| Author |
Message |
Jean Thibodeau
|
 Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | Isn't a Schiltron a circle formation?
M. |
Nope: Just the Scottish name for a pike square, phalanx, shield wall. There might be differences in the details about the ways these formations were used in different periods and what other troops would give support, but in general it all about tight groups of fighter with long and pointy things moving as a group with more or less discipline or complex manoeuvring.
The Roman version being particularly good at complex precise coordinated movement of sub-units " maniples " ( Little squares or multiple lines in checkerboard formations ).
Or 16th century pike supporting and supported by shot units.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiltrons
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
  |
 |
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah I see. My first encounter with that word was in the game "Medieval 2: Total War" and was suspicious as to why my units of spearmen would ever want to form a circle of spears -- I couldn't protect anything with them and only seems to serve the purpose of letting my units be surrounded.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
    |
|
|
Justin King
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Schiltron may not have been the best choice of term for what I meant, it's just what came to mind. I think the actual shape of the formation is not terribly important to this term, it would have varied acccording to terrain, enemy movement, any flanking obstacles, etc., but may be distinct from a square or rectangular formation of ordered ranks or lines (not sure here, going mostly on context and inference).
Where I said "schiltron" you can probably interpose any term for a closely ordered, mostly static infantry formation.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, a schiltron is primarily a formation to resist heavy cavarly.
Infantry that is not deply ranked up will have a very hard time resisting heavy cavalry. If in skirmish order or a single line, the cavalry will simply hit a flank, ride it down, and move on before the infantry can mount a counterattack.
Once the infantry is deeply ranked up, well disiplined, and/or dug in, the Hit, buldoze and run tactctics of the cavalry no longer works.
In small scale engagements it works extremely well, though. Which would explain why early medevial knights developed "Attack at once no matter the numerical odds" doctrine, which would lead them to such humiliating defeats in the early 14th century.
By that time they had been doing it quite sucsessfully for almost 200 years. Otherwise, they would have developed more advanced tactics.
The french knights charging 15 times at Crecy, uphill, against prepared defenses, heavy infantry and about 7000 archers, is reminicent of infantry squares walking into machinegun fire during WW I.
It USED to work very well, so one keeps doing it...
Since heavy cavalry was more cost effective to maintain as feudal troops, infantry was largely ignored by the elites of the major high medevial kingdoms.
The exceptions where the scandinavian countries, which lacked a knightly elite, and based their armies on mass levvies, and the italians, which, being mostly smaller city states, fielded milita armies.
The result was a circle effect, where cavalry is more usefull, thus the infantry is downlplayed, making the cavalry even more dominant.
The factions that started fielding effective infantry in the 1300's didn't have heavy cav, and so had to prioritze infantry, which came as a shock to the knightly elite, that where used to riding down brigands with little resistance.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jean
I don't know if this will help or not on your commit on group cohesion.
We trained as a small group of three shields and a spearman. We were then attached to 2 other teams of three and one whom in turn was attached to a line. Any time we became separated, we made sure to find our teammate/ or the other two teams and then the line. We had squads on the opposing side that did nothing but breakup lines and open up holes. Closing those holes was imperative. Death of members also made us re-team with other teams and keep the line intact.
It was not easy when so many people were all around you swinging and it was hard to tell who was ally and who wasn't. Thus you got to know your teams/ groups/lines very well.
You train in small teams then train with other teams and then with whole lines consisting of multible teams.
This worked very well.
I always got front and center teams to hold against opposing line chargers. That always hurt and more than once found myself flat on my back and scrambling to get back to my team. If I didn't get up fast enough, I was asked if I was dead to which I promptly replied, "No, but if let me get up I'll buy you a beer!" Beer always saves the day! 
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Werner Stiegler
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | From what I gather samurai were originally mounted archers, but later moved to combat on foot. Heavy shock cavalry never appeared in Asia the way it did in western Europe, and there is really no eastern equivalent to the French gendarmes. |
As far as I've gathered, heavy cavalry was an on-off-affair for the chinese. Some dynasties, for example the Song Dynasty, used them while others did not.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've often wondered how two formations of spears would fare against each other. I am assuming a levy spear man would have some sort of backup weapon, no?
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | I've often wondered how two formations of spears would fare against each other. I am assuming a levy spear man would have some sort of backup weapon, no?
M. |
Yes, but much less than a shield man. Most likely a short sword and buckler or a simular combo. Axe, hammer, mace, etc.
Two lines of shields and spears in opposition is a hoot! It's like bopping goffer heads at Chucky Cheese!
