ambushes, useful or a waste of time and resources?

[0101001]

What are your opinions?

[Xehh II]

I don't ambush, I don't know why my but none of my armies seem to go near a forest.( I also think the AI knows where your ambushes are.)

[PenguinLobster]

It would probably pretty useful in Germany or Gaul but most places dont have enough trees no make it worthwhile or possible.

[Thaatu]

Thanks to ambushes in my Aedui campaign two Lusotannan, three Sweboz, one Arvernii and two Roman armies got completely wasted. With about 20 000 enemies slaughtered in ambushes alone, I'd say useful.

[Morte66]

Thanks to ambushes in my Aedui campaign two Lusotannan, three Sweboz, one Arvernii and two Roman armies got completely wasted. With about 20 000 enemies slaughtered in ambushes alone, I'd say useful.

How do you try for ambushes on the strategic map, and how do you make the most of a successfual ambush on the tactical map?

Go on, write us a mini ambushing guide. ;)

[geala]

I avoid to ambush someone because I hate it to fight in woods.

Normally my spies help me to avoid ambushes. The few ambushes I ran into yet with main armies were no problems because I cowardly move my armies only when I have the numerical advantage; otherwise I avoid battles. If few units (reinforcements f.e.) are ambushed I always run away.

[Shifty_GMH]

Don't remember ever being ambushed by the AI. That might be because I always move my legions around with a spy attached....and my units never move around in enemy territory without sufficient strength. Tried to ambush the AI a few times, but it always gets discovered. If I get the opportunity I usually try to set one up.

[Horst Nordfink]

I've been ambushed many times by the AI, but I've always had time to set my army up.

I've never been outnumbered when ambushed though, as I always travel with as big an army as possible.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Trick to get AI to walk to your ambushes is to use a bait. Just have your stack sitting in a wood and place a lonesome unit in a way that AI can see it and if it tries to attack it must move besides your stack thus triggering an ambush. If the ambush succeeds is of course purely based on luck.

[Thaatu]

I just look for a forested "square" on the campaign map that's between the enemy and its target, usually my settlement. It helps if the ambush site is next to a road, meaning the enemy is most likely taking that route. If the enemy walks into the ambush, I deploy the troops depending on the situation. You can see the enemy marching column in the deployment phase, so it'll help a lot. The most important things are that the enemy has its cavalry on the front and the general is on the front left.

Here's a quick illustration:
https://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1532/ambushinstructionlt4.png (https://imageshack.us)

The dark blue lines are my elites, the blue lines are my regular troops, the cyan lines are missile units, the red block with a yellow dot is the enemy general and the huge face is my general, preparing for his bloodbath.

Also, in these situations I don't let my troops throw javelins before charging. If you let them, the enemy will have enough time to organize.

[Shylence]

exactly how i do it!!!

[Morte66]

Hmm, those tactics seem promising. Lately I've mostly been running armies that aren't in the business of charging, e.g. phalanx/missile combos that like to pin and flank. So I couldn't quite see the advantage in ambushing. But I see what you're getting at now.

[KuKulzA]

as Lusotana ambushing is awesome!
As Sauka Raka I've had more trouble with it, no surprise since there's fewer places to hide and ambush
and as Getai I must say you can sometimes find good places to strike an ambush

bu tthe western hills and forests is where ambushing seems most likely :yes:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ambush: useful! It offers my low-end armies the possibility of taking out enemy medium-high-end armies without suffering many casualties. Especially experienced slingers should prove useful ambushers.

There is a guide at how to ambush, written by k_raso somewhere in the Gameplay subforum...

[NeoSpartan]

Trick to get AI to walk to your ambushes is to use a bait. Just have your stack sitting in a wood and place a lonesome unit in a way that AI can see it and if it tries to attack it must move besides your stack thus triggering an ambush. If the ambush succeeds is of course purely based on luck.

U can also use this trick to separete 2 AI full stacks that you can't tackle with 1full stack (vh or h battle difficulty). One of them will chase the lonely unit and WAHM! :smash: Then u go after the other stack

-remember, Divide & Conquer. :2thumbsup:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Paraphrasing famous ancient words, always a bit of fun ... ~;)

[Sarkiss]

If the ambush succeeds is of course purely based on luck.
dont forget traits of your generals that increase chances of a successfull ambush.
i preferr to ambush an army of elite Seleucids with my lower quality Pontic, Armenian forces and if not succeeded in routin the entire enemy army than i'd withraw after significant casualties being inflicted. so the next time i meet the same army (usually attacking it myself next turn) it is half its initial strength and i have better chances of winning an open field battle with my inferiour troops

[NeoSpartan]

Paraphrasing famous ancient words, always a bit of fun ... ~;)

u dang right! :2thumbsup:



p.s there is a lot of "wisdom" in them, the problem comes in finding it and implementing it.

