A bit late to the party, but for historians there is one simple rule that you must always adhere to: the truth lies within the source. If the sources do not mention that all Romans wore red uniforms then you simply cannot assume they did. If you cannot find it within the sources you must simply drop the thought, immediately. There are so many historical lies that are embraced as universal truths simply because people cannot be bothered to take a proper look at their sources.
As for the melee bit: in medieval Europe (1000-1400) a lot of wars were initiated by the nobility, those who possessed land. Battle was a means to an end to make a name for yourself and create a legacy. Honor, courage, bravery - that's the stuff your name was written with in the epos of the ages. Conquest was an afterthought for most smaller nobles. There were a few 'danger zones' where the struggle between peoples were fierce and one of those areas was the northern part of Holland, where Frisian farmers - who enjoyed relatively great freedom compared to their brethren elsewhere - clashed with the Count of Holland. The political landscape on both sides changed so fast that I won't go indepth on that, so the generalization above will have to suffice. The fighting between the two sides was so fierce that when you compare the lethality of the conflicts they are an anomaly within western Europe. The conflicts in Belgium, France, England and Germany are less lethal. What is to blame for this? I can't answer that question with a 100% certainty, but the idea that one side could lose their (once again - relative) freedom surely upped the stakes. People are willing to die for what they stand for and events such as World War II have shown us that people are willing to go to war, even the wars of others, to protect an ideal like freedom. The wars fought between the two sides more often resembled guerrila warfare, with raiding parties striking out to burn down farmsteads and killing whoever they encountered. When the two sides met, the fighting wasn't for glory and honor. In a way, the conflicts resemble those of the Teutonic Order and the Baltic tribes when the Order first moved into the area: both regions were covered with forests, were marshy and had plenty of water - the Dutch area had more open water, but both regions used rivers as a mainway of transporting troops and getting to conflict zones.
The stakes were high with freedom hanging in the balance for one side, the fighting was often of the guerilla warfare type and the environment allowed for quick strikes with small forces. Another indicator of the lethality of the Holland-Frysian conflicts is the death rate of the nobility. The list of counts of Holland and members of their entourage who died in these struggles is staggering.
So what was the melee like in Holland around 1200-1400? Brutal, merciless and unforgiving if you were caught between a rock and a hard place. Elsewhere in Europe you'd be taken as a hostage as a nobleman. Those who showed any kind of wealth (the armor and weaponry you wore were indicators of wealth) were normally not killed, because they were worth more alive. The fate of peasants and the poor always hangs in the balance. Bow, goedendag, spear, shield and for those who could afford it, swords, were the primary weapons used in the conflict. Plate was reserved for the rich and wealthy, the level of technology meant that medicine would often fail to treat a wound or infection and spear, bow and goedendag were very effective weapons against chain.
I never thought that the above would be the case for the region of Holland. I stumbled upon a great book about the history of Holland in this timeframe and was utterly amazed when I read how lethal the conflicts were, in comparison to other European conflicts of hte time. It broke the mold.
tl;dr the objective of the war and the consequences that the objective bears for either side heavily influence the level of grimdarkness of the battlefield. Death was a constant, but the lethality greatly varied. What use is there in subdueing a people or nobleman if those who make the region profitable are all dead? Or hold a permanent grudge against you for being a ruthless murderer? Honor and courage were two great prizes to be won in battle, the defeat of your enemy was the icing on the cake. Where this wasn't the case, the death rate of a conflict greatly increased.
