First of all, very few infantrymen would have anything more in terms of armour than a helmet an an aketon. So such a fight would certainly be deadly for the participants. It would be very very loud - hundreds of men screaming, shouting, crying. Certainly confusing, especially that sometimes the armies looked very similar (obviously there were no uniforms in medieval times :P). Such battles would be blunt and dirty - no fancy fighting techniques, it was all about hitting the enemy as hard as you could.
Whether formations were used... it depends on the fighters. Trained mercenaries or men-at-arms would obviously be more organised that your typical levy, which could probably do little more than stay togather in a group.
Remmember that due to all the noise it was almost impossible to command during the battle. Your voice would just be lost in hundreds of screams, so most of the organising was done beforehand.
Joker why don't you like read a book or something written by someone from back then in an army?
"What would YOU do, if you were in the first line of a battle"?
How much time was it, 15-25 minutes? I can't remember.
I would suggest reading some of bernard cornwells books. The shieldwall fighting and medieval battles seem pretty realistic and brutal.
I would imagine they were more like swinging for the fences in hope of hitting someone before being hit themselves while the adrenaline and fear for the own life kept them going.That depends, I imagine disciplined, well-trained and experienced soldiers could keep themselves cool and don't lose control over themselves. If you want to stay alive and fight effectively, you stay focused and calm in your mind. Going into a berserk-state would just get you killed.
**** myself
Probably.
It sounds really bad because you can't go back, there is a meat wall in front, and behind you as well.
Yeah I really don't know if it was 5,10,15 or more minutes, just vaguely remember the time.
Hi!
My question is rather simple: how was real melee like?
rofl, something tells me most men-at-arms would act in better shape then those sad sacks who can barely lift their plastic polearm replicas
rofl, something tells me most men-at-arms would act in better shape then those sad sacks who can barely lift their plastic polearm replicas
Afaik those are real metal weapons, albeit unsharpened. That kind of reenactment is brutal, one of the "sad sacks" even gets a falchion to the knee and is obviously seriously injured. Crazy Russians, they only disallowed maces.
Smoothrich and his intelligent posting style strikes again
But at the end of the day they're not fighting to the death, so I don't think these re-enactments are going to show the real brutality and fighting that happened in melee scrums.
Still shows what would happen if 2 full infantry group fought against each other, at least for the few first minutes where no clear "victor" emerges.
It's called sarcasm, and exaggeration for effect.
Actually, I think that was only sometimes the case. Peasants were only levied in cases of emergency, and when you needed sheer numbers. Usually army leaders preferred smaller, professional armies. They might be of the same strength like a giant peasant army, but they have vast advantages over peasants. The smaller number means you need less supplies, and that you can command them better. The fact that you expect less losses and their professionality makes those small armies much more reliable.
Generally I think a good part of most armies was rather professional and reasonably equipped. Especially between the high and late middle ages, for example during the Hundred Years Wars, War of Roses, etc., you barely saw poorly equipped peasants on the depictions of those battles. You had infantry which was equipped with chainmail and partial plate and you had a lot of professional men at arms and fighters who made a living from war.
Vyborg castle
People who were in the armies at those times rarely wrote books. They actually rarely wrote at all, because usually they were not capable of.
And those people who wrote about battles, tended to glorify them, and they surely did not put any emphasis into the point of view of the ordinary infantryman and how he experienced the battle. It's about the cruel, disgusting details, and I bet nobody was interested in how precisely people hacked and stabbed each other. But this is what interests me, so I am asking. I don't really expect to find some historic ressources about that matter, at least not before the late middle ages/renaissance. But perhaps there were some researches and so on, or archeologic findings, which I don't know of.
And finally, it could help to simply imagine how it could have been, and trying to figure it out. Like "What would YOU do, if you were in the first line of a battle"?
Hi!
My question is rather simple: how was real melee like?
Of course it heavily depends on the time period and so on, but I don't think this should stop us from trying to get a picture.
What I am interested in mainly is the cohesion while fighting. You surely all know the Bravehart battle scenes, where both armies rush full speed into each other, and then there is a huge clusterfuck and enemies coming from all sides.
Or is it more like the battle in the movie Troy, where they wait in front of their citiy walls, first repell them and then drive the Greek back? In that scene you can clearly see how they are holding some sort of line.
