What was pre-gunpowder warfare like? Did men really just run

>>34907064
Have you ever watched Game of Thrones?

Like that, except without the dragons.

>>34907064
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MroGPObEZzk

>>34907064
Pretty much the exact same, but the stones being thrown were not moving as fast, and the battles tended to last longer.

It depends on how well trained each side was. Professional soldiers were trained to rush straight in to combat. If you look at tribal fighting styles from Australia and Papua New Guinea you see a lot of the riot stuff between two rioting groups like you said. The way the natives of those areas fight has thousands of years of ceremony however but it is basically two groups of men throwing spears at one another. Those are great examples of tribal warfare. With more advanced civilizations there are more advanced protection and weapons to the way people fight changed.

A great example of a professional force and an unprofessional one is riot police fighting rioters. This is part of the reason Romans were so successful againt their neighbours, Celts and Germanics were used to a slower paced type of fighting, skirmishing with ranged weapons followed by both sides slowly crawling towards each other until contact was made. Sometimes warriors would issue challenges to the other side and both warriors would fight in no mans land. The Romans were trained to go from skirmishing straight in to combat, we tend to think of them as a defensive fighting force because of their shields and heavy armour but in reality they were partly as successful as they were because of their aggressive style of warfare which is difficult for the less professional forces to deal with.

Hundreds of years later the Romans would adopt a combined arms approach to warfare that included heavy cavalry. This was because by now everyone was using horses as skirmishers and shock troops.

>>34907064
In europe from the classical era onwards formation warfare and disciplined troops were king, so much so that it carried over to early gunpowder warfare and is the reason why modern armies today have drill. Don't know much about how it was before then though.

>>34907183
The swordplay in Game of Thrones seems pretty bad. Seems like a missed opportunity to feature HEMA.

Most battles actually had very low fatality rates, despite having lots of dudes directly facing off in melee. Turns out, nobody actually wants to walk into a wall of pointed death. The vast majority of "combat" deaths happened after the battle was over, during routs.

>>34907064
>Did men really just run into the other army? How did they over come that fear?

Prestige and vast riches with the right to loot was far more inciting then tilling the farms all day. Some do it for honor, some for money, some do it for loyalty and others do it because they want to do something less boring. War was already commonplace as much as life and death in the wilderness by time the Illumination of the Renaissance.

File: 5 (2).jpg (303KB, 842x1200px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 842x1200px

>>34907192
"Crushing nuts is easier when grouped together" -Hannibal

>>34907513
Before the classical era it was pretty much hordes of dudes running at each other. If irc it was the Persians under Cyrus who first came up with armies that were divided into groups based upon arms. Ex) Skirmishers in front, spearmen in second line, swordsmen in third, etc.

Before then, and you can see it in depictions of ancient Mesopotamian warfare, the two opposing armies would just go at it, all the different archers, swordsmen, spearbros, and chariots all intermixed fighting against the other intermixed blob.

>>34908084
This. Most of the times it was two lines clashing with shields locked trying to land in blows in-between. The side that gave first was fucked.

>>34907064
Disorganised, untrained/skirmish types of warfare probably looked like a bunch of dudes running at each other, doing hammerfists, wild spastic kicks, swinging sticks and shrieking a lot. Certainly bravado, intimidation and individual combat skill has a factor in 'who wins', with the other side either copping a beating or just noping the fuck out. But the downside is that there's not a lot of backup with your companions who are doing likewise behaviour and might not be able to help you out or up if you bite off more than you can chew.

Organised infantry warfare is more like a rugby scrum mixed in with sharp objects, weight, mass, co-ordination pushed the other side back until they fell on their arse or died somewhere along the way. That kind of fighting lasted a very long time- the classical era, romans, all through the middle ages, renaissance and its last hurrah was the combined arms use of pike and shot. To some extent it still exists in the modern era with riot cops locking shields and batoning the fuck out of people.
The advantage there is you don't need as much training in stabbing cunts to a fantastic mastery-level of individual combat and can fall back on discipline and co-ordination. With some reliance on the guy either side of you to do his job as well. To some extent that cohesion is a comfort in that you've got people to help, you wont be in it alone and then its a good old mob mentality, hating and sheer violence that gets it done.

We still carry that on in infantry combat, you tell your guys to each cover a sector, you cover yours and combat discipline, unit cohesion keeps us in the fight as we know everyone is doing their job.

