emergency cavalry? Sure.

In addition the mixing up of weapon types can prove a boon as many kinds of threats could be addressed. Meet a man in chainmail? Well your sword might not harm him too much, but the buddy beside you with his mace could.

Hell, in fact during the Frankish period, there was no separation between cavalrymen and professional infantry: they were all "Miles" (soldiers). Professional land-owning warriors of varying amount of wealth, with the richest riding to battle on horses. The cavalry initially was basically just mounted infantry who dismounted in combat and joined the shield wall with less-fortunate miles. But all were granted lands in exchange for military service. It was just later on when the Franks faced the threats of Viking, Moor, and Magyar that the cavalry rose to prominence for their mobility in facing multiple threats. This led them to becme true cavalrymen and the dominant arm both militarily, politically, and culturally of Frankish Europe.

>>3147809
>early medieval

Muh skjaldborg

>>3147809
Lines of polearms aren't formations?

>>3148042
Comparing to the roman legions or the tercios they were indeed poorly trained. After all, nobody besides the knights had time to train efficiently, since they had to work on their lands. Its not that they weren't effective, but they weren't as disciplined as a professional army

I can't really talk about equipment, but i thought that every man had to take his own weapons to the Battlefield, and very few could afford quality weapons

File: Viking Shield formations.jpg (2MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1536x2048px

>>3147971
>>3148071
This.

They weren't idiots, OP.

>>3148087
>imblygn wasn't a ripoff of testudo

>high medieval age
Muh longbows?

File: IMG_4508.jpg (59KB, 438x340px)

59KB, 438x340px

>>3147809
War wagons, DEPLOY

>b-but it's not infan-

NO SHU THE FUCK UP. ITS INFANTRY

File: Battle of Legnano.jpg (991KB, 2082x2923px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 2082x2923px

>>3148102
Not really.

Some shield walls have swordsmen/hand-weapons guys holding the shield, while a cunt with a spear holds an upraised spear to stab at the fucks up front.

Was used in the battle of Legnano.

If by early bits meaing the age of Charlemange or of the Vikings there were indeed infantry formations. The Shield Wall was extremely important in maintaining a cohesive line. This was supplemented by light infantry (especially with javalins). Cavalry played a role but as others have said, it was only in later medieval ages where knights played a prominent role as shock cavalry.

While you could make the argument of the effectiveness of the infantry of those days vs a legionnaire, these levies had some degree of training, even non professionals having been in a battle or two before. The "dark ages" was a period of instability and you had to be tough to defend your little village from just bandits and thieves.

As for the middle ages proper, large set battles were relatively rarer as castles gained importance. It was simply more efficient to garrison a stronghold then wage pitched battles. But even then there are medieval infantry formations of note, such as the swiss pikemen.

File: Norman Cavalry.jpg (204KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1000x664px

>>3147809
They feared the cavalry warrior

>>3147846
This is correct, early /high medieval was the heyday of the heavy cavalry, so called knights.
Their reign of the battlefield ended in the late medieval when massed infantry formations took over the field.