Of course certain tactics like Phalanx or shield wall automatically imply a certain level of cohesion. But still I'd like to know how it was percisely. Did the Normans beat on the Saxon shield wall constantly like mad men, or were they like in some distance with their own shield wall, and rather cautiously attacking with spears and so on, waiting for one of the Saxons to make a mistake and stab him behind his shield? I bet keeping distance could have been problematic with all the other guys in the back pushing forward. But did they push forward? Have people been so eager on fighting that they knowingly caused trouble for their fellows at the front by pushing them into the enemy?
I know from several reports that tactics in medieval times were basically about placing your troops at the right spot and then hoping they would wait with their charge for your command. But once the attack was released you could only wait for the outcome, without further possibilities of infulencing it.
But since many fighters tended to join medieval battles in some kind of "lances", where a knight had his squires around him (I know often parts of the lances were assigned to different units, e.g. pages joining the light cavalry and so on), I suppose at least those small groups of about 3 to 10 men kept some kind of cohesion. Once the enemy was repelled a bit they for sure regrouped, listening to the leader or his commanding "officer". Did those people at least look for after the course of the battle, and deciding where to engage next, or did they just charge headlong the nearest enemies?
You see, those are a lot of different questions with even more answers. Now does somebody of you know some reports or researches about melee, which can clarify the matter for a certain period? E.g. did the Normans support the man next to them, or was everybody just beating the part of the Saxon shield wall in front of him?
I am also interested in other details e.g. how much did your fellows care when you got hit and went down? Have people made special efforts to support their buddies, like on those illustrations when a Landsknecht was jumping into the pikes, grabbing as many of them as he could and lifting them, so his fellows could charge under them? Or similar to the battle of Rocroi scene at the end of Alatriste, where fighters "dive" under the pikes of the enemies, cutting and stabbing the defenseless pikemen, have there been Normans going down and trying to cut the feet of the Saxons, relying on their Norman fellows to protect them from blows to the back of their head?
Also here's LindyBeige's take on shield walls, he doesn't think the shield walls of both sides would go up against each other and have a "shoving" match as other people and historians have suggested. AKA he is disputing the tactic that shieldwalls would go "shield to shield" head on into the enemy's shield wall(click to show/hide)
Came out just yesterday, thought I'll add it to the discussion.
I can't think of the name for the life of me but wasn't there some Russian massacre that ensued in the 19th century simply cos there was a huge crowd and a rumour spread that there was cake (i shit you not) and people rushed to one side of the field, not noting that there was a small ditch along the way, those who fell or got trapped were crushed and trampled.
Honestly I don't think this is that far from the real deal. These weapons are clearly heavy and I am pretty sure taking one of those voulge swings to the head will fucking hurt. Of course people don't die as quickly, it is a very cramped area and neither side is actively trying to push. This makes the combat look rather stale and uneventful, but apart from that, the way people are swinging, the way people are protecting themselves and others, think it is pretty close.(click to show/hide)
Honestly I don't think this is that far from the real deal. These weapons are clearly heavy and I am pretty sure taking one of those voulge swings to the head will fucking hurt. Of course people don't die as quickly, it is a very cramped area and neither side is actively trying to push. This makes the combat look rather stale and uneventful, but apart from that, the way people are swinging, the way people are protecting themselves and others, think it is pretty close.
Since Heskeytime already answered the part about the use of pushing (which sometimes, not always exists, and which never was defeating the enemy by pushing, rather changing the circumstances under which you can defeat him), I'd like to add an assumption of me:
I think there would have been more "martial arts" in those fights. I don't mean any Kung Fu shit or unrealistic fencing with three enemies simultaneously, but I am dead sure there has been a dozen or so "standard grips" and counters and whatnot, which worked rather well, were safe and quick. Especially since those who were trained in those martial arts often fought against untrained enemies, and I guess untrained people tend to do always the same mistakes. So I think it wouldn't all be only that hacking and stabbing like on that video, a few of those individuals (namely the leading lords and perhaps a few of their trained retinue soldiers) would know exactly what they are doing there, and we would see a few disarming blows, perhaps a few men being killed by their own weapon and similar stuff.
Just look at all the fencing videos on youtube. Sure, those were late middle ages and duels, but holy shit! I would never have seen most of those things coming! THere is no chance you can counter them if you don't hav the same level of training, so I guess it would have been used in battle, too. Especially since those tained fighters were not in panic and stayed calm and thus deadly.