Who ever sticks his head up to look over his shield gets it!
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Werner Stiegler wrote: | | Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | From what I gather samurai were originally mounted archers, but later moved to combat on foot. Heavy shock cavalry never appeared in Asia the way it did in western Europe, and there is really no eastern equivalent to the French gendarmes. |
As far as I've gathered, heavy cavalry was an on-off-affair for the chinese. Some dynasties, for example the Song Dynasty, used them while others did not. |
What form did Chinese heavy cavalry take? Stirrups would have been available, but armor was very different, correct? were they used as a coup de gras as in western Europe? Were they using single handed lances, or something two handed like a kontos? Sorry to stray, but you've piqued my curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've often wondered how two formations of spears would fare against each other. I am assuming a levy spear man would have some sort of backup weapon, no? |
I'm unsure about earlier warfare, but Renaissance pikemen tended to massacre each other when they fought. The front ranks on both sides could be annihilated. Backup weapons were indeed important. All pikemen were expected to carry swords and know how to use them. 16th-century military manuals make this clear.
According to Smythe, pikes became useless after the first thrust. He wanted his pikemen to advance, thrust in unison, and then drop or toss their pikes. After that, they drew swords and daggers and attacked any unarmored part. Many 16th-century sources support this vision of pike combat, though it may have become less aggressive later on.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes, the push of pike. I figured early medieval spear combat would have been similar to that.
Also, a "shield man" mentioned above -- do they simply carry the shields for the soldiers? I know of middle-eastern shield bearers who carried large wicker shields for archers in the bronze/iron age.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jan, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shield man in this sense is an SCA term, not a historical term; though military riot police use the same setup with batons and shields. The concept is the same in both contexts. Shieldmen form the front rank, and carry no weapon of only a sidearm (pepper spray, short sword, etc.).
The shieldman's job is not to kill per se, but rather to dig in behind his shield and protect the second and third rank but staying alive and fending off charges. The second rank is comprised of spearman wielding twohanded spears, who do the actual killing.
In the riot version of this, the shieldman has no weapon at all, because he is likely to get sucked into the crowd, and we don't want to arm the rioters. He carries only a scutum, held in both hands. The rank behind carries long batons. These were about for feet long if memory serves. I was a shieldman, so I never really got familiar with the baton. This was several years ago, so I don't know what they use now.
It is a good system, but was this ever done historically?
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd think dedicated shield bearers would mean less stabbing power in the front ranks.
Also, even two handed spearmen might carry shields, on guiges.
If you are going to carry shields, you might as well carry a spear, and throw it on contact before getting out your swords.
There are however litterary sources that talk about shield carriers. The one instance I remember is from a naval engagement, though.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | I'd think dedicated shield bearers would mean less stabbing power in the front ranks.
Also, even two handed spearmen might carry shields, on guiges.
If you are going to carry shields, you might as well carry a spear, and throw it on contact before getting out your swords.
There are however litterary sources that talk about shield carriers. The one instance I remember is from a naval engagement, though. |
And one should add the use of a man to carry a pavise in a two man shield and crossbow team.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: | Jean
I don't know if this will help or not on your commit on group cohesion.
We trained as a small group of three shields and a spearman. We were then attached to 2 other teams of three and one whom in turn was attached to a line. Any time we became separated, we made sure to find our teammate/ or the other two teams and then the line. We had squads on the opposing side that did nothing but breakup lines and open up holes. Closing those holes was imperative. Death of members also made us re-team with other teams and keep the line intact.
It was not easy when so many people were all around you swinging and it was hard to tell who was ally and who wasn't. Thus you got to know your teams/ groups/lines very well.
You train in small teams then train with other teams and then with whole lines consisting of multible teams.
This worked very well.
I always got front and center teams to hold against opposing line chargers. That always hurt and more than once found myself flat on my back and scrambling to get back to my team. If I didn't get up fast enough, I was asked if I was dead to which I promptly replied, "No, but if let me get up I'll buy you a beer!" Beer always saves the day! |
One could, at the extreme, call 2 fighters protecting each other's backs and working as a team a " group " or formation fighting.
Two fighters trained and used to fighting together as a team should be very effective if they can target lone fighters one at a time: Only a very superior fighter would have a chance against them, even more so if the team members are themselves very good.
