Ken Speed wrote: |
I don't claim to have any tactical experience but I've read that the feigned retreat is extremely difficult and dangerous because it is too easy for it to turn into a real retreat. Ken Speed |
I would think that the feigned retreat was done in an orderly fashion, really. Trying to simulate a full rout would be very dangerous indeed. It would only breed confusion. Some parts of the line would inevitably be faster off the mark than others. And some would stay in formation so long that they would risk being overrun and encircled by the enemy charge. So you are right; it would take an extremely well-organized and disciplined band of warriors to carry out such a ruse. In fact, I think it would require such discipline that I do not believe it can be done, at least not reliably.
But if you will allow me to indulge in some unfounded conjecture, I would speculate that the tactics you describe is really a version of Philip II of Macedon's hammer and anvil manoeuvre. Here is how I think it might have been done: The shield wall would have fallen back from their initial line and withdrawn to a second position some distance behind this. This new line would be where they would actually stand their ground (and therefore probably the better defensive position). The purpose would be to draw the enemy line forward and into an ambush. As they followed the retreating shield wall, the pursuers would find themselves being attacked from their rear flank by an until then unseen force. The pursuers would be caught between the shield wall and the ambushers charging them from behind, pushing them up against the now (hopefully) unyielding shield wall, grinding them to bits.
I gather it was a very quick and effective move, this.