View Full Version : Plate Armor: How effective?
AgentBif
10-11-2002, 03:26
In the Great Epic Cavalry Debates many people expressed belief that heavy cavalry would never have been used to charge straight-on into a unit wielding spears. But then, apparently there are accounts of cavalry doing just this. Also, most artists of the time seem to depict cavalry in this configuration. And finally, if spears were not somewhat vulnerable to this, why would pikes have come about?
It has been pointed out that "journalists" of that day weren't necessarilly concerned all that much with integrity of truth. And, of course, artists may have just been plain clueless. But there may well be much truth in both of these sources of information.
Anyway, I thought about the situation a bit and at first it does seem quite a prickly prospect to charge into a bunch of men with spears anchored on the ground. Who in their right mind would choose to be among the first rank of cavalry?
But then I got to thinking about the armor. With all that plate backed by some kind of padding (or chain) there is a good chance that a spear impact will simply be deflected to the side.
Perhaps heavy cavalry would make the charge head-on, trusting in their armor to deflect the spear impacts most of the time?
If one survived the initial impact, he could draw his sword and at that point the spear guys to the sides would be meat. The only way the infantry could defend themselves after initial impact would be to spread out and start jabbing their spears into the sides of the horses. And at this point the spear formation would be in total disarray.
It seems to me that the knights themselves would be very difficult to bring down with only spears... It would take a lucky hit into a crack between segments I would think. And spears should be very easy to parry with a longsword.
So anyway, I wonder how effective plate armor would be at defending vs spears at heavy horse speeds? Plate armor works against piercing weapons in two ways: energy absorption and deflection. Clearly the energy involved in a one-ton horse/man impaling itself on a spear will not be absorbed effectively by any wearable armor. It would all come down to deflection... side-force overcoming point-on-plate friction before the plate impinges too deeply on the point. When you think of it, a spear braced on the ground is very resistant to lengthwise motion, but is like a cottonball in terms of it's inertial resistance to lateral motion.
Now, I have a background in physics (one year to go on BA) but have no material science coursework. But it seems to me that most spear impacts would be non-normal and quite prone to deflection. The angle of incidence it seems to me would have to be pretty much straight on (say within 10-20 degrees) to avoid having the spear scrape off to the side. And since barding and plate are all full of curves, it should be reasonably hard to get a near-normal impact angle on a charging target.
Velocity (not just momentum) is perhaps a significant determinant in whether a pointed weapon penetrates plate. It seems to me that perhaps there is some critical velocity beyond which penetration probability is much less sensitive to impact angle. Maybe longbow arrows exceed this critical velocity but that heavy horse come nowhere near that value? But I'm just speculating here about velocity thing and I don't have the materials science background to know. It just seems to me that there must be some rate at which the material is not going to be able to disipate energy by flexing/bending and instead will shatter? (Perhaps this sort of critical velocity is much much higher than any man-powered weapon could achieve though.)
Anyway, it seems plausible to me that a huge warhorse and knight in full plate armor may well survive a head-on charge into spears. Even if there is say a 50% loss on initial impact, the spear formation at that point will be severely disrupted several rows deep and the second rank of cavalry will likely have a much higher survival rate. At that point it comes down to morale and melee capabilities.
Pikes being much more massive than spears are probably less prone to deflection. Furthermore, pikes would tend to impact at a more straight-on angle with less upward incidence than a shorter spear would have to make.
Just some thoughts. From longjohn's posting yesterday, I don't think the details of cavalry interactions with other units are gonna change. But it's still interesting to discuss.
bif
A.Saturnus
10-11-2002, 15:59
But the question is why it should be necessary to charge at all (besides the schock-effect)? I agree that spears and - to a smaller extend - pikes could only penetrate a full armor if they`re backed to the ground and the knight charges into it. If the knights ride slowly to the spears they could simply cut off the points or even grap the spear out of their hands! The spearmen could do nothing against it cause they never could thrust the spears through an armor themselfs!
------------------
In the name of electricity: CHARGE!!!
