evolution of tactics and combat style

[Amman d Stazia]

just want some input from anyone who knows their stuff:

I'm building a mod that will start in the dark ages and teleport forward to middle ages.

I want to have the maximum change in combat from the dark to middle ages.

So, what I want to know is at WHAT TIME PERIOD between 1200 and 1350, was the GREATEST DIFFERENCE in tactics, fighting styles, weaponry, and so on?

Focus on western Europe.  I've selected the time span 1200-1350 to avoid gunpowder but ensure that plate/transitional will be realistic.

all sensible comments welcome.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

1200 to 1350? Not much. Slightly more reliance on infantry, as well as the advent of primitive firearms and pikemen. But far from widespread.

 

[RalliX]

Essentially, for a long time Cavalry(After the invention of stirrups) was the major force on a battlefield.
But when better infantry tactics were used, the very expensive cavalry fell to being just one of the three types of units.
As time went on, cavalry still proved to have a degree of usefulness, but not against pikemen, and especially not against pikemen defending ranged troops.

Essentially, knights were truely useful for 800 years, or less, and no more. The novelty of being able to control your horse better was nothing to a solid spear, or pike-wall.
The timeline you're choosing is merely the high period when Knights and other heavy cavalry were very valuable.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

BTW, infantry remained prominent throughout. It's just that there were few battles in which exclusive infantry forces were used, and the lowly foot sluggers rarely got attention in contemporary sources. The common infantry were armed with spear&shield, or crossbows before pikemen started reappearing.

 

[xenoargh]

Between 1200-1350, the largest change was the arrival of early cannons and hand-cannons, mainly mounted on static swivels for siege work. 

This, along with widespread adoption of crossbows with significant draw-weights made a fairly significant change to siege operations and tactical doctrine in some areas of Europe, particularly France and Italy, but on balance the defense gained more than the offense during this period, as cannons remained very expensive logistically and were difficult to deploy tactically.

The other major changes to warfare during this period is the beginning of the end of shock cavalry's nearly three-century period of dominance, leading to most knights fighting on foot, and plates becoming layered with maille to provide better protection against both the better war-bows of the period and crossbows.  Shields generally started to shrink during this period, but we are not yet at the period where the buckler is predominant.

This period also saw the slow evolution away from the arming sword towards types with better piercing characteristics and more pole-weapons for infantry, particularly halberds (and the many, many variants on this theme) both to remain a credible threat against shock cavalry and to present a reasonable defensive force against men-at-arms wearing maille and plate.

If you just want to show players a sea-change, 1200-1400 is a much greater shift; firearms had become much more significant parts of the line of battle and massed pikemen were much more prevalent.

 

[Amman d Stazia]

thanks guys for input so far!

I've just made a minor improvement to my original question, since I ****ed up my wording.

just want some input from anyone who knows their stuff:

I'm building a mod that will start in the dark ages and teleport forward to middle ages.

I want to have the maximum change in combat from the dark to middle ages.

So, what I want to know is at WHAT TIME PERIOD between 1200 and 1350, was the GREATEST DIFFERENCE

**compared to the dark ages**

in tactics, fighting styles, weaponry, and so on?

Focus on western Europe.  I've selected the time span 1200-1350 to avoid gunpowder but ensure that plate/transitional will be realistic.

all sensible comments welcome.

But it seems as though the 12-1300 time is definitely the biggest difference to dark ages, without introducing gunpowder:
Cavalry still dominates over infantry but the bigger Xbows (and Anglo-welsh war bow ) are beginning to offer powerful anticavalry weapon, simply waiting for the evolution of infnatry tactics to use them.
Also weapons beginning to get bigger in return for smaller shields and better armour.


(the above super-simplified.  Please correct/improve as we go...)

 

[xenoargh]

If we're talking 1300, no; 1350+, yes.  Battle of Crecy was 1346.