[Son of Perun]

I think ambush is a bit cowardly tactic, but it`s useful in desperate situations (Germans would never defeat roman legions on open field).

[Cybvep]

I think ambush is a bit cowardly tactic, but it`s useful in desperate situations (Germans would never defeat roman legions on open field).
It's not a cowardly tactic, it's just the useful one... Ambushes are the key to a successful guerilla warfare, and the guerilla warfare is one of the most effective and the longest of all "styles of war". It's as calling the Scythians and Sarmatians cowards - it's not cowardice, it's just pure tactics, and horse archers are IMO the most effective formation of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Look at the enemies of Rome - the ones who were experts in the guerilla warfare or based their strength on the horse archers were the ones who were the hardest to conquer (e.g. Iberians) or even were never conquered (e.g. Germans, Parthians).

[Karo]

Cybvep since when have Iberians or germans used horse archer tactics. Horse archers were used in the east and in the Steppes. Not in Iberia or germania.

[Cybvep]

Cybvep since when have Iberians or germans used horse archer tactics. Horse archers were used in the east and in the Steppes. Not in Iberia or germania.
It's the use of "or"...


Look at the enemies of Rome - the ones who were experts in the guerilla warfare or based their strength on the horse archers (...)
Sorry if that was unclear.

[Son of Perun]

It's not a cowardly tactic, it's just the useful one... Ambushes are the key to a successful guerilla warfare, and the guerilla warfare is one of the most effective and the longest of all "styles of war". It's as calling the Scythians and Sarmatians cowards - it's not cowardice, it's just pure tactics, and horse archers are IMO the most effective formation of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Look at the enemies of Rome - the ones who were experts in the guerilla warfare or based their strength on the horse archers were the ones who were the hardest to conquer (e.g. Iberians) or even were never conquered (e.g. Germans, Parthians).
You obviously don`t like word cowardly. But remember, that cowards are the ones who live longer. Bravery is very close to stupidity. The ones who invented ambush tactics weren`t brave heroes because brave heroes just run against the enemy and kill or let themselves killed. Abushes were invented by cowards who led heroes.

[Cybvep]

(...) But remember, that cowards are the ones who live longer. Bravery is very close to stupidity. (...)
I agree with this, to some extent... IMO "total cowardice" is as bad as "perfect bravery". The balance is the key.

[I Am Herenow]

Cowards are the ones who live longer.

Well, you could argue that, in fact, being heroic enough would make you "live" forever - rather like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae - whom everyone remembers (even before 300), unlike the nameless, countless cowards of conflicts through the ages, who may well have gained an extra 20 or 30 or something years of life, but were forgotten afterwards.

But I digress.

I personally can never be bothered to set ambushes - but I never use forts and barely use watchtowers. I know I should, but, you know, meh.

Do soldiers get morale bonuses/penalties for setting successful ambushes/being ambushed?

[Ludens]

Well, you could argue that, in fact, being heroic enough would make you "live" forever - rather like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae - whom everyone remembers (even before 300), unlike the nameless, countless cowards of conflicts through the ages, who may well have gained an extra 20 or 30 or something years of life, but were forgotten afterwards.
How about the 700 non-Spartan hoplites (not to mention the unknown number of helots) that also died at Thermopylae? Are they immortal as well? Or is their memory limited to those who study history?

[Son of Perun]

I agree with this, to some extent... IMO "total cowardice" is as bad as "perfect bravery". The balance is the key.
Yes, you are right.

in fact, being heroic enough would make you "live" forever
I can`t agree with you. Sometimes whole nations survived by beeing cowardly. If Slavs behaved like Spartans, a memory would be all what has left of them.

[Meothar]

My reinforcements sometimes get ambushed by Rebels, but I always withdraw in this case. If I set an ambush, it's most of the time when I want to hide a stack to not get involved in battles this turn, especially when there are many enemy armies in sight. This can be useful if you want to cross an area you have no interest in (yet).

[I Am Herenow]

How about the 700 non-Spartan hoplites (not to mention the unknown number of helots) that also died at Thermopylae? Are they immortal as well? Or is their memory limited to those who study history?

Well, the whole Spartan militaristic way of life was also a heroic/tough/whatever thing, making them seem "better" to the layman, and thus it was they that were remembered. As they were the elite, they were most famous.

Even today, there's an obsession with US Navy SEALs, the SAS and so on, as they're the elite - I don't think many people dream of joining the 182nd Light Infantry Division or whatever, unless they have some sort of connection to it (i.e. through family etc.).