Michael the Great
10-11-2002, 16:28
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
In the Great Epic Cavalry Debates many people expressed belief that heavy cavalry would never have been used to charge straight-on into a unit wielding spears. But then, apparently there are accounts of cavalry doing just this. Also, most artists of the time seem to depict cavalry in this configuration. And finally, if spears were not somewhat vulnerable to this, why would pikes have come about?
It has been pointed out that "journalists" of that day weren't necessarilly concerned all that much with integrity of truth. And, of course, artists may have just been plain clueless. But there may well be much truth in both of these sources of information.
Anyway, I thought about the situation a bit and at first it does seem quite a prickly prospect to charge into a bunch of men with spears anchored on the ground. Who in their right mind would choose to be among the first rank of cavalry?
But then I got to thinking about the armor. With all that plate backed by some kind of padding (or chain) there is a good chance that a spear impact will simply be deflected to the side.
Perhaps heavy cavalry would make the charge head-on, trusting in their armor to deflect the spear impacts most of the time?
If one survived the initial impact, he could draw his sword and at that point the spear guys to the sides would be meat. The only way the infantry could defend themselves after initial impact would be to spread out and start jabbing their spears into the sides of the horses. And at this point the spear formation would be in total disarray.
It seems to me that the knights themselves would be very difficult to bring down with only spears... It would take a lucky hit into a crack between segments I would think. And spears should be very easy to parry with a longsword.
So anyway, I wonder how effective plate armor would be at defending vs spears at heavy horse speeds? Plate armor works against piercing weapons in two ways: energy absorption and deflection. Clearly the energy involved in a one-ton horse/man impaling itself on a spear will not be absorbed effectively by any wearable armor. It would all come down to deflection... side-force overcoming point-on-plate friction before the plate impinges too deeply on the point. When you think of it, a spear braced on the ground is very resistant to lengthwise motion, but is like a cottonball in terms of it's inertial resistance to lateral motion.
Now, I have a background in physics (one year to go on BA) but have no material science coursework. But it seems to me that most spear impacts would be non-normal and quite prone to deflection. The angle of incidence it seems to me would have to be pretty much straight on (say within 10-20 degrees) to avoid having the spear scrape off to the side. And since barding and plate are all full of curves, it should be reasonably hard to get a near-normal impact angle on a charging target.
Velocity (not just momentum) is perhaps a significant determinant in whether a pointed weapon penetrates plate. It seems to me that perhaps there is some critical velocity beyond which penetration probability is much less sensitive to impact angle. Maybe longbow arrows exceed this critical velocity but that heavy horse come nowhere near that value? But I'm just speculating here about velocity thing and I don't have the materials science background to know. It just seems to me that there must be some rate at which the material is not going to be able to disipate energy by flexing/bending and instead will shatter? (Perhaps this sort of critical velocity is much much higher than any man-powered weapon could achieve though.)
Anyway, it seems plausible to me that a huge warhorse and knight in full plate armor may well survive a head-on charge into spears. Even if there is say a 50% loss on initial impact, the spear formation at that point will be severely disrupted several rows deep and the second rank of cavalry will likely have a much higher survival rate. At that point it comes down to morale and melee capabilities.
Pikes being much more massive than spears are probably less prone to deflection. Furthermore, pikes would tend to impact at a more straight-on angle with less upward incidence than a shorter spear would have to make.
Just some thoughts. From longjohn's posting yesterday, I don't think the details of cavalry interactions with other units are gonna change. But it's still interesting to discuss.
bif
[/QUOTE]
Nice post,but you are missing something here.
No horse will charge in to a wall of spears,it doesn't matter how much armor they have...
Just like camel warriors beat cavalry by fear effect,the horses are scared.
So,it's about horses,not armor....
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
solypsist
10-11-2002, 20:38
moving this to History since the initial post has nothing to do with MTW the game but is instead a theoretical question.
Protoman
10-11-2002, 21:26
I think weither or not a horse would impale itself on something is open to debate.
Regardless, even if the front line horses didn't want to go any farther the arguement is that the back lines would push them forward and give them no choice.
The only reason I could think of besides that would the knights not wanting to lose a trained war horse...
But think about it, the intial shock would be so great that probably only the front line horses would take casualties. After that the spears will be broken, the lines will be disrupted, and you will have heavily armored knights fighting amongst the spearmen...
