Stand and Fight. Really?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

The current battle system is pretty simple (but also strangely complex with its unpredictable unit behaviors). Two forces take opposite sides, and go at each other head on.

What records exist out there about Medieval battles, both accounts of the battles, and preferably, reliable sources about the formations and tactics used? I am told that the Medieval Europeans really did fight like BM portrays, but I'd like for something from the time, like a treatise on battle by some competent vassal or someone related to the military scene.

[Vellos]

I have not more than skimmed any of these. But, for your reading pleasure:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-nicea.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-antioch.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-jlem.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/fulk2.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cde-letters.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1187ernoul.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1187hattin.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1187saladin.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/einhard-wars1.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1066malmesbury.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/ballad.html

Also, a later Medieval battle in the War of the Roses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field

Bosworth Field has had some fairly significant archaeology done on it, if I remember correctly.

Textual evidence for Medieval battles isn't as abundant as we might like. Fighting manuals exist for later-Medieval German and Italian swordsmen.

For the most part, the fighting BM simulates is pretty accurate for simulations of major battles in, say, the Crusades, or the Hundred Years War. The only thing BM does not simulate well is siege warfare. But, once Dwilight gets heavily settled, maybe we will see some of that, what with the ring-regions.

[vonGenf]

This blog is a pain to search through and contains a *lot* of unrelated material, but there are also some real gems in there.

http://warandgame.com/

[Longmane]

It's not so much the scarcity of books or thesis's etc concerning such things that's the problem, as rather abundant on the whole, but a matter of not just finding the rascals in the first place but also sorting the chaff from the corn.

As while there's plenty of books etc out there, and indeed themselves are mostly very informative and the like, the problem I've found is that while the majority are usually lightweight in the detail needed, and as such usually leave you no wiser then before  ???,  those that aren't can often suffer from other shortcomings, ie as while latter day authors (19th century onwards usually) sometimes fall into the trap of throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to eyewitness accounts of the period etc, (ie Just because one thing sir cuthbert said didn't seem kosher they don't just omit it, but actually change it to what they believe happened) the earlier ones facts can sometimes be skewed by bias, either deliberate or otherwise.

I myself have been very lucky in acquiring two excellent tomes on the subject, one I learnt about at our town library (while on a visit searching for that other damn elusive book ) and the other through it being quoted from, and highly lauded, in a thesis by a Professor and fellow arthur on the subject.

I can't remember their names exactly at the moment, as still on the road (nearly 2 weeks now without hitting home-base  ;D ) and unable access my home PC let alone actually lay my hands on them, but once get chance I'll post the titles and authors, as think would find at least the second one fascinating and highly informative, ie gives the complete order of march, making camp and battle preparations for the templars etc, and likewise eyewitness accounts of battles from such people as Saladin's son himself.

[Cadfan]

The current battle system is pretty simple (but also strangely complex with its unpredictable unit behaviors). Two forces take opposite sides, and go at each other head on.

What records exist out there about Medieval battles, both accounts of the battles, and preferably, reliable sources about the formations and tactics used? I am told that the Medieval Europeans really did fight like BM portrays, but I'd like for something from the time, like a treatise on battle by some competent vassal or someone related to the military scene.

The problem with statements like this is the time period covers such a large period of time. The way battles where fought did change significantly over this time.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

The problem with statements like this is the time period covers such a large period of time. The way battles where fought did change significantly over this time.

In such a case the simplest solution would be to look at BM's representation and find the closest historical parallel. There is no problem, only a required approximation.

[De-Legro]

In such a case the simplest solution would be to look at BM's representation and find the closest historical parallel. There is no problem, only a required approximation.

In which part of Europe? For example Self economies sprung up late in the eastern part of Europe, and tended to persist past the time the institution was dismantled in western Europe. Some countries like Wales persisted with small "professional" armies with a emphasis on single melee combat while other realms had started to practise "conscription" of peasant levies and the use of formations required by larger forces.

In general combat was a fair bit simpler then we would perhaps suspect, since communication on the battlefield was somewhat difficult. Simple battle plans that could then be tweaked by the battlefield commanders as the situation changed gave maximum flexibility in this regard. Like the early phalanx combat of Greece, set piece battles were common.