I suppose you could have a scenario where people basically set themselves up with an army of longbows, men-at-arms and all the rest a little early, but in terms of making a mod, you're going to run into some big issues:

1.  Warband's Agent AI doesn't handle war bows like the real thing.  AI troops simply aren't allowed to fire on high arcs like they did IRL, so their ranges aren't correct.

2.  You'll need to handle all of the anti-cavalry obstacles that were used.  Archers typically used sharpened stakes to make their positions difficult to assault.  You can do that in Warband pretty easily and there are some code kits to do it and things like pavises, but the cavalry AI doesn't know what to do about that, at all. 

It's not like it goes, "gee, they've planted stakes, let's form a shield wall and advance", or in the case of horse archers "let's circle outside the stakes and shoot them from the flanks and rear.  The problems with this situation are really complex and there aren't any perfect solutions, I"m afraid.

Oh, and lastly gunpowder enters the scene around 1250, not 1350; the early firearms were actually really interesting but were mainly a fixture of siege warfare at first, due to both expense and the fact that the early ones were only accurate if they were on fixed mounts.  It's not like firearms changed things overnight, though, and in 1350 they still weren't significant parts of field battles, although early field guns were starting to show up.

 

[Provocator]

Essentially, for a long time Cavalry(After the invention of stirrups) was the major force on a battlefield.
But when better infantry tactics were used, the very expensive cavalry fell to being just one of the three types of units.
As time went on, cavalry still proved to have a degree of usefulness, but not against pikemen, and especially not against pikemen defending ranged troops.

Essentially, knights were truely useful for 800 years, or less, and no more. The novelty of being able to control your horse better was nothing to a solid spear, or pike-wall.
The timeline you're choosing is merely the high period when Knights and other heavy cavalry were very valuable.

I second the 1st thing Rallix said, and also, some of your major Western European factions started to counter that. And with what? Well with pikes of course. But then you got your archers who spam arrows at the enemy infantry... And then the enemy cavalry charges in at their archers. BUT THEN, here's the most important part. Then after several battles, you have your knights dismounting and protecting the archers at the flanks and rearguard but seperated enemy cavalry charged at their archers, the knights would quickly take out their longswords, either cut the tip off their lances or kill the horse and the rider and then do whatever. And then letting the pikemen/spearmen come in quickly and finishing off the job.

Of course this was after the Battle of Bannockburn, I am referring to Edward III's multiple victories over Scottish tactics and strategies after trying to think of a way to do that and then spam the archers.

Great general he was... But he was also a camper... Oh well, most of your British generals were campers. I don't care though, camping wins everything. People just get angry about it and try to troll you. Which I find very "mature" and "polite".

 

[alvin m. j.]

http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/Engelsk/welcome.html

 

[RalliX]

BUT THEN, here's the most important part. Then after several battles, you have your knights dismounting and protecting the archers at the flanks and rearguard but seperated enemy cavalry charged at their archers, the knights would quickly take out their longswords, either cut the tip off their lances or kill the horse and the rider and then do whatever. And then letting the pikemen/spearmen come in quickly and finishing off the job.

What the hell?
Sorry, but that's the second time I've seen this oddity in a few minutes.

Let me present this picture:

The enemy cavalry force has charged into a force of sword/axe armed infantry, and has been halted. The horses snort in front of the infantrymen, who are busily warding stabs from lances and swords, and weaving away from being trampled by the main body of horses.

I am Joe the footman; I have a sword in my right hand, a shield in my left.
Jimmy and Bobby also have these.

In front of me is John the Knight; he has a lance in the right hand, a shield in the other. Jim and Bob next to him also have these.

John is about to try stabbing me in the face with his spear. I am going to try and cut off his spear's head.
"HIIIYAAA!" I cry as I hit his spear before it hits me.
I look at the spear: it has a thick stave, it is being held in one hand, and it is still in one piece.