Remember the age we are dealing with here.
So if you could sacrifice a couple of lines worth of horses to win the battle that is more than an acceptable loss, it is downright favorable.
Horses, even good ones, are easily replaceable. Horses were tools to be used, and if the occasion called, broken in duty.
The generals were out for victory and the knights were out for personal glory. They didn't give a damn about their horse compared to those things.
[This message has been edited by Protoman (edited 10-11-2002).]
Sjakihata
10-11-2002, 22:40
Remember the lines you are talking about are lords, counts, generals, princes, and maybe even kings.
Bif.. I think you got the point about deflection. I do, however, not have any physic background to draw upon, but I reasoned to the exactly point, the question is whether the spear will be deflected or not. And my guess are, that only 15-30 % of the men in first/second row will die/fall of the horse, because spearmen where commonly poorly trained (low morale) or peasants (no morale).
AgentBif
10-11-2002, 23:31
Quote Originally posted by A.Saturnus:
If the knights ride slowly to the spears they could simply cut off the points or even grap the spear out of their hands! The spearmen could do nothing against it cause they never could thrust the spears through an armor themselfs!
[/QUOTE]
Interesting point.
What would the spears do then? I suppose they'd be forced to try to swarm the cavalry and would get easy shots at the horse's sides. The knights would have to start whirling about in melee. A horse falling is liable to pin the knight, and at that point he's meat.
bif
DarthPharazon
10-12-2002, 02:07
Actually, Bif, there are accounts of plate armor being so heavy that a knight couldn't get himself up from a prone position (lying down) while armored. The horse wouldn't have to do the pinning. The knights own armor would do it for him. All one had to do was simply (yeah, right) knock the knight out of his saddle. At this point, he would be out of the battle.
Ii Naomasa
10-12-2002, 02:30
There are very easily suits of plate jousting armor that are nearly impossible to do any kind of real movement in (and lack the articulation to get yourself up from a prone position in), but these were suits specially designed for jousting (less articulation meant less places for lances to sneak in under the armor) and were often quite differently designed that battlefield plate.
While I wouldn't be surprised to find battlefield plate suits that were too heavy (after all, some designs were probably tested on the battlefield), most were designed to be light or at least articulated enough to allow the wearer to be surprisingly nimble (considering his bulk).
That's not to say a knight could fall off his horse and spring back up like some kind of martial arts action star. Anyone who has ever fallen off a horse or awkwardly fallen off anything of similar height can tell you how you can have the breath knocked out of you...and that's wearing just clothes. The added weight and bulk of the armor would make that worse...and possibly throw in some pain if you landed awkwardly on a piece of it. Of course, one could be lucky and land rolling and be able to get up fairly quickly, but landing flat would definitely make you vunerable for a few moments...which is all the time it would take for someone to find an opening in your armor.
My experience with European armor is very limited, so I can't make a truly educated comment on its effectiveness (as has been mentioned, records of the period will under- or over-rate armor based on the situation). I will say that from watching reenactors working in authentically designed and built armor, if I was going into a situation where I might be in the midst of armed people who wouldn't make taking an odd stab at you, I'd most likely want the armor...especially if I spent the time training to properly wear it.
the Count of Flanders
10-12-2002, 02:58
If I were the commander of a spear unit I would order to put the spear points at height of the horse's "chest", chances of penetration are a lot bigger then. Problem is that the horse and/or the rider will be catapulted forward crushing the spearman anyways (and disrupting the spear formation as such). I think the problem before 1300 was that pike formations were so weakly organised that the knights didn't need plate armour: they could just charge in the gaps of the formation.
And I don't think the first line of cavalry suffered large casualties that were worth it because:
1) these were lords and every knight that died was considered a big loss
2) being able to lead the charge (= being on the first row) was an honor so the knights actually wanted to be on the first row (at Poitiers there were reportedly arguements because every French knight felt like he had the right to lead the charge from the first row). I doubt they would have liked to be there if every time 70% of the first row died in a charge.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
AgentBif
10-12-2002, 05:06
Quote Originally posted by the Count of Flanders:
If I were the commander of a spear unit I would order to put the spear points at height of the horse's "chest", chances of penetration are a lot bigger then.[/QUOTE]
Note though that heavy cavalry horse would have plate barding across the front of their chests. But as you say, I would think that's the best place to aim. If you aim higher, your angle of incidence increases dramatically.
bif
Hakonarson
10-12-2002, 06:47
And of course not all horses had plate armour either - for horses it only became "common" in the 1400's. Before then chain, coat of plates or, more likely, felt/padded coton horse armour would have been used.