[Sarkiss]

Bravery is very close to stupidity. The ones who invented ambush tactics weren`t brave heroes because brave heroes just run against the enemy and kill or let themselves killed. Abushes were invented by cowards who led heroes.
so according to you Hannibal, the farther of stratagem, who had guts to define Rome on Roman soil with a bunch of exhausted mercenaries, is a coward? Germans, who ambushed and slaughtered the entire Roman army and thus guaranteed their freedom are cowards too? and Suren, whos genius crashed Romans and stopped Roman expansion in the East, even though outnumbered 5:1 is a coward?:laugh4:

[dezzerx]

You obviously don`t like word cowardly. But remember, that cowards are the ones who live longer. Bravery is very close to stupidity. The ones who invented ambush tactics weren`t brave heroes because brave heroes just run against the enemy and kill or let themselves killed. Abushes were invented by cowards who led heroes.

I believe that when you ambush an army in those days you still have to get close to kill 'em. Or do you think they just hurled javelins from the trees, quickly ran close hacked a guy down and fleed? Let's not forget that one of the most famous ambushes "The Batle of Teutoburg Forest" did not happen in a forest at all but on a field near Kalkriese where the Romans were trapped by a bog on one side and a hill with a fortified wall on the other. In front of them was the main force of the Germans. The Romans where scattered because they had with them wagons and beast of burden and were not able to set up a decent formation because of lack of time or room before the Germans attacked.

But they fought, and the Romans were not killed by some unseen enemy but by the German spears in front of them. The Romans, good soldiers as they were did not panic and flee but were able to regroup on the second day. There has even been found signs of fighting on the hill sugesting that the Romans even attempted to take that fortified position.

You say heroes are the one who just run against the enemy. Yet Arminius is concidered a hero as is Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie.

People who call others cowards, even worse so call those cowards who fought and are no longer alive today to defend themself, from behind their computer should take some time and self-reflect...

[Cybvep]

Who is considered a hero is a delicate matter. To be precise, it's a very subjective thing. For example, for a group of people, local or national hero can be a symbol of independence or resistance against the occupants (e.g. Vercingetorix, Boudicca), even if the hero him/herself wasn't really successful in the uprising. Some outlaws are also considered heroes, e.g. Robin Hood or Janosik, and it's difficult to say if their actions were really that great or not cowardous ("Ha, they were running away from the government - COWARDS!!"), while some influential people in the history are viewed as "badguys" because of a single book or movie (e.g. Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu and the book "The Three Musketeers").

It's not really that different in case of ambushes, horse archers and guerilla warfare. Some will call it the "cowardice", while the others will call it the "tactics". As I said in my previous post, personally I consider this tactics. I think that it doesn't matter what path to victory will someone choose, it's the effect that is important. Tortures, assassinations, exterminations, slavery, ambushes or open field battles - who cares, when you achieve your goal? I mean, all that heroic stuff is good to glorify in tales and legends, but the reality is - all is fair in war (and love...). Or even better - even if something is not "fair" or moral, you can't decline the possibility that your enemy will use it against you.

[dezzerx]

but the reality is - all is fair in war (and love...). Or even better - even if something is not "fair" or moral, you can't decline the possibility that your enemy will use it against you.

Indeed, well said.

[Ludens]

How about the 700 non-Spartan hoplites (not to mention the unknown number of helots) that also died at Thermopylae? Are they immortal as well? Or is their memory limited to those who study history?


Well, the whole Spartan militaristic way of life was also a heroic/tough/whatever thing, making them seem "better" to the layman, and thus it was they that were remembered. As they were the elite, they were most famous.
Yes, to the extent that popular history forgot there were others present who fought with equal bravery. Hence, to be remembered it isn't sufficient to be a hero. You need good PR as well.

[I Am Herenow]

Surely you can't think that the fame of the 300 Spartans who fought at Thermopylae is purely down to PR? Their more rigorous training and consequent prowess in battle earnt them a fearsome reputation which has carried on to the present day and has resulted in them being more famous than other soldiers of the period, even those that fought alongside the Spartans on occasion.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Let's not forget that one of the most famous ambushes "The Batle of Teutoburg Forest" did not happen in a forest at all but on a field near Kalkriese where the Romans were trapped by a bog on one side and a hill with a fortified wall on the other. In front of them was the main force of the Germans. The Romans where scattered because they had with them wagons and beast of burden and were not able to set up a decent formation because of lack of time or room before the Germans attacked.
It is an open field today but iirc it was a forested and swampy area in those days. It's true that the Romans were trapped in a narrow path between a swampy ground and some wicker fortifications erected by the Germans alongside the path.

That does not make the success smaller, of course. Personally, I think Arminius was a hero. Diminishing Arminius great achievement (a fairytale of nowadays) of liberating the Germans from Roman yoke I consider just as ridicoulous like declaring his deeds as anti-french bravery (like in 19th century). Far too often the heroes of old are abused by the weaklings of now.