This opinion is based on the Military History I learnt while training to be an army officer. We learnt tactics and strategies from many historical ages as a way to demonstrate how limitations of things like communication and logics dictates the available strategic options.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Who cares what part of Europe? As long as it's somewhere in that general landmass. Who cares about what time period? As long as we're talking post-western Rome and pre-firearms. What part of "Find the closest thing to what BM does" is unclear?

[ó Broin]

Who cares what part of Europe? As long as it's somewhere in that general landmass. Who cares about what time period? As long as we're talking post-western Rome and pre-firearms. What part of "Find the closest thing to what BM does" is unclear?

Probably the fact that BM tends to be a grab bag of ideas from throughout the period.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I'm just asking for what those basic stand on opposite sides of the battlefield and fight type of battles resemble. I know that such a strategy was not uncommon even in th ancient world, but not all cultures used such forms of warfare due to things such as resources, terrain, lifestyle, etc. Besides, those links provided by Vellos are many times more help than any "This is so hard to answer" comments. Yeah, I get that it's difficult because we're talking about the realism of a game. That naturally means unrealistic...I know. Now let's just get on with trying our best to look at what we have, because it might improve our understanding of the background.

(edited by mod to get back on topic)

[ó Broin]

I'm just asking for what those basic stand on opposite sides of the battlefield and fight type of battles resemble. I know that such a strategy was not uncommon even in th ancient world, but not all cultures used such forms of warfare due to things such as resources, terrain, lifestyle, etc. Besides, those links provided by Vellos are many times more help than any "This is so hard to answer" comments. Yeah, I get that it's difficult because we're talking about the realism of a game. That naturally means unrealistic...I know. Now let's just get on with trying our best to look at what we have, because it might improve our understanding of the background.

I think people were just trying to point out that for the time period that BM is generally associated with, you are likely to find battle reports that both confirm that style of battle, and dispute it, depending on which conflict we are looking at.

[Longmane]

Touch wood I reach blighty Tuesday so will be able post the titles of those books soon after for anyone interested.

By the way the time line for the battles, formations, tactics etc they deal with stretches from the 8th to the mid 14th centuries.

[Longmane]

Now I've finally hit home base, and likewise "shouldn't" be required travel back to mainland Europe again for a week or more, I'm hoping to be able search out and post a few things folk might find most interesting, enlightening and informative from my favorite book of medieval warfare, and which if you read this part of the preface by it's author you'll perhaps understand why it is.   

Page ix
General Preface

English-speaking historians probably have none to blame but themselves for, on the whole, not reading and digesting the lessons of De Krijgskunst in West-Europa in de Middeleeuwen IXe tot begin XIVe eeuw, when it was first published in 1954.  It was unfortunate that the languages of the Low Countries were not widely-enough known, for J.F. Verbruggen was to make a significant contribution to understanding medieval warfare.  So it gives me great pleasure to present a newly translated, expanded and revised edition forty years on. In one sense, at least, his work is now out of date. This is clear from the sentences which begin it, in which Verbruggen bemoans the 'unfortunate treatment' which the medieval 'art of war' has received from historians. That this is no longer the case is in a large part due to his influence on a post-war generation of scholars interested in medieval warfare. I remember with what joy I fell upon the partial translation of his work in the late-1970s when commencing my postgraduate research. Previously, when studying for an MA in Medieval History I had been advised by R. Allen Brown at King's College, London, of the value of the work.
Even in the much-reduced translation, I was delighted to find an author who took military historians to task for completely distorting and underestimating the skill with which medieval societies and individual commanders organized war.  Delbrück, Delpech and Oman fell alike to his scholarly sword, as he demonstrated the inaccuracy of their assessments which presented the 'Middle Ages' as a primitive period in which the 'Art of War' was lost, not to be regained until the Renaissance.  He showed an understanding of strategy, tactics, individual and collective discipline and the management of warfare which stood in stark contrast to their theses. Where they stressed the selfish and disordered behaviour of 'the knights', he was able to point to careful planning of campaigns and battles which emphasized coherent manoeuvre and tactical plans.  Flank attacks, ambushes, use of combined arms and rearguards—ignored by the most influential writer in English, Sir Charles Oman—all were discovered by Verbruggen in detailed studies of battles.