From reading Harlequin by Bernard Cornwell (he seems to be pretty dilligent with his research) It seems that at Crecy the Mass of French knights were so closely packed that, as Protoman suggests, there is nowhere for a horse to go but forward.
At crecy, apparently the first line attacked on the spur of the moment, were partially shot up by longbows, and not properly formend up by the time they hit the English, and so did not manage to penetrate their lines. The second wave, however, is described as walking up the the hill, then trotting, cantering and only charging the last 50 yards so that the knighhts were riding knee to knee ten or tewnty deep and ranks of a couple hundred knoghts. I presume that seeing such a slow build up to a charge would terrify the average soldier and that fear would be the nmost potent weapon.
Apparently the attack nearly broke through as, even when speared, a charging and collapsing 1 ton horse + armoured rider, with mates packed close either side of him, knocks a large hole in the foot soldiers lines. However, once the knietic impact of the knights charge faltered the English footmen and knights overwhelmed the French and won. Apparently itwas quite a close run battle though.
I know this is all said by other people, but I thought it is quite an interesting illustration of KNight warfare.
solypsist
10-13-2002, 11:04
yep. stab the horse and you've got a big beastie falling straight down on your head (and your neighbors, too) not to mention kicking around a bit before expiring. Bad idea, going for the horse.
Actually, stab the horse and the horse stops where it is. The rider will be catapaulted forward onto the deeper ranks of the formation, which could cause some injuries, but it's not YOUR problem now, is it?
Del
Hakonarson
10-15-2002, 06:02
ACTUALLY - stab a horse and it's reaction depends upon what it is doing, who is riding it, how much armour it has, how many stabs it has had in it's life so far, etc., etc.
Dead horses have been known to keep moving or several yards before they fall to the gound - a few times they have done this (falling to the ground) on top of infantry - at that point the horse no longer cares about long pointy things - since it is dead - and crashes straight through them.
Dead horses are a well known way to break up solid infantry formations.
Fortunately for infantry throughout history horses have generally tended to try to stay alive!!
deejayvee
10-15-2002, 09:30
My thoughts:
If the length of the knight's lance is greater than the length of the spear, the spear would be a lot less relevant. That's why pikes are so good.
In regards to deflection, additions to armour such as fluting increase the deflection rate.
Also, I have had some involvement in armour reproduction (mostly reading at this stage, but I'll get there) and the typical set of armour seems to have weighed about 55lbs which is less than the modern infantryman will sometimes carry.
The point is totally moot. There is not one single recorded instance of cavalry, of ANY type, charging pikes frontally and getting anything but a good thrashing. You could make an argument as far as shorter spears, but even then.
Del
Rosacrux
10-15-2002, 12:43
Del's right. Not one. Period.
Mori Gabriel Syme
10-15-2002, 21:07
The argument is not really moot. The effectiveness of heavy cavalry charges against spear formations was the reason for the development of the pike. If it had not been effective, why invent an unwieldy version?
------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)
Mori Gabriel Syme
10-15-2002, 21:14
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
But then I got to thinking about the armor. With all that plate backed by some kind of padding (or chain) there is a good chance that a spear impact will simply be deflected to the side.
[snip]
It would all come down to deflection... side-force overcoming point-on-plate friction before the plate impinges too deeply on the point.
[/QUOTE]
I believe you are quite correct. Chain mail was effective against edged weapons, possibly better than plate. For a thrusting weapon however, it is nothing but a mass of chinks to be exploited. As spears became more common in defending against cavalry, plate replaced chain for knights.
------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-16-2002, 09:26
Lances WERE longer than spears. So the first rank of infantry was dead and knocked backwards into the second rank before the knights hit and whammo, instant rout.