This, I now realize as John tries to stab me again, is because I cannot put enough force on a long relatively balanced object to cut it without it being braced against something, even with my sharp sword.
All that changed on the wooden shaft was that it was knocked away and now has a notch on the side. Damn, that spear really hurts now that I've been overthinking something so immensely simple.

 

[Provocator]

BUT THEN, here's the most important part. Then after several battles, you have your knights dismounting and protecting the archers at the flanks and rearguard but seperated enemy cavalry charged at their archers, the knights would quickly take out their longswords, either cut the tip off their lances or kill the horse and the rider and then do whatever. And then letting the pikemen/spearmen come in quickly and finishing off the job.

What the hell?
Sorry, but that's the second time I've seen this oddity in a few minutes.

Let me present this picture:

The enemy cavalry force has charged into a force of sword/axe armed infantry, and has been halted. The horses snort in front of the infantrymen, who are busily warding stabs from lances and swords, and weaving away from being trampled by the main body of horses.

I am Joe the footman; I have a sword in my right hand, a shield in my left.
Jimmy and Bobby also have these.

In front of me is John the Knight; he has a lance in the right hand, a shield in the other. Jim and Bob next to him also have these.

John is about to try stabbing me in the face with his spear. I am going to try and cut off his spear's head.
"HIIIYAAA!" I cry as I hit his spear before it hits me.
I look at the spear: it has a thick stave, it is being held in one hand, and it is still in one piece.

This, I now realize as John tries to stab me again, is because I cannot put enough force on a long relatively balanced object to cut it without it being braced against something, even with my sharp sword.
All that changed on the wooden shaft was that it was knocked away and now has a notch on the side. Damn, that spear really hurts now that I've been overthinking something so immensely simple.

Don't blame me, blame Edward III.

 

[xenoargh]

They did not cut tips off lances 

Just think about the mechanics of that; the tip of the lance is way, way in front of you, maybe buried in somebody's torso (if it didn't shatter, as it often did).  You're up on a horse... so, uh, you can't even reach the tip without dismounting 

Moreover, it's an ash pole about 2 inches in diameter, not exactly the easiest thing to slash through, during a melee.

I think that people who believe myths like that need to read about how all this stuff actually worked.

 

[Provocator]

They did not cut tips off lances 

Just think about the mechanics of that; the tip of the lance is way, way in front of you, maybe buried in somebody's torso (if it didn't shatter, as it often did).  You're up on a horse... so, uh, you can't even reach the tip without dismounting 

Moreover, it's an ash pole about 2 inches in diameter, not exactly the easiest thing to slash through, during a melee.

I think that people who believe myths like that need to read about how all this stuff actually worked.

That's what your mom said.

 

[xenoargh]

You really shouldn't try to use idioms in a foreign language you don't understand completely

 

[Provocator]

You really shouldn't try to use idioms in a foreign language you don't understand completely

Oh look at me, I'm xenoargh, I'm ****in' awesome, yeah you suck Provocator. Yeah I'm so awesome I have to even tell you that you suck because you can't say English. Oh wow, yeah I'm so badass. Oh yeah Provocator you can't even understand English.

Hmmm, well then why am I mocking you IN the English language? Ha, yeah. Didn't think that one through did you XENO.

So next time you try to reply, you can talk to my hand. It likes more then I do. Sorry to say, but uh, you're a ****. Ok?

 

[Jec94227]

Wrong thread for that. You want "Do an impression of the guy above you", located in the Fun Stuff sub-board of the Anachronists Guild.

 

[AWdeV]

Just think about the mechanics of that; the tip of the lance is way, way in front of you, maybe buried in somebody's torso (if it didn't shatter, as it often did).  You're up on a horse... so, uh, you can't even reach the tip without dismounting 

I'm not sure if an actual combat lance would shatter though. I always figured tourney lances shattered so that they wouldn't impale the other knight too hard. In battle the point of the lance (hur hurr) is to impale and kill folk. If it shattered you'd lose your main weapon and your main strength as a knight.

