Medieval battle - The most common medieval tactics.

[Teherean]

These tactics were most common in medieval times around 1200. they are taken from many examples in history books and drawings I own. here it goes:

1st step: an arrow shower. archers and crossbowmen would start shooting at eachother from behind their great shield. this could take hours, mostly until a side decided to attack.
2nd step: The cavalry attacks the enemy infantry. The powerfull knights on horseback ruled the battlefield until pikes and firearms were introduced.
3d step: infantry. This step follows quite fast after cavalry, and is the longest lasting. a large scale battle could take around two days.
4th step: A: the retreat. being covered by archers, hornblowers call the retreat when it is clear a victory cannot be claimed.
4th step: B: the death. the battle lasts until every man is dead. this was rare.
4th step: C: One faction dies. The battle lasts until the other side is completeley destroyed. more common than total 4B, but still less common than 4A.

I hope this helps you create more realistic battles. try to introduce these tactics in your mocs.

[Tower of Iron Will]

Some if not all of these ideas were shown in the movie "Braveheart." The History Channel does some decent reinactments as well for those wanting a visual of these tactics.
-Tower

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Teherean,

Some good ideas, perhaps a bit too general. Also the idea of heavy cavalry as supreme has been often debunked the last 5-10 years, but some have kept that the knight was still MVP if you will in battle. The longbow also seemed to do a fair job of limiting heavy cavalry before pikes and long before firearms had that benefit.

To go alone with step 4. It was extremely unlikely for an army to remain until the last man or until the faction was mauled. Keegan states very small percents of men injured or killed will cause a retreat. we are looking at 5% or less in many cases. The point in medieval war was not to kill every person or even to per se kill anyone. It was to make your enemy flee the field before yours did. Now you do this by wounding or killing but that’s a side effect not the point.

Medieval battle almost never took days. A few did but very, very unlikely.

Also you need a step 5 and 6. Rout. the victor follows the fleeing force to make sure they do not regroup. This is where often most of the deaths occurred.
Step 6- collect the ransomed knights and others and goods of the enemy, mostly enemy camps, which often were wealth on wheels.

Not to derail this too much here are some useful books on the subject.


The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300-c.1450
Christopher Allmand, Cambridge University Press, February 1988

Cambridge Illustrated Atlas: Warfare: The Middle Ages 768-1487
Nicholas Hooper, Matthew Bennett, Cambridge Univ Pr (Trd), April 1996

Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century: Discipline, Tactics, and Technology, Kelly DeVries, Boydell Press, June 1996

The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages : From the Eighth Century to 1340 (Warfare in History) J. F. Verbruggen, Sumner Willard (Translator), R. W. Southern (Translator) Publisher: Boydell & Brewer, March 1997

The Battle of Hastings, Jim Bradbury, Sutton Alan Publishing Inc, September 1998

Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages : The English Experience
Michael Prestwich, Yale Univ Press, May 1999

Medieval Warfare : A History, Maurice Keen, Getty Ctr for Education in the Arts, January 2000

Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics- This is the best general overview I know of.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SLT8 ... re+devries

R

[ELMAS]

The cavalry Knight was effective against rows of infantry until the end of chivalry which arguably ended in the first few battles of the hundred years war.
In the battles of Crecy and Poitiers the English made heavy use of longbows on terrain that they chose prior to battle. The tactics involved mainly disabling the horses (using longbows), forcing the Knights to fight on foot where they where easily decimated on hard-to-maneuver terrain.

Chris

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Chris,

That is more or less my point. Most Academics no longer think this is true. There are loads of battles in the 11-13th where Infantry more than holds its own against cavalry, in some cases defeating them more or less alone. The idea of the mounted knight riding into packed ranks of infantry has in great part been discarded. Keen even goes as far as stating that in the 15th century the mounted heavy cavalry was really at his climax.

A good piece online regarding this myth and it perpetuation.
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/a ... cglynn.htm

A good example of this is the Battle of Legnano. The Wiki article is ok. I'd not make some of the same statements but oh well.

Richard I but most kings of the 12th and 13th also had huge bodies of infantry in their armies for a reason. The idea was to basically create a static point to attack from with infantry and archers. In many cases the cavalry fails and infantry has to hold the field.

Chivalry clearly does not end with the Hundred Years War. In fact by far the most chivalric material from the medieval era is during this period.