Thus the Pike :P
Now we just need to get MTW to model this.
You still have to account for the fact that (a) the only length of the lance that counts is the portion that actually sticks out past the horses nose, but even more importantly
(b) that spearmen would have been using some hefty sort of shield and perhaps had some decent armor besides. So if they presented an unbroken front it would indeed be difficult for cavalry to make headway.
And cavalry was not in any way the main reason for the development of the pike. Massed pike formations are simply the most versatile and effective formation you can get with a weapon that is simple and cheap to produce and not terribly difficult to train an ignoramus to use properly.
Del
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-16-2002, 10:50
I had no idea we were discussing shield walls, I thought we were talking about massed spear. Of course knights will lose when opposed by an unbroken shield wall, but that's not the issue. The issue is that even considering only the parts sticking ahead of the horse, lances were still likely to be longer than spears (I'm not 100% certain, I'll try and dig up some statistics, but I'm fairly sure), and even more importantly against cavalry, the length of the pike allowed MORE of them to be aimed at a charging knight.
Cavalry was the ONLY reason for the development of the pike, as it is LESS useful against infantry with anti-pike weapons (such as those two-handed flamberges used by german mercenaries to slice the heads off pike), required greater discipline to use, and weighed them down more than a spear, presenting an even easier target for opposing archers. There was NO reason to develop pike except for Cavalry.
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-16-2002, 10:53
Further, shields don't matter if they're using blunted lance heads, 2200+ lbs of knight is still going to break lines of plain spear.
Rosacrux
10-16-2002, 12:03
Quote Originally posted by Thane Talain MacDonald:
such as those two-handed flamberges used by german mercenaries to slice the heads off pike.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the landsknechts 9 out of 10 lost to the Swiss pikemen. I think that says something, doesn't it? Check their battles in Italy, they are quite revealing.
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-16-2002, 13:45
Interesting. Pike being effective against infantry just doesn't seem to make any logical sense, considering how unwieldy the damn things were, but I'm willing to concede that pike may have been partially inspired by infantry threats. I am very much not willing to concede that it was merely because of that, and still hold that knights could defeat standard spearmen and would require pike.
Well, considering that the first recorded Western use of pikes was in the Macedonian Phalanxes, and that at the time of there development there was absolutely no Heavy Cavalry which Philip of Macedon had to face off against, I would say that you should read some more history, MacDonald.
The majority of the defensive qualities of a pike formation come from its pikes-- held out in serried ranks to form a wall against the enemy, or held upright farther back to help deflect incoming missles.
However with spearmen the issue is different. They are usually not going to form quite the same sort of wall as pikes, so they will be carrying larger shields and sporting more armor (or at least one would hope so, and usually they were). So you cannot evaluate the overall defensive characteristics of the formation by just looking at the spear itself.
The one medieval instance of HC vs. shield wall that I can think of is the Battle of Hastings, and the Norman Cav most definitely did not succeed against the unbroken shield wall.
Also it is important to note that while the theoretical maximum striking power of a cavalry-borne lance is very high, if all of that power were actually utilized the trooper would only serve to either break his arm, catapault himself from his mount, or likely both.
..
However I would be somewhat inclined to agree that giving spears as large an anti-cav bonus as pikes is perhaps a bit silly.
Del
AgentBif
10-16-2002, 23:42
Quote Originally posted by Del:
Well, considering that the first recorded Western use of pikes was in the Macedonian Phalanxes
[/QUOTE]
Well, the relevant issue here is when did Europeans start using pikes? If the game is to be believed, they did not show up until well after heavy cavalry had been the dominant mode of warefare for many centuries.
bif
Alright, I'll put it this way-- regardless of why they were developed in this particular instance, anti-cavalry is not the defining feature of pikes. In the 17th century after the death of cataphracts, pikes were even more prevalent than before, being practically the only infantry weapon other than the musket.
Del
AgentBif
10-17-2002, 04:29
Quote Originally posted by Del:
In the 17th century after the death of cataphracts, pikes were even more prevalent than before, being practically the only infantry weapon other than the musket.