[egamma]

Offtopic posts deleted.

I have one simple rule for the Background section: If you disagree with what someone says, find and post your own source.

If you don't want to look up sources, don't complain that the request is too hard. Just don't post anything.

[Longmane]

Self-interest and Profits of War  (only a small part of the chapter)

Earlier in this chapter the poem of Bertrand de Born was quoted. It gives a remarkable insight into the true motives which prompted participation in wars. Bertrand wished that rich lords would hate each other, because a rich man is nobler, more generous, and benevolent in time of war than in peace. As soon as hostilities were announced, he said cynically : 'We can laugh, because the barons will love us, ... but if they want us to stick to them, they will have to pay us well.'139  But it was not just high pay that made Bertrand anxious to fight. War offered other prospects as well that were far more alluring and entailed less danger. It was a good time for 'taking goods away from usurers', for robbing burghers and merchants on the highways. The riches were there for the taking. The poet belonged to the class of humble vavassors, whose possessions and fiefs were very small. War, and the plundering raids it involved, helped these impoverished knights make ends meet. When Bertrand offered his services to the count of Poitiers he was already wearing his helmet, and had his shield slung round his neck. But then the problem of equipping himself for a campaign, seeing that he had no money, arose. In another expedition, the campaign of Jean de Beaumont in Scotland in 1327 with the army of Edward III —for which more volunteers turned out than had been expected, since all of them were hoping for very high pay—Jean Le Bel, who was a member of the expedition, summed up what was necessary for a military campaign: 'Everybody started to buy according to his rank and status: tents, little horses used in the country, and they found enough of them at reasonable price, pots, kettles, and so on, necessary in a campaign. It cost a great deal of money for a knight to be able to go out completely equipped, especially considering his expensive horses. The financial problems of petty vassals are understandable too, but of course this does not excuse their actions as robber-knights.

NB These "robber-knights" are mentioned quite a few times in the book, either by that name or as "robber captains" and were held in such disdain by their "betters" they were forbidden have there men wear livery for many years.

(part of a chapter on commanders)

A well-informed chronicler, William of Poitiers, made an interesting comparison between the ways in which Caesar and William the Conqueror commanded their armies. 'In Caesar's case, it was sufficient for his fame and importance simply to issue orders while he was fighting the Britons and Gauls: only rarely did he take part in the fighting. This was the custom in ancient times, as is evident from the Commentaries. For William it would have been neither honourable nor effective merely to give orders in his conflict with the English, if he had not at the same time fulfilled his obligations as a knight, as he had always done in other wars. In every battle he fought with his sword, either as the first man or at least among the first.'158 That medieval concept was inspired by the customs and usages of chivalry, but it wasalso a natural consequence of the very small size of knightly armies. Because of this, the commander as a rule stayed very close to his knights. The hierarchy in such matters was not very strict: Tancred's biographer, Ralph of Caen, says that he looked upon his knights as his treasure, and often took over guard-duty from wounded or exhausted men in his retinue, while never letting his own turn go by.159 On the march the commander always had to be prepared to reach his destination with the last knights, and if the enemy laid an ambush, he had to fight with some of his troops. His example always inspired the other knights. In flight or in retreat he had to keep the enemy at bay with the rearguard, as Tancred and the young Louis the Fat did, with the best troops in the army.

Many of the best knights are taken prisoner.
Know full well that this is the custom:
The bravest fight in the rearguard
If there is a flight.
The others do not worry about this,
But try to save themselves
By fleeing headlong.160

Two English kings had tremendous influence as leaders: Richard I and Edward III. Edward I might
also be mentioned, but he won no victories on the continent. The Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal says of Richard I: 'The bravest were so fearless (under his command) that since that war thirty of our men have dared take on forty Frenchmen, a thing quite unheard of till then. It is plain from this that men who have a good leader are far more courageous and become a better fighting unit.'162