R

[Teherean]

Thank you, mister R, for your large comment on my topic. I do apreciate it, though I meant the topic rather more to be ''supportive'' to building actual battle scenes. The details you point out to the other viewers are indeed true, and have some significance, but are not really important if you want to create a battle scene with your lego collection.
I wanted to help people add realism. I was seeing a lot of infantry battles and armies, and thought that these tips would help add the neccesary realism.
Though thank you for your critisism and sharing your knowlege of the books on this subject. I will certainly investigate if I can here in the Netherlands. Until now, My history knowlege still stands on my history classes, and the certain hours in the library.

Leg godt.
M. Miller from the netherlands.

[burkey42]

MM - I appreciate the summary of tactics. R - thanks for the mutual support to the post. In my Lego realm, I have humans, orcs, trolls, skellies and dwarves. Depending on who fights whom, the tactics n weapons change. For argument's sake, we say the arrows are more effective against orcs than skellies. Suppose it all boils down to how historically accurate you want a battle, army, MOC, etc to look.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Teherean,

Just trying to help. Blame it on the day job. For good or bad.

Glad to see you enjoy medieval history. Interest in Medieval warfare I hope is coming back into vogue but we will see. Still a heavy tie to certain topics though to the avoidance of others but this is not the forum for such talk.

Burkey42,

I somewhat think of skellies as being arrow-proof. Not sure why exactly but without vital organs or flesh I think of them as needing be crushed to destroy. Perhaps I am the only crazy with that idea and I have no idea where it came from.

The groups involved are hugely important I assume in a persons Legoverse as well as in history. A Fight between the men of Poland or Russia would have been fought with different tactics, army composition, weapon preference, etc. than an English and French one. Good point Burkey!

RPM

[Blueandwhite]

This is a fascinating topic. I guess the one thing that hasn't been discussed is the obscene amount of money that was needed to train and equip a mounted soldier. I've read that one of the major influences on the decline of cavalry was actually cost effectiveness. As I'm not particularly well-versed in this subject I was wondering if this was actually true.

Very cool discussion though. I love hearing from some of our medieval enthusiasts as it really provides insight into a most fascinating topic.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

B and W,

You are dead on about money. Edward III bankrupted a number of the wealthiest bankers in Europe for his armies in the 100 years war. I will look around and see if I can find the total spent on a few campaigns during these wars but you are totally right... the expense was so great that it’s amazing they were able to wage war on the money they earned a year from various channels.

I'd agree mostly on the heavy cavalry idea. The demise of the knight as a warrior in battle was in great part due to money, he was just too expensive. He needed three plus horses for war, not including pack horses, one to ride etc. Then his retinue would need mounts as well. His weapons and armour as well as those of his men added greatly to this. Expense in my thought is what took the knight off the field more than pikes, guns or whatnot. Don't feel too bad for the knightly class many remain wealthy landowners thereafter, many still part of their respective countries militaries.

The other part is that Heavy cavalry remains in use into the 17th century, some places much, much longer. The disuse at this period is that many Heavy cavalry was in great part they had limited use. Guns now could really blast holes in most armour causing heavy cavalry to ditch all armour but a now very thick helmet and cuirass. Another difference of these periods is they were no longer knights or at times even gentlemen, whereas in the medieval period they usually were knights or esquires, at times very wealthy commoner landowners but after the medieval period more and more are recruited outside this. That’s not to say nobles and gentry were not involved with war. Until the WWI many leaders and such were from these classes. Some cavalry into the 19th century were armed and used in war thus. There after a light form of cavalry remains in use to WWI with some regions using them till today.

Some info on medieval money, cost of things etc.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/m ... html#ARMOR

R

[legokilt]

Most major battles between armies in the field (no fixed fortifications) were started with archers firing volleys (Crecy). The armies would do several volleys and if neither side retreated then the charge would come. Often thought of as a charge of cavalry, more often it was pikemen and various types of infantryman. (not specialized units but men with various types of weapons). Melee was the main type of fighting, though not a tactic. Whichever army could hold the field after the opponent retreated or surrendered was the victor. Agincourt is a great example of this. Also, the French had cavalry and the English turned them aside and defeated them.