[/QUOTE]
And in that case, my understanding is the pikes were used to hold off cavalry so the muskets could be discharged safely.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-16-2002).]
deejayvee
10-17-2002, 06:58
Quote And cavalry was not in any way the main reason for the development of the pike. Massed pike formations are simply the most versatile and effective formation you can get with a weapon that is simple and cheap to produce and not terribly difficult to train an ignoramus to use properly.[/QUOTE]
The Swiss during the 14th century used the Halberdier as the main weapon in their army. However, at the beginning of the 15th Century they found it to not have the anti-cavalry properties they needed agains the German and Italian mounted knights. Hence they started using pikes.
However, once they began using them, they trained their forces to be able to advance and keep the line of pikes. The halberdier was almost completely phased out because they discovered that pikes are just as effective against infantry/dismounted troops.
[This message has been edited by deejayvee (edited 10-17-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-17-2002, 08:15
I think they found that it's a lot ewasier to train someone to use a pike, that pikes are a lot cheaper (they use less metal), and, msotly, that het weapon didn't matter as much as morale - and any bunch of Swiss charging at you was scarey and a good reason to consider running away!!
In fact trhoughout the period of this game, and for some time after, the Swis continued to field considerable numbers of halberdiers - maybe up to 1/3 of their close order troops during the Burgundian wars.
Typically each Swiss "battle" would form up with a centre of pike and several ranks of halberdiers on the flanks and rear.
also of course some European "pike" did not evolve to fight cavalry at all - specifically the Scots ones. teh Scots had been using long spears since before teh turn of the millenium agaisnt mostly infantry enemies (Vikings, Saxons, Irish, Islemen, etc)
There is no doubt that Pike WEER useful vs Cavalry, and that by the 17th century that was their almost their only use (eventually superceded by better muskets and bayonets), but even then there are exceptions!!
For example teh Cornish levies raised for het King during the English Civil War were solely pike armed, and so can't have been seen to be there to protect musketeers - they didn't have any in their regiments!! They weer in fact there to attack opposing infantry, somethign they tried to do with great elan but little real success!!
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-17-2002, 09:20
So what you need are some highlanders and Gallowglass in the woods to fall on their flanks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
deejayvee
10-17-2002, 09:44
Yes, to train someone to stand there holding a pike is not difficult at all. But try training them to manouevre in formation and this is what made the Swiss so effective.
European 17th century pikemen are pretty irrelevant when talking about Medieval armies. Medieval armies didn't have the discipline, training and professionalism that later armies had.
Well, the Scots did it quite well enough from fairly early times. The highlanders for sure were not considered "professional", perhaps you would call the lowlanders moreso? I dunno. Just the facts.
Del
deejayvee
10-17-2002, 12:44
Did the Scots do much manouevring in formation?
I know FA about the Scots to be honest, I just know that the discipline of the Swiss was one of the reasons why the foot soldier started to dominate the battlefield again. I've never heard that said about the Scots.
All I know is that the lowlander Scots from way back used pikes, to some good effect, and seemed not to have too much difficulty moving around the battlefield. Now from this we can either take that the Scots were just great warriors or that maybe it's not as prohibitively difficult as some would have you think to maneuver with pikes.
Of course in the 16th century there is that famous battle in which the Scots were forced into a haphazard charge through broken marshy ground due to vastly superior English gunnery.. the pike formations in this case of course lost cohesion and were ruthlessly slaughtered by English halberdiers.. many cite this battle as a demonstration of the inferiority of pikes.. I don't really buy the argument tho.
But yeah, the lowlanders used pikes.. they were the best the Scots had to use as heavy infantry.. though their schilltron formations were known to present a formidable front to attacking troops and troopers, their almost total lack of armor made them easy prey to Welsh archers..
Del
Hakonarson
10-18-2002, 03:35
You're thinking of the battle of Pinkie - IIRC there's a link to it somewhere on one of these boards.
The English heavy cavalry stopped the Scots pike by some semi-suicidal charges (made worse because they didn't thnik they were going to be fighting infantry and hadn't fitted their horse barding that morning!!), and then the English artillery, hand guns and bows mowed them down - not a good day to be a Scot!!
