Historic Dispays of Tactical Ingenuity

[Rodion Romanovich]

Agincourt was mostly due to French knights being bogged down by the mud, where English longbowmen just slaughtered them. You cannot recover a battle from that kind of a blow.

Some new historians are claiming the bows didn't achieve much kills because they couldn't penetrate the french steel armor. The mud alone, and perhaps arrows killing the actual horses, were still important factors though.

[Soulforged]

It's true that there were favourable circumstances on Agincourt to the Henry's army, but a very good plan always begins from establishing those circumstances while the general can do it. Henry was fleeing from France and he was advised of the intercepting force with enough time to set a plan. So he take this narrow passage, surrounded by trees, and places his outnumbered forces behind a palisade to block frontal attacks. Right from the begining if the french planned to win this battle a mounted frontal attack was always a suicide. Besides the rain that transformed the dirt in mud there was no other circumstance. It was a tactical achievement of one general and a very bad judgement of the other, i think the french were overly proud and they charged without any thought about the tactics or strategies. If they'd have foughted that battle unmounted they probably would have won. And about Hastings, is not so much of circumstance as it's of sugestion, the truth is that if William wouldn't have faked his own death then the battle would probably had another outcome, it was a very good movement of William and again overconfidence of the other party.

[Soulforged]

For what i can recall all historians put Hannibal as the best strategist ever (perhaps not the best general), and the battle of Cannae as the most precious "piece of art" (if you can call man slaughtering like that) ever. I would like to put one of my country here, San Martín knew that the Spanish forces would be prepared for a frontal attack with their rear protected by the Andes (mountains on Argentina) so he planned this to be a decisive battle. He took all his forces and maked an exceptional crossing trought the chain of mountains and surprised the spanish army from behind, the battle was harsh nontheless but still it was a devastating victory, of course i'm talking of the XIX century here.

[Grey_Fox]

Wellington's victory at Salamanca. He launched a lightning attack against an enemy army that was momentarily spread out while on the march. Also one of his great quotes: "You see those men over there? Throw your fellows into column and drive them to the devil".

[Ianofsmeg16]

Some new historians are claiming the bows didn't achieve much kills because they couldn't penetrate the french steel armor. The mud alone, and perhaps arrows killing the actual horses, were still important factors though.

Archers were taught to aim for the horses anyway, it was simply a bigger target

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yeah, killing the horses in that mud was probably even worse than if they'd been able to penetrate the steel armor. Just imagine heaps and heaps of horse corpses, forcing the knights to zig-zag back and forth through the mud, as if the mud didn't restrict their speed in the charge enough anyway... That's actually one of the things that the TW games really ought to implement - movement and formation penalty when moving over ground littered with corpses...

[SpawnOfEbil]

The Battle of Leuctra has got to rank up there alongside Gaugamela and Cannae.

Epaminondas was a tactical genius to do what he did and try something completely novel to defeat a much stronger enemy.

[Kagemusha]

This isnt such a classic,but good example from WWII how a little force can annihilate lot bigger and better equipped one. Battle of SuomussalmiLook at the casulties,at the right of the site.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One of the longest running disputes in military history -- and history in general.

Limits =

1. chap said generals not admirals, so we'll stick to the dry 40% of things.

2. aim is tactical rather than strategic, which lets out Barbarossa in 1941 (though leaving in a number of the battles within it) and a few others.

3. call is for "ingenuity," implying that orthodox tactics, however well executed, need not apply.

Right then, by era:

Ancient:

Hannibal Barca at Cannae: Though not the only use of the double envelopment, this is his best use of it. The tactic was probably a feature of the "chariot wars" of the VERY ancient middle east but records are very sparse on that. Marathon, too a somewhat lesser extent, employed the same approach.

Gaius Julius Caesar at Pharsalus: As noted in other posts, possible the best ancient use of flexible tactics.

Odysseus at Troy: Wherever Troy really was, and whatever the "horse" really was, this sneaky tactic has been sung and lauded for more than 3 millenia -- not a bad manuever that.

Sun Pin at Ma Ling: Set an ambush for a superior army by writing a note and sticking on a tree in a defile. The note said that "Pang Chuan dies by this tree." Troops found it, message went up the line, and sure enough Pang couldn't resist. Then the bowmen opened up. Dead General, routed army, opposing royalty captured -- game over.