As for battle agains t fixed fortifications such as the siege of Le Harve were just that, seiges. It was the best tactic, surround and wait, or start to destroy the fortification with various types of seige engines (Seige of York). Once it was believed the fortification was vulnerable, either from disease and starvation or structural damage, the attackers would begin assaulting using siege towers, seige ladders and rams against gates (Seige of Neimegen). Once the assaulters entered the fortification (castle, town, fort) the fighting degenerated to melee and became general and relatively uncontroled. I have numerous books on seige warfare of various ages in my library should anyone want further information or images.

[Patron of the lego]

There really can't be general tactics for medieval warfare. The tactics were based on terrain, weather, army compostition and most of all situation. There are many great examples.

Such as

The Hussites with their wagon forts. Their armies consisted of crossbowmen, hand gunners and various forms infantry. (See Hussite Wars)

The Swiss would commit skirmishers (javelin men and crossbowmen) then smash their enemies with pikes.

The Hungarians committed Calvary archers and light Calvary to combat the mongols.

We all know about the English and its longbow.

Also calvary would sometimes try to rout the other calvary then charge at the infantry.

Ranged forces could be used to supplement a calvary charge.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Legokilt,

THe problem about looking at English armies of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt is that they were atypical medieval armies. Most forces still were very heavy melee troops to missile troops. Its not universal but in most cases you have 70-80% melee and the rest missilemen. English armies were 50 to 95% archers. The infantry typically does not charge pre 14th century. They typically remain as a wall almost for cavalry to launch attacks and return to regroup and protect the archers. Of course when the cavalry had engaged they'd join or if a route ensured they would also charge. IN the 14th century you get infantry charge as a more common tactic but before this not nearly as common. The Swiss make a point of it actually. In the 15th the rolling pike wall becomes what the swiss are known for.


What siege of York are you talking about? The only real siege of the town happened in the English Civil War, or the British Civil War as the PC patrol is pushing. As far as I know York was never taken by siege, even against the 17th century cannonade.


Patron has a good point that the tactics vary battle to battle. Their are some themes that are more common than others in many times. Part is the idea that medieval battle remained similar from 476 to 1453 or 1500 or what not.

In the end the book I mentioned before is the best I know of-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Techni ... 1862272999

Cheers

R

[cdljal]

warfare then as it still is now would usually be won by the leader who had the best balanced force considering numbers being equal and who could deploy them best. Armored Knights were the masters of the battlefield much like the armord tanks of today. But nothing is invulnerable on a battlefield knights like the M1A1 of today are expensive and have to be supported. If a general sends a company of M1s alone into a battle he will be beaten same for a group of charging knights. Only one thing today generals are schooled and tought this then leaders usualy got their rank by birth or social standing and may or may not have any schooling of military tactics, just the art of the sword and lance. Also everone thinks the branch they serve in is supreem, ask a bomber pilot who wins wars it will be bombers, and an infentry man and it will be the infentry. Well leaders then were knights and well they were the ones who could write the books.

[Danarchy]

The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300-c.1450
Christopher Allmand, Cambridge University Press, February 1988

Cambridge Illustrated Atlas: Warfare: The Middle Ages 768-1487
Nicholas Hooper, Matthew Bennett, Cambridge Univ Pr (Trd), April 1996

Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century: Discipline, Tactics, and Technology, Kelly DeVries, Boydell Press, June 1996

The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages : From the Eighth Century to 1340 (Warfare in History) J. F. Verbruggen, Sumner Willard (Translator), R. W. Southern (Translator) Publisher: Boydell & Brewer, March 1997

The Battle of Hastings, Jim Bradbury, Sutton Alan Publishing Inc, September 1998

Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages : The English Experience
Michael Prestwich, Yale Univ Press, May 1999

Medieval Warfare : A History, Maurice Keen, Getty Ctr for Education in the Arts, January 2000

Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics- This is the best general overview I know of.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SLT8 ... re+devries

R

Have you by any chance studied history? I ask because it's quite rare to find a nice selection like this (with a Belgian in it )

Regarding cavalry I'd like to add that a charge as we think of it was very uncommon in Medieval times. Knights rode (slowly) towards the enemy in very tight formation (a bit like a roman cohort, rather than a bunch of madmen on horses), so that the main idea of cavalry was height rather than speed. The romantic idea of a chaotic charge has more to do with Charles Oman (a 19th century historian) than with reality.