Erm... Battles were *not* usually in agreed-upon locations. The vast majority of battles in the middle ages were land-grabs and as such, happened to be sieges or fights directly outside of important cities and fortresses. Armies were intercepted in key locations and battle strategies decided based upon terrain just as is done today and just as it has been done for thousands of years.
Very few times were the whole "Lets meet at x and we'll see who's army is truly superior!" battleplans actually executed - to be honest, its a quite dense and blatantly idiotic method of combat that is wasteful of lives and resources. When lives are thrown at the enemy it is to secure an economic advantage by way of political power, a land grab, or the claiming of an important choke-point, trade route, or city. Despite what some might believe regarding the dark age, medieval era, and post-medieval era, they were not all 'honor and chivalry' as some might think - they were just as cutthroat and ambitious as folks are today, employing deceit, ambushes, sabotage, assassination, and much more - if not more than we find today. (for the simple fact that everything is monitored and communicated worldwide and its difficult to get away with the things they would get away with back then. It takes my breath away to consider how much history has been unreported, misconstrued, or simpl wiped clean from the surface of the Earth through propaganda, misconception, or more devious means... Ahhh... History, my first love!)
Yeah. This makes more sense. Arrange and fight? I would rather attack faster to surprise my enemy. I am pretty sure medieval nobles liked winning much more than being honourable.
