What were medieval battles really like, /his/? I'm guessing

>>457089
I don't know, how could you fight in a melee without "clashing".

>>457098
I mean when in LOTR the huge armies come running at eachother.

>>457109
Well I figured that, but would you really want to walk at them either? I figure the fist few ranks at the front line would be skewered and the opposing armies would bleed into each other from there.

>>457089
Depends on the battle and the Period. Usually battles were very rare so when they happened, it was a rather stale affair with neglibile casualties. Once one side started routing, then the Killing started.

Most casualties in medieval battles were during routes.

File: Friedrich-Gymnasium_Freiburg_(im_Breisgau)_Treppenhaus_Rekonstruktion_Fritz_Geiges_Sempachschlacht_vor_WK2.jpg (821KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 1920x1080px

>lavish Habsburg knights eating and hollering to each other as they ride on down to teach Swiss shits who's boss
>it's a hot day, and they're riding in tin cans
>get jumped by a gang of insane Swiss freedom fighters
>dismount and fight in a pikewall
>too slow and tired to fight effectively
>legend has it a Swiss man heroically grabbed numerous pikes to open a gap in the Habsburg lines
>Habsburg knights are slaughtered by tactical inferiority, goes down in their history as glorified a massacre

Given the picture is from the WotR, here's a stereotypical example of how a battle in tgat conflicwast was fought.

One or both armies trying to get somewhere when they bump into or catch up with the other army.
Both try to get advantageous ground or set up defenses.
Deployment consists of 3 blocks, the vanguard, mainguard and rearguard. Sometimes cavalry on flanks but almost everyone is on foot.
Both sides begin by shooting at each other, most soldiers being bowmen (though presumably armed with something else as well). If available cannons are used too.
They continue shooting until one side can't take it anymore and advances.
They army advances marching up to the enemy army and begin to fight hand to hand.
Men presumably rotate in and out from the front line every few minutes to rest and take on water.
This continues until one side breaks and runs. Sometimes one block, sometimes the whole army.
Depending on the battle the victors chase the defeated and slaughter them.

There are variations, battles like Losecote Field where one side skipped the hand to hand bit and just ran, or Bosworth that saw a massively out of character cavalry charge, but that's the general plan.

>>457171
Golf

>>457121
>Well I figured that, but would you really want to walk at them either?
Usually this was better, since you could maintain your formation.

Even on horseback, it was considered better to canter at an enemy rather than gallop, since you could maintain a closer formation, even going knee to knee which could scare off other cavalry formations as you were forcing them to fight it out or run instead of charging and threading through.

>>457264
I just assume at some point the pace would pick up a bit. Maybe not a full on LOTR charge, but a faster pace.

>>457312
To be honest I am talking about early modern cavalry, where the lance was considered inferior to the pistol since it was useless when mixed in with the enemy. The tradeoff between speed and cohesion was tilted in that direction by weapon developments. Lances only regained their popularity (outside places like Poland where it never left) when cavalrymen stopped wearing armour entirely

>>457089
>I'm guessing they weren't some LOTR style clashing of armies, but what were they really like?
>>457098
>I don't know, how could you fight in a melee without "clashing".

I read a bit about them, and a common phenomena seems to be the wave of battle, when lines advanced, met, fought and retreated, then repeated the whole ordeal until one side wavered. You can find the same pattern in large scale riot/riot police scenes from modern time.
This given it was an open battle, ambush tactics where just slaughter.

>>457121
How the fuck did they get people to march at the front? Seems like a death sentence.

>>457537
>How the fuck did they get people to march at the front? Seems like a death sentence.
Drums for coordination. Ever been to a nice football fight or a street riot? You'll march, hundreds others do the same and adrenaline does the rest. You didn't dressed up for nothing.

>>457537
The Swiss mercenaries had Doppelsöldner who were in the front, as the name suggests they got paid double and all was well.

>>457563
Nope those where the German Landsknechts. And they where not for the front, but bodyguards for the flank and key positions like banners, guns and commanders.
Apart from that your post is spot on.

>>457572
A Doppelsöldner is a Reisläufer (Swiss) or Landsknecht (German) who gets paid double to fight in the front, usually equipped with a Bidenhänder (two-handed sword). That's how we learned it in school here.

>>457537
Early Ottoman Empire really did use criminals and single people for the first line.

>>457583
>A Doppelsöldner is a Reisläufer (Swiss) or Landsknecht (German) who gets paid double to fight in the front, usually equipped with a Bidenhänder (two-handed sword). That's how we learned it in school here.
Yes, I know, and it is plain wrong, trust me on that one.

First thats renaissance you are talking about, pike or pike & shot formations. Medieval was very different from that.
second Germans hat motley crew Landskenchts where some Soldiers got double pay because of veterancy or special abilities like skilled craftsmen, gunner, siege engineer, licensed swordsmen.
Now the later ones had often a Bidenhänder type longsword, albeit pole arms have been more common. Now if you got a mercenary army, you don't put your best, most experienced and most expensive soldiers in the effrontery just to take 70%+ casualty rate at the very first day of your war. That job is for the plebs.
You put your Doppelsöldner where it really matters, around your banner, around your guns, at key points of your battle order and around you, because you matter most.