>>34908821
Are guerillas skirmishers? Is that why they tend to have high fatality ratios when they run into professional infantry units?

>>34907064
>Did men really just run into the other army?
no one would come at an actual objective and do things at it

war is not just "kill the bad guys lol"

>>34907064
Lots of sieges.

A huge number of different styles and types.

For example, Saxon warfare was based primarily around interlocked round shields and spears. Brave people would advance ahead and throw spears, and in close combat they would try to overpower the other line and create a breach. Other weapons were used, but the shield and spear was the core.

Northmen preferred the round shield as well, but formations were looser. Swords and axes were more common then the comparability rigid shield wall.

Pictish warfare was all about being poor. Shields and spears again, but plenty of bows too. Loosely organized, they didn't make real use of shield walls and the lack of concentrated force hurt them in warfare with Saxons and Northmen.

>>34907064
Arrows, cavalry, other projectile weapons and very long polearms were the basis of most fighting until the armies closed to within polearms distance then it became more chaotic.

I think the better question is:

What was pre-radio warfare like?

>>34909027
Flags and instruments.
After watches also time schedules.

>>34907064
You want to watch some Lindy Beige. eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE

If that doesn't do it for you, watch any among of the myriad recommendations that comes up.

>>34908870
Guerrillas by definition are small, irregular forces which attack larger conventional units using ambushes, hit and run tactics. Because if they stick around long enough they'll get smashed by overwhelming numbers.
A skirmish engagement in force though is something they can do, but its success really depends on how well sorted out the opposing force is.

Skirmishers in the classical warfare sense where smaller forces that are attached to a larger force, they use projectiles like bows, javelin, slings etc to knock around a larger enemy force, then using their speed (light armour, loose formation) to avoid being caught and directly engaged. That got used to a greater degree by some forces; like the Huns and Parthians which just sped in on horses, used bows and javelins to fuck people up. But they had no conventional line infantry moving in formation so to speak.

>>34908084
LindyBeige on routes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OsLESoAGg0

File: 1473217270291.gif (1MB, 480x351px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x351px

>>34907064
>Tell me about over 3 millenia of warfare senpai

>>34909137
*routs

>>34907064
May find this interesting, particularly toward the end.

>>34909122
What are Lindybeige's qualifications? He's obviously very passionate about history and he's an enthusiast, but sometimes it sounds a bit like he's talking out of his ass.

>>34907064
NAZIS

>/pol/

>>34908029
>HEMAfags

God you're fucking insufferable, HEMA was never ever applied in open field medieval combat because it was sure to get you fucking killed

Hiding from arrows until the arrows stopped then running out from behind cover and being shot by an arrow. Or if you didnt die from an arrow you run towards someone and flail your arms about until one of you gets knocked on the head and then stabbed.

>>34909426
The field scenes actually look nice enough, the dueling scenes are retarded tho.

>HEMA was never ever applied in open field medieval combat because it was sure to get you fucking killed
Thats wrong by the way, because HEMA is more than just two guys dueling, there is enough manuals on field combat, unit tactics, pike formations and how to fight 3 guys at once on horseback or how to use early grenades.

>>34907064
>Did men really just run into the other army?
Actually, those are penguins.

Don't worry op, it's a common mistake.

File: IMG_1964.jpg (155KB, 400x263px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 400x263px

>>34907064
No they didn't just run at each other like you see in movies and games. Discipline and formation were maintained.

A Late Middle Ages example would be the Battle of Crecy. The English Army set up a defensive position with longbowmen behind wooden stakes and men-at-arms between each group of longbowmen. The English Army at this time was mostly archers.

The battle started off with Genoese crossbowmen hired by the French to fire bolts at the English archers. Unfortunately the crossbowmen didn't have their shields with them yet and were still ordered to attack. The shields were in the baggage train behind them. Also the rain affected the performance of the crossbow strings. The English archers returned "fire" and forced the crossbowmen to retreat.

Next, the French cavalry and infantry made repeated attempts to break through, but failed and the French retreated. Pic related is Edward the Black Prince. I don't think he actually wore black armor though.

The point is: discipline and formation were important, but melees could be quite chaotic after the initial engagement.

I think total war games have it pretty close.

>>34909426
HEMA is not just longsword usage in judicial duels and self defense.

It covers pole weapons, dussack (a weapon used in war), sword and shield, bayonet fighting, and sabre/broadsword during the early modern period.