Lack of a decent combined arms force was always the Scot achilles heel - their almost total reliance on pike meant that any combined arms force had the wherewithall to defeat them if used properly - that meant missiles and the English!!
The few Scots victories in major battle were generally down to over[powering stupidity on the part of the opposing English commander - Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn are absolute classic examples.
In between them we have Falkirik where William Wallace was simply outfought - the Scots schiltrons were pinned by the presence of English cavalry and shot to bits by 11,000 Welsh archers.
The few Scots archers and 200 cavalry were pretty quickly swept aside by the English cavalry, leaving the pikemen isolated.
However even then the english had tried a couple of cavalry charges on the Scots pike, predictably without success!!
It's hard to do a clean analysis of the actual effectiveness of Scot military because in almost every single one (if not EVERY single one) of their battles vs. the English they were horribly outnumbered.
This was the case as Falkirk.
I think the fact that they won at all is quite a testament to something.. and though the incompetence of those choice few English commanders made it possible, I don't believe that you can discount the skill, wisdom, and courage of the Scot commanders in properly exploiting these situations.
At both Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn the Scots were very badly outnumbered, as well as outclassed. Less skillful or wise Scot commanders would have goofed it up, and less courageous ones would have simply snuck off (as indeed Robert the Bruce almost did after the first day of Bannockburn, until one of his lieutenants convinced him to a daybreak attack).
But anyway, sorry, didn't mean to get off into a ramble about the greatness of Wallace or Robert.. my point is that the one battle between Scot and Angle that I can think of which was near to even-handed was this--
The Battle of the Standard, late 10th or early 11th century. English forces made up of a great mass of peasantry with dismounted Norman knights in the front ranks (Saxon fyyrd style), sat on a hill with some Welsh archers (IIRC). A Scottish combined arms force with evidently a bunch lowlanders, a very few archers and a bit of Heavy Cavalry, and a large contingent of wild and crazy tribesmen who had been massacring the English populace as they went southward with the army.
Whatshisname the Scottish commander wanted to implement a sound battle strategy, except that one particular contingent of crackhead tribesmen refused to be denied the honor of leading the charge. Not wanting to turn ally into enemy, he acquiesed.
So the crazy crackheads charged, and charged, and charged again, getting taken out by arrows, dashing themselves upon the superior arms and armor of the English men-at-arms, but causing the peasantry several times to waver at the sheer fearsome ferocity of their attacks. Inexplicably the Scot commander never sent up the bulk of his army to support this zealous effort.
He did finally decide to send his cavalry up to charge, but the English simply parted ranks and allowed them to pass through. They galloped off to the rear, to capture the mounts of the English cavalry where they were tied up.
At last the crackheads were running about a 60-70% casualty rate and their leader was killed and they all routed. The Scots retreated. The Scot cavalry was all captured or killed in the aftermath, as they were cut off. There was a great deal of infighting among the various tribes in the Scot army after this, and the invasion force was effectively defeated.
..
But again, sadly this provides not enough useful data for the question at hand..
Del
Hakonarson
10-18-2002, 07:10
Quote Originally posted by deejayvee:
Yes, to train someone to stand there holding a pike is not difficult at all. But try training them to manouevre in formation and this is what made the Swiss so effective.
European 17th century pikemen are pretty irrelevant when talking about Medieval armies. Medieval armies didn't have the discipline, training and professionalism that later armies had.[/QUOTE]
Make up your mind!!
The Swiss were, quite precisely, a Medieval army - but they were also professionals, drilled and trained.
Not all 17th century troops weer well drilled and trained - the Cornish I mention above were considered an elite but were only raised as a militia. Many foot troops in Europe weer also essentially militia, while even hastily raised rebels could field large numbers of pike - eg Monmouth's rebellion and the British war of 1689-91.
Medieval mercenaries WERE pwefectly well trained, as were many, many part time militias, and an awful lot of them were spear/pikemen who are recorded as attacking.
Even the Swiss couldn't attack in formation when their ranks were being blown appart by "new fangled" artillery and hand guns in eth early 16th century - almost exactly the same time the Scots were having EXACTLY the same problem!