You don't seem to know alot about martial arts, since I guess you rather took your knowledge from those movies. Please be careful if you call Kung Fu shit if you don't know what it's about, because martial arts means something different than what you stated.
"Kampfkunst" meinte ich. Ich wollte das jetzt nicht auf "fencing" runterbrechen, weil ich denke dass in der Schlacht Griffe und Tricks benutzt worden, die nicht in die klassische Definition von "Fechten" fallen.
Wollte ja nur klarstellen, dass du Kung Fu und Kampfkunst nicht herabwürdigst, weil die Darstellung in klassischen Kung Fu Filmen oftmals nur auf Show beschränkt ist und Kampfkunst mehr bedeutet.
I dont understand the following replies lol, but i assume Joker explained that he wasn't calling Kung Fu shit, he was just explaining that it wasn't what he meant by martial arts, because although incorrectly, people often make that connection when someone says 'martial arts'.
One of you probably also mentioned that 'martial arts' is a Roman term meaning 'arts of Mars' (The Roman God of War).
Karl only wanted to remind me that Kung Fu and martial arts are no "shit" as I said, and that I shouldn't think that movies and other stuff depict them correctly, and I replied it was actually what I was referring to, since I didn't mean with "professional soldiers used martial arts" that they would jump around, dealing roundhouse kicks, jumping saltos and so on.
I meant real, useful and working grips which help you winning. I bet you would have seen quite a few in that video if this was a real fight.
I dont understand the following replies lol, but i assume Joker explained that he wasn't calling Kung Fu shit, he was just explaining that it wasn't what he meant by martial arts, because although incorrectly, people often make that connection when someone says 'martial arts'.
One of you probably also mentioned that 'martial arts' is a Roman term meaning 'arts of Mars' (The Roman God of War).
Not at all, we're referring to Medieval combat in Europe, so we wanted to make clear that when we said 'martial arts' people didn't assume we meant Kung Fu. We were referring to the European equivalents at the time, not commenting on which we thought was better, simply cos although Kung Fu is impressive it has nothing to do with Medieval combat in Europe.
TO summarize, neither of us said Kung Fu is fake, we just said we were talking about a different kind of Medieval Western Martial Arts since (to the best of my knowledge) European knights, housekarls and peasants weren't trained in Kung Fu.
I think there would have been more "martial arts" in those fights. I don't mean any Kung Fu shit or unrealistic fencing with three enemies simultaneously, but I am dead sure there has been a dozen or so "standard grips" and counters and whatnot, which worked rather well, were safe and quick. Especially since those who were trained in those martial arts often fought against untrained enemies, and I guess untrained people tend to do always the same mistakes. So I think it wouldn't all be only that hacking and stabbing like on that video, a few of those individuals (namely the leading lords and perhaps a few of their trained retinue soldiers) would know exactly what they are doing there, and we would see a few disarming blows, perhaps a few men being killed by their own weapon and similar stuff.I disagree. I don't think fencing videos carry over to the actual battlefield at all. You are not fighting one opponent, you have a dozen men close to you that could potentially hurt you at all times,you would have to watch every single one of them constantly, while trying to hurt them back. Not a place for fancy parrying. You see all those fencing moves rely a lot on footwork. But stepping into attacks like that will expose you to multiple opponents. I think people would just hang with their buddies, try to hurt the people in front of you while preventing them from hurting you. I'd say that is why spears and shields were so common at all times. With shorter or two handed weapons only coming into action when armour offered enough protection and those weapons being required to defeat that armour.
Just look at all the fencing videos on youtube. Sure, those were late middle ages and duels, but holy shit! I would never have seen most of those things coming! THere is no chance you can counter them if you don't hav the same level of training, so I guess it would have been used in battle, too. Especially since those tained fighters were not in panic and stayed calm and thus deadly.