-- Alexander gets zip from me. Any ingenuity to the oblique attack belongs to the Thracians and/or his dad Phillip. Alexander declared one basic tactic for a battle and then plunged into the hack and slash. He was a brilliant motivational/charismatic leader and a heck of a fighter but.....

Medieval:

Sabutai at Mohi: (others have noted) Dividing forces to launch a two-pronged attack across a River! Smashed the Hungarians. Sabutai is considered by many (including MacArthur) to have been the greatest general in history.

Henry at Agincourt: Advancing against a vastly superior foe in order to draw them into an unwise (and unneccessary) attack. The rest of the battle was, as noted before, more of a tribute to stupidity -- only that up-stakes and move out advance was ingenious (and gutsy).

Richard Plantagenet at Arsuf: Fighting on the march against a foe with superior mobility. Richard's forces were able to deal severe blows to those of Saladin, and Saladin was forced to sue for peace. This was wonderful thinking from an leader and army that was more used to the typical Eruopean see them, charge them, stomp them, ransom the nobility approach. Richard was a rotten strategist, a butcher, and a miserable king --but he could fight.

....other era choices to follow

[Romulas]

Over 2000 years later the battlefield decisions made by Alexander and Hannibal are still debated. Alexander won victories no matter who the enemy, no matter the odds. He found a way to put at least one tactical aspect to his advantage. He seemed to always win a "Heroic" victory. Hannibal's battles differ because the have you looking at both sides. Hannibal's tactics, to include him being where he was not supposed to be. And of course, his defeats are even a better study. Just what it took to beat him.

With all that I think the battle at Marathon the among the greatest if not the greatest. For the Greeks to win against those odds was awesome.

[barocca]

Archers were taught to aim for the horses anyway, it was simply a bigger target

not specifically true,
archers began training at 7 years old, they were taught to aim for the man,

Practical Experience "taught" them to aim for the horse

the english bodkin arrow head was ineffective against plate above a range of 70 odd yards, and who wants to let plate armoured knights get THAT close if you can kill their horse at 200 yards...


(and even under 70 yards it had to hit a thin or weak spot - against full front plate - no penetration, the arrow head metal was softer than the armour)

B.

[GonZ]

Excellent post and fascinating thread - cheers all.

[Ianofsmeg16]

not specifically true,
archers began training at 7 years old, they were taught to aim for the man,

Practical Experience "taught" them to aim for the horse

the english bodkin arrow head was ineffective against plate above a range of 70 odd yards, and who wants to let plate armoured knights get THAT close if you can kill their horse at 200 yards...


(and even under 70 yards it had to hit a thin or weak spot - against full front plate - no penetration, the arrow head metal was softer than the armour)

B.

wow, thanks.
i only said that because i thought it would be obvious for the commanders at that time to teach new archers that aiming for the horse would technicall immobilise the rider, and seeing how horse riders armour is heavier (i think anyway, i think that infantry more commonly wore chain mail that big heavy plate armour), the rider would be just an incredibly slow infantryman that could be cut down. Am i correct in saying this?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmmm....


Posts regarding penetration power of arrows.

Middle age long and crossbows couldn't penetrate full plate armors unless they caught a joint or other weakspot. For that matter, most of the top-notch armors were bullet-proof in the torso and head until the development of more powerful muskets (post 1500) made the weight requirements for such proofing prohibitive. Arrows would only rarely pierce a shield with enough remaining kinetic energy to wound the wielder.

Roman era armors were rarely that complete or effective, and relied on leather, studded leather, and chain for the most part. All such armors are difficult to pierce with a bow and arrow, but the more powerful bows (Hun e.g.) could do it. The heavier scale armors were more likely to be arrow proof in practice because of their "plated" characteristics. Shield were almost always proof against arrows, though even a tetsudo formation would not provide perfect cover. Arrows were annoying, but rarely decisive.

As to aiming at a horse or rider, I suspect that most archers aimed at a unit rather than attempting to snipe at the eye-slits of a moving target at 100 yards. The key would be my 400 archers trying to put 1600 to 2400 arrows into your company of 100 heavy cavalry in the 15-20 seconds it took the horsies to close from 250 yards to my "I'm leaving" point. Under such conditions, the comparatively lightly armored horses are gonna get more of a thump than the rider. However, as an archer I really don't care. Anything that stops or slows you is fine by me, because I know if I run I'm giving you a chance to cheap me. I'd much rather discourage you any way I can so that I don't have to risk running OR doing a do-si-do with your many hundreds of pounds of horse, pointy stick, and/or hand weapon.