[Hooahguy]

Centurio Nixalsverdrus is right- the Teutoberg Wald (or forest) was actually a forested marsh. i did a screenshot of a custom battle showing the doomed legions marching into the Teutoberg Wald. im going to use it for one of the next screenshot competitions. :2thumbsup:

[Ludens]

Surely you can't think that the fame of the 300 Spartans who fought at Thermopylae is purely down to PR?

No. What makes you think that? I posted you needed PR as well.

Anyway, back to the original point of discussion: you stated that heroics could make you immortal, citing the example of Leonides and his 300. My counter-question was: what about the Spartan allies who died there as well? Your answer is: because Spartans are more famous, which illustrates my point. Who is remembered as a hero and who not depends for a large part on who is writing the history.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It is an open field today but iirc it was a forested and swampy area in those days. It's true that the Romans were trapped in a narrow path between a swampy ground and some wicker fortifications erected by the Germans alongside the path.


Well, as for terrain conditions: you can pretty much compare it to the Guldensporen Slag. Bog, ambush, and you're trapped between nasty angry enemies and more bog and more nasty angry enemies...

[dezzerx]

It is an open field today but iirc it was a forested and swampy area in those days. It's true that the Romans were trapped in a narrow path between a swampy ground and some wicker fortifications erected by the Germans alongside the path.

Aha, makes sense!

In light of the diminishing of his achievement, the amateur archeologist, a British ex-military officer whose name escapes me, that had discovered the site said that Arminius is one of the most under acknowledged generals of the past.

A statement which sadly enough is true, he truely was a brilliant man!

And the anti-French attitude thing of the 19th century surely is rediculous, but they did erect a beautifull statue in his honor ;) !

[Tellos Athenaios]

In light of the diminishing of his achievement, the amateur archeologist, a British ex-military officer whose name escapes me, that had discovered the site said that Arminius is one of the most under acknowledged generals of the past.

Seen Terry Jones' Barbarians (The savage Goths), have you? Thaatu had links to the series somewhere...

[KuKulzA]

they say "work hard"
they also say "work smart"

courage is standing inspite of fear, and heroes lead compatriots to bravery

Hannibal's people were declining in the face of expanding Roman power, he used excellent tactics and rallied a bunch of diverse mercenaries from all around the Mediterranean to fight the Romans and might have succeeded if not for the unsupportive aristocrats at home...
he was damn brave to do what he did, but not only was he brave, he was smart
Vercingetorix, tried to unite the Gauls to fight the Roman threat, but he had vision, and knew it was going to be hard to get all the chiefs and princes to unite... he came close but you all know what happened at Alesia... but he wasn't stupid, he tried to get the higher ground....
Tecumseh, the Shawnee Chief, like Vercingetorix, attempted to unite and create a pan-Amerindian confederacy. He was a brilliant general, and used both frontal assault and the traditional hit-and-run... but he was no coward for fighting in a guerilla style... that's how you win against a better supplied and numerically larger force... its smart


just a few examples... seeing as how Teutoburg Wald had been mentioned already

just cause people work smart doesn't mean they don't work hard, they can coexist, the great ones, work hard in a smart way and rally their people to stand with them for the 'common good'... ironically all 3 above 'failed' but they have been immortalized as the great under-dog war leaders who came so close... but were fighting a uphill battle with trouble at home...

you can add to the list... Sitting Bull... the Mayans who resisted the Spaniard, the Mapuche, the Incan rebellion that nearly succeeded, Cetwayo (sp?) the Zulu, Kachins fighting Japanese in WW2, Filipinos fighting the Spaniards and USA, Taiping Rebellion, Sepoy Rebellion ....etc.etc.

[dezzerx]

Seen Terry Jones' Barbarians (The savage Goths), have you? Thaatu had links to the series somewhere...

Yes indeed I have. Good show, and although I enjoyed Terry Jones' sarcasm towards the Romans it could have done without imo.

[Cybvep]

Speaking of heroes, rebellions and uprisings - will we see more "scripted goodies" with the mentioned things in the future builds? Empire-building and management would be much more interesting then.

[I Am Herenow]

You stated that heroics could make you immortal, citing the example of Leonides and his 300. My counter-question was: what about the Spartan allies who died there as well? Your answer is: because Spartans are more famous, which illustrates my point.

No, I said that the Spartans are remembered because they were physically stronger than the other guys and better at fighting: i.e., more hero-like.

Besides, I believe Leonidas was the lynchpin of the whole operation: the Plataeans or whoever obeyed him and followed his orders, and not the other way round.

[NeoSpartan]

I don't know wtf is up is this ambushes not being brave stuff.... but I will say:

Ambushes, faint retreats, assasination, sabotage, diplomacy, etc, etc, etc are all tools of war. Ignoring them, saying that such strategies are less "brave", or less "honorable", or too "barbaric", whatever, only makes you weaker and your enemies stronger.