 

[Night Ninja]

It's still going to be ****ing hard to pull a lance free after you've buried it in someone's torso. War lances of the period were generally one-shot weapons. There wouldn't be any need for the supply train to carry multiple spare lances per knight if they were easily reusable.

And yes, the tourney lances are meant to break. This is what happens when they don't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPvtJmuyzn4

 

[xenoargh]

Hey, it's cool folks; I think that's the worst I've been flamed since I got here, other than that infamous thread about letting girls be girls in WFaS, and heck, I was being a smart-arse

Anyhow, I wrote the author of that article I cited, asking for his opinion about some of the things I've always wondered about.  If you read his article, you'd know that:

1.  Hitting anybody with a lance was, shall we say, difficult and quite dangerous to the lancer.

2.  Getting hit with a moving horse totally sucks.  They do weigh more than your average motorcycle, after all.

3.  Jousting lances were not generally set up to break; in the Renaissance Faire reenactments, they "doctored" some of the lances to make sure they would, and even then sometimes they didn't, or didn't break correctly, resulting in one or both riders being unhorsed without being planned. 

Oops; I guess some of you might not know- those jousts are all supposed to be as spontaneous and un-scripted as "professional wrestling".  Don't tell your fellow devotees of reenactment 

One of the questions I've asked after reading that is whether, in the author's opinion, it would be likely that war-lances were made to be more or less likely to break; after reading about the propensity of lances to injure the user (potentially lethally, armor or no) I really wonder about that.

4.  Horse-horse collisions would have been mutual suicide.  Two motorcycles hit each other at a combined speed of c. 75 KPH or higher.  So I asked him, flat-out, if he thinks that lines of lancers charging each other in tightly-dressed lines (i.e., both sides cordially agreeing to mutual suicide) was really all that likely.  Perhaps the whole vision we have of knights charging one another in groups is largely wrong.  We know that they fought tournaments with group combat, but they didn't use couched lances for that, which is instructive.


Anyhow, IDK whether I'll get any answers or not.  I was just happy to have gotten to thank the guy, because that is one of the best articles about how the reality probably worked that I think exists

 

[Provocator]

Hey, it's cool folks; I think that's the worst I've been flamed since I got here, other than that infamous thread about letting girls be girls in WFaS, and heck, I was being a smart-arse

Anyhow, I wrote the author of that article I cited, asking for his opinion about some of the things I've always wondered about.  If you read his article, you'd know that:

1.  Hitting anybody with a lance was, shall we say, difficult and quite dangerous to the lancer.

2.  Getting hit with a moving horse totally sucks.  They do weigh more than your average motorcycle, after all.

3.  Jousting lances were not generally set up to break; in the Renaissance Faire reenactments, they "doctored" some of the lances to make sure they would, and even then sometimes they didn't, or didn't break correctly, resulting in one or both riders being unhorsed without being planned. 

Oops; I guess some of you might not know- those jousts are all supposed to be as spontaneous and un-scripted as "professional wrestling".  Don't tell your fellow devotees of reenactment 

One of the questions I've asked after reading that is whether, in the author's opinion, it would be likely that war-lances were made to be more or less likely to break; after reading about the propensity of lances to injure the user (potentially lethally, armor or no) I really wonder about that.

4.  Horse-horse collisions would have been mutual suicide.  Two motorcycles hit each other at a combined speed of c. 75 KPH or higher.  So I asked him, flat-out, if he thinks that lines of lancers charging each other in tightly-dressed lines (i.e., both sides cordially agreeing to mutual suicide) was really all that likely.  Perhaps the whole vision we have of knights charging one another in groups is largely wrong.  We know that they fought tournaments with group combat, but they didn't use couched lances for that, which is instructive.


Anyhow, IDK whether I'll get any answers or not.  I was just happy to have gotten to thank the guy, because that is one of the best articles about how the reality probably worked that I think exists

Punk****.