As to weight and mobility, armor and weapons generally weighed in at less than 100 pounds. I'm sure that this weight and the stiffened joint articulation does limit mobility somewhat, but reenactors wearing such gear are NOT largely immobile when unhorsed. Assuming that they didn't get their bell rung falling, or got pinned, they would be able to continue. The myth about knights being like crippled turtles when unhorsed resulted from the very late period jousting only super-armors, where the weight alone was a tactic to keep you from getting knocked off. The famous imobility of the French knights at Agincourt was a combination of deep mud (wet ground), too many people bunched together and getting in one another's way, and exhaustion brought on by stress. The press was so tight that a number of the French are presumed to have been drowned in mud when their fellows bowled them over and then bunched over them preventing their standing up.

There are some good history channel pieces on these subjects

[pezhetairoi]

Seamus, once again you amaze. But I'd always thought they had arrows capable of penetration of standard chivalric armour, though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Depends what you mean by "standard" Pez'.

Medieval plate steel was virtually "proof" against an iron bodkin point.

But most "standard" infantry and poorer cavalry couldn't afford such armor, so there were lesser armors that the arrows could get through. Chain, leather, ring, and other variants were vulnerable at closer distances.

Against men-at-arms with plate, most of the arrows just bounced unless they caught the thin chin at an elbow or neck. Helmets had eye slits -- or were even open-faced in many cases, so that could be a source for arrow kills too, unless they had a full on close helm.

RTW era armors were often less complete. Roman era armies were huge, compared to medieval ones, and economics suggest that Rome (and other factions) could not have afforded to armor its troops to medieval levels even if the technology had been developed.

SF

[Vider]

Hmmm....

As to weight and mobility, armor and weapons generally weighed in at less than 100 pounds. I'm sure that this weight and the stiffened joint articulation does limit mobility somewhat, but reenactors wearing such gear are NOT largely immobile when unhorsed. Assuming that they didn't get their bell rung falling, or got pinned, they would be able to continue. The myth about knights being like crippled turtles when unhorsed resulted from the very late period jousting only super-armors, where the weight alone was a tactic to keep you from getting knocked off. The famous imobility of the French knights at Agincourt was a combination of deep mud (wet ground), too many people bunched together and getting in one another's way, and exhaustion brought on by stress. The press was so tight that a number of the French are presumed to have been drowned in mud when their fellows bowled them over and then bunched over them preventing their standing up.

There are some good history channel pieces on these subjects

I knew I wasn't the only one who's seen that history channel piece on Agincourt.

If what they said was accurate, the bulk of the French forces fought on foot. But the battlefield was roughly shaped like a funnel, with the ground dropping off on the sides and Henry's army sitting at the narrow end of the funnel. How do you get a force to reduce their front by roughly 50% in the face of an enemy, in the mud, while arrows are raining down AND while everyone's trying to get to the nobles in the center so they can capture and ransom them. No one's very interested in the archers until they came out and started killing the men-at-arms.

[HighLord z0b]

A few things

Sun Pin at Ma Ling: Set an ambush for a superior army by writing a note and sticking on a tree in a defile. The note said that "Pang Chuan dies by this tree." Troops found it, message went up the line, and sure enough Pang couldn't resist. Then the bowmen opened up. Dead General, routed army, opposing royalty captured -- game over.

According to one of the commenteries in my copy of The Art of War, Sun Pin actually carved the note into the tree and told his archers to shoot directly when they saw a light. When Pang Chuan arrived he struck a light to read the note and was riddled with arrows. Just liked the extra detail.

Oh and I really can't agree with the "Knights were invulnerable to bodkins" argument. There are just too many vulnerable places in 14th century armour, and there were so many arrows that one commentator said "the sky went dark with arrows". The documentary I've seen only shot a few bodkins directly at a breastplate, to be a valid experiment they would need to shoot thousands of arrows at a full suit or armour, preferably a moving one to expose weaknesses at the joints.