'NUFF SAID. :knight:

[Ludens]

No, I said that the Spartans are remembered because they were physically stronger than the other guys and better at fighting: i.e., more hero-like.
Ah, I see. However, although you aren't explicitly saying it, I get the impression that you think the Thebans did not deserve to be remembered.


Besides, I believe Leonidas was the lynchpin of the whole operation: the Plataeans or whoever obeyed him and followed his orders, and not the other way round.
No, they were the hoplites of Thebes and a few other nearby cities, and they were there of their own free wil. Leonides had in fact dismissed all other hoplites, except for his guard.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not to mention the people from Phocis...

[Trax]

Thespians not Thebans, the Thebans deserted and joined the Persians.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Well, as for terrain conditions: you can pretty much compare it to the Guldensporen Slag. Bog, ambush, and you're trapped between nasty angry enemies and more bog and more nasty angry enemies...
What was the Guldensporen Slag? OK something with slaying I guess but I never heard of it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[dezzerx]

What was the Guldensporen Slag? OK something with slaying I guess but I never heard of it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

It was a battle in 1302 between the Flemish and the French. The Flemish forces largely consisting of peasants and town militia defeated the French army of proffesional troops and knights. The date of the battle is today still the national Flemish holiday.

A bit more detailed information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

[I Am Herenow]

Although you aren't explicitly saying it, I get the impression that you think the Thebans did not deserve to be remembered.

I don't think that at all - I'm simply saying that it was the Spartans who were remembered because they were the SEALs, and the other guys were just Light Infantry.


No, they were the hoplites of Thebes and a few other nearby cities, and they were there of their own free wil. Leonides had in fact dismissed all other hoplites, except for his guard.

What I mean is that even at the time, the Spartans were acknowledged to be the main and most important force out of that group. Even the fact that Leonidas could dismiss the others shows they were subordinate to him and followed his orders - not to mention the extra Hero Points he got for staying on and trying to defend the pass.

[Ludens]

Not to mention the people from Phocis...
Those too. I am afraid I couldn't remember any but the Thebans without looking it up :shame: .


Thespians not Thebans, the Thebans deserted and joined the Persians.
The Thebans at Thermopylae were from the anti-Persian party, I think.


I don't think that at all - I'm simply saying that it was the Spartans who were remembered because they were the SEALs, and the other guys were just Light Infantry.
I guess I am just tired of this hero-worship of the Spartans. They shared their most heroic feat with other hoplites (not light infantry), yet history has almost forgotten those.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The Thespians were there.

The Thebans were taken as hostages by Leonidas according to Herodotos, and did indeed put up a good fight while he was winning. However when the Greeks were finally surrounded they appear to have surrendered themselves to the Persians at once - claiming that they shouldn't be punished for their actions, because they were forced by the Spartans in the first place. While most of them got away scott free; the first rank(s) were killed before that message came across.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

It was a battle in 1302 between the Flemish and the French. The Flemish forces largely consisting of peasants and town militia defeated the French army of proffesional troops and knights. The date of the battle is today still the national Flemish holiday.

A bit more detailed information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
Ah thank you!~:)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Basically you've got the French overlords and the angry Flemish mobs. The French win a battle. And again. And again. And then when they chased the Flemish onto a bog, they got ambushed in the process. That's the Guldensporen Slag. (Litterally translated: Golden Stirrup Battle; named after the Golden Stirrups of the French, a sign of the nobility.)

[dezzerx]

Basically you've got the French overlords and the angry Flemish mobs. The French win a battle. And again. And again. And then when they chased the Flemish onto a bog, they got ambushed in the process. That's the Guldensporen Slag. (Litterally translated: Golden Stirrup Battle; named after the Golden Stirrups of the French, a sign of the nobility.)

Indeed except they didn't really get ambushed in the sense of the ambush in Teutoburgwald.



Before the battle

The French army, led by Robert of Artois, formed around the town of Arras by the end of June 1302. They planned to march to Flanders to avenge the massacre at the "Goede Vrijdag" of Bruges. The Flemish army concentrated around the town of Courtrai to besiege the royal castle. Courtrai was the gateway to Flanders for France, so it was of the utmost importance to fully control this town. This was understood by the French, so they first marched to Courtrai.

The Flemish army

The men that were drafted in Bruges made up the core of the Flemish army. The town was able to send some 3.000 men, led by William of Jülich. The majority were artisans who made part of the town militia. The Bruges Free Land (the area around the town) and Coastal Flanders sent 2.500 men. They were led by Guy of Namur. East- Flanders also sent 2.500 men, among which were 700 men from Ghent, led by John Borluut. The town of Ypres sent about 500 men. A reserve force was made up of 500 men, led by John of Renesse. This adds up to about 9.000 men. About 400 of these are nobility. The biggest difference with a conventional army is that this army will only fight on foot.