I think medieval fighting would be completely brutal. Just swinging little blocking. In a crowd of thousands you wouldn't have much room to block apart from batting the weapon out the way. You would be tripping over dying comrades, punching people in the face while being shot at from raining arrows as one impales your best friends left eye you watch helplesdly . You then get stabbed in the side while your attention is diverted to your now shish-kebabed friend. You fall onto your knees as people trip over you. You watch as the world fades out in agonizing pain, your comrades pushing forward, punching, bashing, biting, stabbing your enemies. Your second best friend trips over you and promptly falls onto an enemies spear, with your last few breaths you wildly swing at your foes ankles, toppling him onto you where you violently stab at him. Unable to move with your final breath, you watch in the distance to see... a naked guy on a plated charger bump through the whole enemy army made up of thousands of warriors who are promptly executed by your army while they are on the ground. 1000000 xp
I think too Sniger, however on the projectiles comment, I have to disagree: except if you wanted your men to hate your guts, you used arrows and other projectiles on enemy units which were not entangled with your own.Not really, sadly ^^
It would be akin to, today, sending your infantry to fix a machine gun nest, then asking an airstrike where they are fighting.
Usually, ranged fighters were used in the skirmish phase only, and then in special manoeuvers where none of your comrades were about to be wounded.
Friendly fire must have happened, but except wicked commanders, I highly doubt armies used controlled volleys of arrows/bolts in the midst of a melee fight where those who are your friends have their unshielded back in your direction. It could have happened on an individual sniper basis, mostly in sieges.
Not really, sadly ^^
Friendly-fire is much more common than what we think in wars / battles.
Because wars/battles are much less "clean" than what we are suposing.
In WW1, there was shit for communications since all the phone lines would always get shredded by artillery fire, so it was difficult to sync support HQ with front lines. Of course this didn't stop the French and British from implementing "walking battery fire" near the end of the war, of massing artillery strikes right in front of advancing infantry to cover them. I can only imagine the nightmares of how many thousands of people were killed by their own fire while they developed that kind of tactic.
so I dont imagine that in the medieval age you were often asked to pepper your guys backs with arrows as part of classic tactical moves.What you don't understand is, they of course don't do it intentionally.
What you don't understand is, they of course don't do it intentionally.
Melee fight was a complete mess.
Before they use banners, the infantry has to yell as loud as possible his allegiance in order to know who he must attack.
See how chaotic it was...
Moreover, during the Medieval Age the armies were mainly composed by peasants without any discipline.
What i'm trying to say is : Of course they didn't volontary fire volleys on friendly soldiers like ww1 arty did, but they still have made a lot of friendly kill.
Butan, i'm pretty sure that for you all battles were like this :
Archers fires at start, and then, they let the melee engage.
Yes some battles were like this, but definetly not all.
We like to impose our own modern concept of war and 'armies' on historic soldiers, but even the Romans had no concept of 'Uniform' in their armies, the depictions of roman soldiers all with red tunics and identical armour is one of the greatest myths of history, there is zero evidence to support it and plenty that contradicts it. We like to imagine it because we like to hear how like us the Romans were, we like to think of them as a military 'machine' and resembling a modern army so we extrapolate our values backwards into the past.
I still think it's a leap to assume there was any 'official' or 'standard' colour without it being mentioned anywhere, so much detail is given in other areas it'd be striking if there was an official guideline that never gets mentioned.
About which bit? The Roman 'uniform' or about melee in general?The uniform, mostly, since melee is just physics and can actually be speculated on fairly accurately (even though the discussion in this thread is eye roll material) but there are so many factors in play when it comes to the uniforms that, unless we know, there's no point in talking about it. For example, Butan "thinks" red might have been the official color, but not the only authorized color. Not only is this assuming things about the military leadership and their stance on uniforms and uniformity (which isn't physics and thus can't be replicated today), it's assuming several things about the availability of different materials and their distribution and how it all worked in practice and if there were differences between units and eras and so on and so forth. Maybe there's enough literature on the Romans to make educated guesses on this, I don't know, but people in this thread certainly don't seem to be in possession of it. So you might just as well ask the next stranger you see what he "thinks" about it, which doesn't really help you at all if you want to know the truth.
And yes, lots and lots of speculation in these threads. That's why i think it's stating too much to assume any kind of general 'rule'.
Socialized = retarded? Why are you doing useless things and trying to disguise them as something positive?You are welcome to let us live free in our mediocrity. :)(click to show/hide)
As far i know, since when can't we talk about "useless things" ?Did you ever talk with a girl ?Erhm sorry.
Mostly all talks (if you have a "socialized" life) are "useless".
Socialized = retarded? Why are you doing useless things and trying to disguise them as something positive?Who said it's positive ?