The Swiss where different, as you hired entire military units. They had grades according to seniority and experience and from this they had different shares in the take.
And if you are Swiss yourself, you know, no Swiss will ever tell another person what he earns, and he will especially not strutter around and call himself Doppelsöldner, just Germans do that.

File: Places of Dignity Pike.png (441KB, 815x601px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 815x601px

>>457625

File: pike_warfare.png (679KB, 1132x778px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1132x778px

Early modern account of a battle

>>457089
keep in mind that most of their armies were for show and were made up of peasants without much training, they were retreating and standing around more than they were fighting

File: john the fearless battle array.png (795KB, 1148x1920px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1148x1920px

>>457089
>What were battles like in this time period that covers 1000 years guys?

It could vary a lot.

However pretty much all battles had one fundamental truth. The goal is to make the enemy leave the field of battle, that is what constitutes a winning battle. Killing enemies was just a means of achieving this goal.


I hope pic related will give you some idea of late medieval warfare.

Generally speaking cavalry acted as the striking arm due to their mobility while infantry presented a relatively solid front. Archers, crossbows and guns were deployed as skirmishers and skirmished before the main infantry lines clashed, there are of course exceptions to that.

Two lines of infantry several ranks deep would clash and the infantry would try to make the enemy rout by breaking up their unit cohesion, something typically achieved by attacking the banners or penetrating the ranks to attack from the rear.
Get this book mate: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2650867-the-art-of-warfare-in-western-europe-during-the-middle-ages-from-the-eig

>>457153
That really depends on the morale of the enemy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Jakob_an_der_Birs

>>457264
>Even on horseback, it was considered better to canter at an enemy rather than gallop, since you could maintain a closer formation, even going knee to knee which could scare off other cavalry formations as you were forcing them to fight it out or run instead of charging and threading through.

Contemporary sources advice to gallop but only in the last few yards.

>>457537
Good armor and muh honor.

Truth is the front rank was virtually always made up out of veterans and the well armed.

And first the duke of Lancaster and sir
John Chandos' battle assembled with the
battle of sir Bertram of Guesclin and of the
marshal sir Arnold d'Audrehem, who were
a four thousand men of arms. So at the
first brunt there was a sore encounter with
spears and shields, and they were a certain
space or any of them could get within
other. There was many a deed of arms
done and many a man reversed and cast to
the earth, that never after was relieved.
And when these two first battles were thus
assembled, the other battles would not
long tarry behind, but approached and
assembled together quickly. And so the
prince and his battle came on the earl
Sancho's battle, and with the prince was
king don Peter of Castile and sir Martin
de la Carra, who represented the king of
Navarre. And at the first meeting that
the prince met with the earl Sancho's
battle, the earl and his brother fled away
without order or good array, and wist not
why, and a two thousand spears with him.
So this second battle was opened and anon
discomfited, for the captal of Buch and the
lord Clisson and their company came on
them afoot and slew and hurt many of
them. Then the prince's battle with king
don Peter came and joined with the battle
of king Henry, whereas there were three-
score thousand men afoot and a-horseback.

cont.

>>458149
There the battle began to be fierce and
cruel on all parts, for the Spaniards and
Castilians had slings, wherewith they cast
stones in such wise, that therewith they
clave and brake many a bassenet and helm
and hurt many a man and overthrew them
to the earth ; and the archers of England
shot fiercely and hurt [the] Spaniards
grievously and brought them to great mis-
chief. The one part cried, ' Castile for
king Henry ! ' and the other part, ' Saint
George, Guyenne ! ' And the first battle,
as the duke of Lancaster and sir John
Chandos and the two marshals sir Guichard
d'Angle and sir Stephen Cosington, fought
with sir Bertram of Guesclin and with the
other knights of France and of Aragon.
There was done many a deed of arms, so
it was hard for any of them to open other's
battle. Divers of them held their spears
in both their hands, foining and pressing
each at other, and some fought with short
swords and daggers. Thus at the begin-
ning the Frenchmen and they of Aragon
fought valiantly, so that the good knights
of England endured much pain. That day
sir John Chandos was a good knight and
did under his banner many a noble feat of
arms. He adventured himself so far, that
he was closed in among his enemies and so
sore overpressed that he was felled down
to the earth ; and on him there fell a great
and big man of Castile called Martin Fer-
rant, who was greatly renowned of hardi-
ness among the Spaniards, and he did his
intent to have slain sir John Chandos, who
lay under him in great danger. Then sir
John Chandos remembered of a knife that
he had in his bosom and drew it out and
strake this Martin so in the back and in
the sides that he wounded him to death,
as he lay on him. Then sir John Chandos
turned him over and rose quickly on his
feet, and his men were there about him,
who had with much pain broken the press
to come to him, whereas they saw him
felled.

>>458134
nice b8 m8.