The French army

The French king sent the best and most beautiful army ever to Flanders. About 2.500 noble horsemen (knights as well as squires) made up the core. 1.000 crossbow men, 1.000 pike men and 2.000 other light infantry aided them. This gives a total of 6.500 men, organised into 10 "battles". This seems a minority in regards of the 9.500 Flemish, but the French army was by far more superior. A knight was valued as much as ten men on foot.

Set up of the armies

The French army arrives July 8th at Courtrai. They put up their camp south of the town and during the next two days, they try to attack the town. These efforts fail however and an open battle on the field is unavoidable. The Flemish camp stands north of the town. The French defenders of the royal castle point to a field east of town as a s uitable battlefield.

In the French camp a war council is held. Some bannerlords have serious doubts on a direct frontal attack. They prefer to wait to defy the Flemings to attack themselves, thus exhausting and dispersing them. The terrain is not favourable for a charge on horseback. The majority of the French lords however wish to hold up their honour and attack, in order to teach that pitiful army of artisans and farmers a good lesson.

Early in the morning of July 11th 1302 the French army starts to form up for the battle. The ten battles are formed into three bigger units. Two units are made up of three battles, they are the attack forces. The third unit of two battles will stay in reserve.

The Flemish camp too starts her preparations for the battle. Three big units line up at some distance of the two brooks that separate the two armies of each other. These are respectively the people from Bruges, the people from West-Flanders and the people of East-Flanders. The reserves are the people from Ypres, who guard the back of the army against the royal castle, and finally the men of John of Renesse.

Both armies line up early in the morning. The men confess their sins to priests and the army leaders give speeches with instructions. The Flemish army is forbidden to take any booty from the battlefield, and they are forbidden to make any prisoners. That last thing was very unusual in medieval warfare. It meant that the battle would be fought in a fierce way without any mercy. The Flemings fought for their freedom and to protect their lives. They too had to expect no mercy of the French if they would loose the battle.

Finally in the Flemish camp some forty people are knighted, among who Pieter de Coninck and two of his sons. The armies are ready, the men are prepared,… Just before noon the battle brakes loose.
Both armies started to prepare for the battle early in the morning. This took quite some time, especially in the French army where the knightly formations needed more time to manoeuvre to their appointed positions.

Battle of the crossbow shooters

The Flemish crossbowmen had taken position right behind the two brooks. They were somehow protected by their big paveses carried by their servants. The French footsoldiers attack first and here too the crossbowmen advance first.

The battle starts around noon. Both sides shoot arrows but gain very little success. After a while the Flemish men are out of arrows and the pressure from the French becomes too great. They retreat backwards, to the own lines. While they retreat they cut the strings of the bows and throw them on the ground, in order to make the charge of the knights on horse later more difficult.

The French footsoldiers advance and start to cross the brooks. Their commanders understand that this can severely obstruct the charge of the knights and so they order their men to stand aside. Immediately afterwards the signal for the knights to charge is given.

The French left wing attacks

Copyright Koninklijke Bibliotheek Brussel, Ms. 5, fol. 329
Picture of the Battle of Courtrai from the "Grandes Chroniques de France", beginning of 14th century.

The left corps of the army advances a bit sooner than the right corps. It's the corps of marshal Raoul de Nesle. The French foot can avoid for the most part to be run over by their own cavalry. It's a myth that the French knights impatiently rode into their own infantry and therefore were defeated.

But the French knights do have trouble getting over the three meters wide brook in closed order. Most get over however without too much trouble. What does cause a problem is the fact that the speed is out of their attack. Once they cross the brook the knights have to form up again and take a new go for their charge. The distance between them and the Flemish lines is however too short now to gain enough speed.

The Flemings stand closely packed, eight rows deep. The first line has alternately a man with a spear and a man with a goedendag. The men with the spear put the shaft end on the ground with their foot on top to take the first shock of the charge. The men with the goedendags raise their heavy weapons to let them come down on the heads of the horses or on the knights.

The French knights ride ahead on this wall of peaks and goedendags. Their charge produces a thundering noise and thus they crash into the Flemings. But the wall doesn't break up! Only at isolated spots some knights manage to enter the line, but they are immediately taken care of by the deeper lines and chopped into pieces. A major break through does not happen.

The attack of the right wing

The right wing of the French army apparently attacked in a more organised way. Their crossing of the Groeninge brook happens much better, but even here they don't manage to break through. The Flemish line stands!

While the French knights are attacking on the field, the garrison of the royal castle of Courtrai tries to force their way out and attack the Flemish in the back. Here the Ypres town militia throws them back and this attack turns out to be a complete failure.

In the centre of the Flemish lines, where the men of the Franc of Bruges and Coastal Flanders are standing, the French almost manage to force a break through. They had a bit more space to perform a better charge here. The French knights deeply enter the lines and the front almost collapses. The Flemish reserve under John of Renesse quickly rushes in and throws back the enemy. The lines are repaired.

The battle now rages over the whole frontline, and for the most part fierce close combat takes place. The French knights loose their big advantage. The goedendags do their terrible job and mercilessly pound on knights and horses. The Flemish commoners start to advance themselves now.

The Flemish Victory

The count of Artois had not taken part in the first charge and noticed that his knights were about to be thrown back. Therefore he decided to go into action himself, in an attempt to avoid a defeat. Mounted on his magnificent steed Morel he crosses the Groeninge brook without any trouble and he enters deeply into the Flemish ranks. He even manages to rip of a piece of the big Flemish banner, but then he too goes down by the anger of the Flemish soldiers.

With the death of their supreme commander the curtain falls over the French attack. The Flemings have advanced towards the brooks and the French knights who are not slain desperately try to run. The Flemish soldiers don't let this happen and the battle turns into a frightening slaughter. The by the French and Leliaarts despised Flemish commoners take their revenge.

Copyright Koninklijke Bibliotheek Den Haag KA XX, fol. 214r.
The battle is fought without mercy.

The French rearguard with the two remaining battles hangs the shield on their back and runs. The French footsoldiers try to evacuate, but a lot of them are caught by the Flemings and are killed without mercy. Some Brabançons who fought with the French try to change sides and now shout "Vlaenderen die Leeu", but Guy of Namur orders to kill all those that wear spurs. The fugitives are chased for more than 10 kilometres from the battlefield. The Flemish victory is complete!

After the battle

The battle lasted for more than three hours. The field was covered with bodies of both men and horses. The Florentine merchant Villani later wrote that this was indeed "an almost impossible event". The most magnificent army of Europe is defeated and the toll is quite heavy on the French side. Commander Robert d'Artois, marshal Raoul de Nesle and his brother Guy, Godfrey of Brabant (brother of duke John I), Jean de Burlats, Renaud de Trie, the count of Aumale, the count of Eu, the lord of Tancarville, Pierre Flotte, Jacques de Châtillon the son of the count of Hainault,... all died. The French nobility looses some sixty barons and lords, hundreds of knights and more than a thousand squires.

The Flemings stand guard that night on the battlefield. A battle is but won when the victorious army can hold the battlefield until the next morning. That next day the booty is collected. From the battlefield, apart of the expensive knightly armours, some five hundred pairs of golden spurs are found. This gives the battle its modern name. Only knights were allowed to wear gold-plated spurs, squires only wore normal or at the best silver- plated spurs. The French baggage train falls almost completely in Flemish hands.

Just seven days later pope Boniface VII is woken up in Rome from his sleep to bring him the news of the Flemish victory. For the first time in recorded history an army of footsoldiers defeated an army of knights. Thanks to this fact and because of its extraordinary origins this battle is one of the most remarkable in history.

Because this battle was won, Flanders was able to keep its independence and was reinstated as a county. The French influence was halted and this made it possible centuries later that the states of Belgium and the Netherlands were formed. The men in Courtrai fought for their "Patria Flandrensis" and thereby prevented that not only Flanders but also the entire Low Countries were saved from disgraceful defeat.

http://www.liebaart.org/




There were some battles afterwards too, some lost some won. Some were a 'draw'.
During the "Battle at Pevelenberg" on 18 august 1304 the Flemish almost killed the French king Filips IV van Frankrijk de Schone.

[Fenrhyl]

I don't know wtf is up is this ambushes not being brave stuff.... but I will say:

Ambushes, faint retreats, assasination, sabotage, diplomacy, etc, etc, etc are all tools of war. Ignoring them, saying that such strategies are less "brave", or less "honorable", or too "barbaric", whatever, only makes you weaker and your enemies stronger.

'NUFF SAID. :knight:


This is the whole difference between the french defeat at Azincourt and the french victory at Patay 20 years later. In the former case, the french wanted to fight in a chivalrous way, in the later one the french knights just bolted out of a forest to trample the unprepared english under hooves, lances and swords.

About Teutoburg wald : not only is it a wonderful feat of strategy, logistics and tactics ; it is also a demonstration of the marvels misinformation and betrayal can produce. A masterwork. Arminius (Herman or armand, means "great warrior") truly deserves his room in the halls of the greatest men of war.
Ironically, romans who were all to well documented about this disaster, put themselves in a situation where they re-enacted it at their own expense. It happened near the Neuss fortress, in 388 AD. A roman general named quentinius was utterly owned by the franks, a palatin legion (IOVIANI IVNIORES) and all its comitatenses legions were destroyed in a swampy fortress where wooden walls had been erected. Sounds like the germans too had learned their lesson well. The frank general is unknown, and given the political structure of frank tribes at that time, i'd say there was not an appointed general.

[Janius]

Yep, we kicked some French butt in "De Guldensporen slag" :whip:

:oops: OffTopic:
dezzerx en Tellos Athenaios toevallig ook Vlamingen?

[Fenrhyl]

Oh, the battle of the golden spurs. Yep, good use of terrain and weaknesses of the enemy.

Off topic : i always wondered at the capacity of flemmish people to differenciate them from the french :dizzy2: when they in fact are the core of french population. He, ravagesof nationalism. After all germans and french believethey have different roots even though they are the product of the same folk, the same empire and the same law... stupid 19th century.

By the way this :


Because this battle was won, Flanders was able to keep its independence and was reinstated as a county. The French influence was halted and this made it possible centuries later that the states of Belgium and the Netherlands were formed. The men in Courtrai fought for their "Patria Flandrensis" and thereby prevented that not only Flanders but also the entire Low Countries were saved from disgraceful defeat.

Is false. And it reeks of misplaced nationalism too.

The flemmings were repeatedly crushed by the french (either by a royal army or a burgundian one), only to rebel 10 or 20 years later during the 14th and 15th century. During the whole time, they were subjets of the french king and their count vowed fealty to the same king. They had good reason to rebel : either they suffered retaliation from previous rebellions or they were crushed under taxes to rebuild the french army after its repeated blunders at Crécy, Poitiers and Azincourt (and many others). they were not the only ones to rebel too, even Paris rebelled and tried to create a kind of democracy.
As far as flanders fate is concerned, after it was reduced to a burgundian domain it fell back in the french king's hands when he finally got rid of the dukes of burgundy. If memory serves, i think it was lost in the aftermath of the wars waged for nothing by Francis the first. Afterwards brutal conflicts were fought during the renaissance and modern era during which flemmings suffered a lot (that's an understatement, Louis the XIV was a ruthless bastard and the spanish or german leaders were the same kind of ferocious animals).
Linking the Courtrai battle, even if it is really astounding, to the independance of flanders (independance ? by the way, isn't it part of Belgium ?) is inaccurate, stupid and a sorry example of history manipulated to attain political goals.

The part about french influence is fantastic. "French influence" at this time is the influence of a germanic type of rule : a warrior king that is responsible of collecting taxes, maintaining the peace within the kingdom and warranting the application of laws. This is in straight line the exact same thing that the merovingians and the carolingians did. Who are the flemmings ? Just the root of frank population in Europe. It is so true that nowadays "borders" of flanders are nearly the same than those delimited by the roman empire defense line against the same franks. "French influence" my ass, they used the same laws despite local variations and customs and had the same habits. The only difference was about the language spoken and at that time they used latin for a reason : language was changing when you went from a valley to the next. What this text implies is that there was a major difference of customs, habits, laws and culture between french and flemmish people. Given France was born in the aftermath of the Bouvines battle less than a century ago (before that it was the kingdom of the franks) and that flanders were already part of it (and thus "french influence" would have partly been "flemmish influence"), it is just a pile of bullshit. Even funnier, 7 centuries after the event, differences in culture betwen flemmings and french are still ridiculous.
Coup de grâce : a french influence supposes a centralized type of power. A thing that did not exist in France in the 14th century; in fact it appeared during Francis the first's reign. No centralized power, no influence. End of the line. (This does not mean the some kings did not try to achieve it, it means they failed miserably).

This part of the article is such a pile of nationalist nonsense that i would laugh if i wasn't of flemmish decent and if some vlams blok asshole had not publicly qualified wallons as inferiors... AFK vomiting.

[dezzerx]

Ik zelf ben Vlaams, Tellos is Nederlands geloof ik. :yes:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Dat gelooft-ie zelf ook. :grin:

[Intranetusa]

^ most of my ambushes occurred by chance/accident. I nearly maxed out the moving points of each general/captain and they happened to land on a ambush-capable space. And the next turn the AI just happened to cross that space (usually chokepoints such as the mountains in Anatolia/Turkey region)


So after months of playing, accidental ambushes happened to me about 8-10 times...quite effective actually. With several units of pedites extrandarii, reserves, and cheap mercs (total of half stack or less) I was able to destroy full stacks of medium-high quality enemy troops.

[Intranetusa]

Thespians not Thebans, the Thebans deserted and joined the Persians.

I don't think they joined the Persians, I believe the Thebans just surrendered when they were surrounded after the Persian flank.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Thebes surrendered and joined the Persians. The Thesbians stood and died with the Spartans. The Phocians ran away when the Persians flanked the pass at Thermopylae. (Well, they left their post assigned to them by Leonidas and went to defend their town, which was just off the path of the flanking Persians.)

[Demon Eyes Kyo]

historically you can fall back on the battles of "aquae sextae" (romans won) and "teutoberger wald" (germans beating rome, in a crushing long term ambush). so that taken into account, the barbarian factions (lighter units, more disorderly, ect.) thrive in ambush battles. the romans, too can exploit the terrain, with their lighter units and heavy horse.