To say that medieval troops were poorly trained shows a lack of study of serious military history on your part.
deejayvee
10-18-2002, 07:44
To clarify my point.
I didn't say Medieval armies were poorly trained, I said they didn't have the discipline, training and professionalism that later armies had. The Swiss are one of the few exceptions to this.
Hakonarson
10-18-2002, 08:31
you're still wrong.
Low countries, English in HYW, French and Burgundians after their 15th C Ordonnances, Italian and German City Militias, Military Orders - both their brother knights and brother sergeants, and many, many other examples of well disciplined, drilled and professional medieval troops exist.
How about the Varangian Guard??
I am constantly amazed by people who don't seem to realise the size and scope of humanities efforts in the forst 500 yrs of the 2nd millenium.
For heaven's sake - it was 500 years from 1000 to 1500 - that twice as long as the USA has existed!!
the MTW timeframe is 360 years - 360 years ago the English Civil War was being fought, the 30 years war wasn't finished and russian armies were mainly tartar tribesmen and used arms and tactics directly descended from the Mongols!!
Do you think all they did in those days was sit around trying to invent new ways of burning witches or something??
the variety and range of human military endeavours over that time frame equals the variety of any otehr similar timeframe you care to mention, and making simplistic blanket comments about the abilities of millions of troops over a few centuries is less than useful!
Compared to the level of drill of many 17th century European armies some "medieval" armies were parade ground perfectionsists!
[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-18-2002).]
deejayvee
10-18-2002, 10:15
Ok, I'll agree that I'm wrong. Not wrong for my lack of knowledge about medieval times, but because I didn't know that 17th century armies were that poor.
I never said that medieval armies were poorly trained, just that they weren't as well trained as I thought (for some unknown reason) later armies were.
I know the scope of humanity's efforts in the period 1000-1500. We had invention of gunpowder, printing press, etc. The list is near endless of the things that were achieved. I do know a significant amount of medieval history - obviously not as much as you, but still a fair bit. However my knowledge does stop at about 1450-1500.
Nowadays I tend to be reading more about late antiquity and early medieval.
[This message has been edited by deejayvee (edited 10-18-2002).]
AgentBif
10-24-2002, 01:18
I wonder if anyone is aware of scientific tests to simulate the penetration resistance of diff types of medieval armors vs diff kinds of weapons?
bif
It's irrelevant. More heavily armored cavalry are still going to be at a huge disadvantage against a pike formation. They can be predicted to show an incremental increase in their effectiveness due to the armor... but it would still be a huge waste of good soldiers...
Del
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
IAlso, most artists of the time seem to depict cavalry in this configuration. And finally, if spears were not somewhat vulnerable to this, why would pikes have come about?
[/QUOTE]
I would not put too much faith the artist to depict the true nature of battle.
Very few artists were actually there or had ever witnessed battle and so they tended to produce the image that caught their viewers interest and imagination and enhanced their popularity with the potential commissioners rahter than trying to produce an accurate record of the event.
Two basic examples:
Most medieval knights are shown riding tiny little horses. Nobody really believes that knights rode into battle on shetland ponies but the medieval artists used this device to emphasise the importance of the lord over the beast. To depict the Lord as a tiny figure on the back of a huge horse would not have been considered flattering.
The painting of by Stanley Berkeley of The 92nd Highlanders and the Scots Greys at Waterloo depicts the cavalry charging at full gallop with the scottish soldiers clinging to their stirrup leathers. Its a stirring image of a famous incident during the battle. However, cross-referenced eyewitness accounts from both the Scots Greys, 92nd Highlanders and the French battalion attacked confirm it didn't happen anything like the painting suggests.
For a start The Scots Greys didn't gallop into the enemy infantry, both the Greys and the French, confirm that they advanced into the enemy at a steady trot. They were too close to charge, there was a hedge, which the French were in the process of trying to cross, in the way and also the Greys had to allow the stragglers from the 92nd to filter through their ranks in order to clear the approach. There are reports of some 92nd Highlanders moving forward with the cavalry and there was a lot of mutual adulation going on between the two scottish regiments durng the advance. One or two men may even have held the stirrup leathers of the cavalry as the trotted forward but it was nothing like the painting.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.