Bottom line: Any number of fighters with a system to work cooperitavely have the advantage over even much larger numbers fighting as individuals. Working as a team is probably " hardwired " in humans in the same way that wolves will cooperate when hunting. The tendency is then to work as a team as a default human trait, but the big difference is how well trained a group is working as one with a viable system compared to a bunch of fighters " improvising " their cooperation and also the level of discipline maintained when things get dangerous or confusing: Fear, panic,confusion as well as a command structure, leading and making decisions are important variables.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | | I've often wondered how two formations of spears would fare against each other. I am assuming a levy spear man would have some sort of backup weapon, no? |
In many cultures, this would have been the dominant form of combat for centuries. Ranks of spearmen were the norm at least as early as 2500 BC in places like Sumeria and Egypt, and that's what you find in ancient cultures like Greece, Rome, Gaul, Macedonia, etc., right through the Dark Ages and into the middle ages. And then you get pikemen, too! From what I've read of most ancient and medieval battles, most of the killing happened at the end, when one side or the other started to break and run away. It's back to what folks have been saying about formations--stay in line if you want to stay alive. When the formation is gone, it's easy for the winners to slaughter the losers as they try to flee.
About 15 years ago, when I was active in 17th century reenacting, someone mentioned some research that found no proof that anyone had ever been killed by "push of pike" during the English Civil War! Now, this was a while back, and for all I know it's a crackpot theory that has since been shot to pieces. And it's very possible that things were different in different places. But at the time it made sense to us! Pike blocks would shuffle towards each other but not suicidally crash straight onto each other's points. More like a lot of prodding, whacking each others' pike shafts, and yelling, until one side gets tired and starts cracking up, or takes too much fire from muskets or cannon.
Same sort of thing with 2 lines of Romans or Vikings or Sumerians. Probably an initial crashing charge and smashing with shields, then a lot of chucking rocks and javelins, small rushes, and quite a bit of sitting back catching one's breath, with the enemy just a few yards away.
Sometimes sidearms are "standard", sometimes they aren't but we think they may have been common anyway. Classical Greek hoplites and Republican Roman legionaries were supposed to have swords, for instance. Militia requirements and such from northern Europe in the early middle ages often just say "spear and shield", but grave finds frequently include a sword or axe or big knife. In the 12th and 13th century, English militia requirements mention gambeson, helmet, and spear, but don't mention shield for that social class nor any sidearm. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a mix of sidearms anyway, but the regulations seem to have worked for them since they didn't change much for quite a while.
Valete!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, my theory is that the romans discarded their spears exactly to force their legionaries into decisive close combat.
The norwegians laws at least state "spear, shield and axe" as the minimum requirement, from the late viking ages, up to 1278, where the law is updated. The basic kit remains the same, but in addition one starts to demand better kit for those with higher income.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | About 15 years ago, when I was active in 17th century reenacting, someone mentioned some research that found no proof that anyone had ever been killed by "push of pike" during the English Civil War! |
Well, I haven't heard that, but I have heard pikemen in the English Civil War were quite cautious.
| Quote: | | Now, this was a while back, and for all I know it's a crackpot theory that has since been shot to pieces. And it's very possible that things were different in different places. |
I don't know much about the English Civil War, but I'm convinced 16th-century pike combat was aggressive and bloody. I don't have the source at the moment, but an officer's account shows that the front ranks could suffer losses over ninety percent. The advice of Smythe and military writers supports this view. Smythe specifically rejected the idea that pikemen should thrust repeatedly at a distance as they might in single combat.
| Quote: | | Pike blocks would shuffle towards each other but not suicidally crash straight onto each other's points. More like a lot of prodding, whacking each others' pike shafts, and yelling, until one side gets tired and starts cracking up, or takes too much fire from muskets or cannon. |
According to Smythe, pikemen should advance and make a single thrust in unison, then drop pikes and draw swords.
|
|
|
|
|
Corey D. Sullivan
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd just like to point out that no matter what the minimum requirement for the militia, If I were called up, you'd be damn sure that I would have carried a small sidearm in addition to the spear. Probably some small hafted weapon like a warhammer.
Could it be that the carrying of such an additional weapon was such common practice that it wasn't mentioned in the laws?
"He had scantly finyshed his saienge but the one armye espyed the other lord how hastely the souldioures buckled their healmes how quikly the archers bent ther bowes and frushed their feathers how redely the byllmen shoke their bylles and proved their staves redy to appioche and loyne when the terrible trotnpet should sound the blast to victorie or deathe."
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do know the Greeks basic unit was their spear men, with their swords being a weapon of absolute backup. I have never tried spear fighting myself, but I had imagined that a unit armed with said swords could "slide" into the enemy and take away the usefulness of a spear, and turn it into a liability. Actually, I'm pretty sure that happened in may cases, as it makes so much sense to me.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic