Shall we talk about the paper armors?

Users who are viewing this thread

I think that we need a summary of what we want - kind of like the one that was put into the large megathread here.

For me - the simple solution is - the stock game should be identical to Realistic Combat Mod.


Literally for the developers to take a look at the code, even work with the mod developer (who is now active on these forums) and use those values.
As much as I like RBM, I disagree.

High tier equipment does get a bit too tanky, which can be fun for some (I kind of like it because it gives a real purpose to 2-handers for example, who become the "tank busters"), but Vanilla should really just be in the middle ground.

There was a quality thread somewhere about a fix to the damage/armor curves, I suggest looking it up.
 
Our changes in RBM are not really compatible with "fast paced gameplay" and you actually need certain weapon types vs heavy armors which is not normy friendly.

From my experience the best mods generally tend to have slower paced games than the stock.

That's true in Total War (think Darth Mod and Third Age Total War) as well.


To me, the main reason though is to make the game realistic, especially for a game that claims to have some basis in bring more historically accurate than most games.
 
As much as I like RBM, I disagree.
I am perfectly fine with RBM's prolonged combat pace. I can't believe someone would prefer vanilla "meat grinder", when 1000-men battles end up in 2-3 minutes tops. In reality medieval open field battles could take hours if not days, especially considering troops falling back and regrouping/recuperating from time to time.
The combat engine is already limited, since it cannot simulate real formation combat and individual duels (like in Total War games). Instead we have to observe a drunken brawl. So at least I would prefer this drunken brawl to be as long as possible.

High tier equipment does get a bit too tanky, which can be fun for some (I kind of like it because it gives a real purpose to 2-handers for example, who become the "tank busters"), but Vanilla should really just be in the middle ground.
They are heavily armoured professional top tier soldiers, elite. They are SUPPOSED to be tanky, cause they are well-equipped veterans, you know, disciplined and experienced. They can still die, even if fighting against inferior troops, or to a stray heavy arrow/bolt/javelin to the head.
 
I am perfectly fine with RBM's prolonged combat pace. I can't believe someone would prefer vanilla "meat grinder", when 1000-men battles end up in 2-3 minutes tops. In reality medieval open field battles could take hours if not days, especially considering troops falling back and regrouping/recuperating from time to time.
The combat engine is already limited, since it cannot simulate real formation combat and individual duels (like in Total War games). Instead we have to observe a drunken brawl. So at least I would prefer this drunken brawl to be as long as possible.


They are heavily armoured professional top tier soldiers, elite. They are SUPPOSED to be tanky, cause they are well-equipped veterans, you know, disciplined and experienced. They can still die, even if fighting against inferior troops, or to a stray heavy arrow/bolt/javelin to the head.

I am not only fine but happy with RBM’s prolonged battles as well. I must have poorly communicated my opinion: I want better armor , and RBM does this perfectly up to a certain point where I feel like units just become too tanky. Such as when a sturgian varyag veteran takes multiple heavy knight lances at full speed right in the face (3-6).
I dislike it a bit because it makes cav a tad underwhelming (they already miss so many blows, they really need the hits to deals actual damage).
In other words, top tier armor protects too much imho with RBM.

However! I still use it over vanilla, because I prefer RBM’s « faults » (in my eyes) over vanilla, where armor is truly useless. And I’d rather have to deal with some bastards who take 10 lance thrusts to kill than watching top tier units Die to wheat scythes.

Hence why I was talking about needing to find. a middle ground for full release native.
 
I am not only fine but happy with RBM’s prolonged battles as well. I must have poorly communicated my opinion: I want better armor , and RBM does this perfectly up to a certain point where I feel like units just become too tanky. Such as when a sturgian varyag veteran takes multiple heavy knight lances at full speed right in the face (3-6).
Do you use the additional spear module from the mod as well?

These could just be glancing hits btw. We cannot see NPC's combat statistics and damage calculations when they get hit by other NPC's. I agree that the system may sometimes be clunky, but that's 100% vanilla issue. We can ramp/calibrate armour values and weapon damage, and still observe such goofy situations, due to how combat model works . Its either miss or hit = armour - (damage*speed). That's all. It has no endurance, bleeding, concussion, stun or internal trauma mechanics.
 
Frankly, lances got buffed a bit in yesterday patch. Information about certain weapons is simply incomplete for now, further experimentation is needed in this regard. For example, jousting (but not war, different wood in shaft) historically accurate couched lances were tested, and they caused little bit over 100-220 joules of KE without lance rest. With lance rest they caused 200-300 J, however around 300J they broke very often. As for armor penetration, mild steel (or 14th century medium carbon steel) riveted mail with padding can stop bodkin arrow of up to 90-100 joules, however in bannerlord "era" low carbon steel (76% strength in comparison to mild steel) and wrought iron (56% strength) were used instead. So mail from this material should provide reliable protection from some 60-80 joules of bodkin arrow. But lances and spears are thicker than arrows, which means they have to defeat more material which means they need more energy. According to one test you need 140-200 joules of lance / spear impact to at least partially(!) penetrate mild steel riveted mail replica. As for blunt impact, thats educated guesswork, for example it is mentioned in Alexiad that byzantine emperor (good cataphract armor) survived three lance strikes (lances got stuck in his armor and almost dehorsed him) from norman knights, presumably couched lances and he survived without significant injury so blunt damage should not be instakill levels with lance, but how much blunt damage should be done is just guesswork and balancing.
 
however around 300J they broke very often.
Weren't they meant to break? I mean to make them non-lethal (somewhat).
What about combat lances? I am pretty sure they weren't meant to be unbreakable, cause if it gets stuck or hits something hard and heavy even stirrups won't help.
 
Do you use the additional spear module from the mod as well?

These could just be glancing hits btw. We cannot see NPC's combat statistics and damage calculations when they get hit by other NPC's. I agree that the system may sometimes be clunky, but that's 100% vanilla issue. We can ramp/calibrate armour values and weapon damage, and still observe such goofy situations, due to how combat model works . Its either miss or hit = armour - (damage*speed). That's all. It has no endurance, bleeding, concussion, stun or internal trauma mechanics.
Oh I do, which is why it feels a bit extreme at times. I agree that it is mainly a problem with how damage is calculated, but it could still use some tweaking (for example when I'm charging heavily armored dudes full speed on a War Horse landing a good hit with my crafted 120 thrust damage spear). Btw I'm not sure if it's a thing, but it feels like units wearing high tier die much less often; which if it's not just an impression, I absolutely love.

On another note, I definitely would love seeing some additional stats like "glancing chance", which would basically act as critical saves where the armor prevents a bunch of damage.

Either way, a lot can be done with "just" the damage and armor formula currently used in M&B, hence why getting the values just right is essential.

@Philozoraptor I like the new damage output from the spears, though it does get a bit too strong against mid-tier units whilst getting too weak against high-tier elites. Though I don't see how you could fix that unless you decrease the maximum armor values which is... uh, yeah. A lot of work I can imagine. That being said I think you're definitely on the right track with the spear damage, it needs some tweaks but it's already very satisfying!

@Bratok Spear/lance breaking can be an interesting mechanic but it should definitely be optional. It's a nice touch of realism but it could quickly get frustrating. Unless a proper "resupply" mechanic is added for example, but that's still far from where we are at.
 
Last edited:
Oh I do, which is why it feels a bit extreme at times. I agree that it is mainly a problem with how damage is calculated, but it could still use some tweaking (for example when I'm charging heavily armored dudes full speed on a War Horse landing a good hit with my crafted 120 thrust damage spear). Btw I'm not sure if it's a thing, but it feels like units wearing high tier die much less often; which if it's not just an impression, I absolutely love.

On another note, I definitely would love seeing some additional stats like "glancing chance", which would basically act as critical saves where the armor prevents a bunch of damage.

Either way, a lot can be done with "just" the damage and armor formula currently used in M&B, hence why getting the values just right is essential.

@Philiozoraptor I like the new damage output from the spears, though it does get a bit too strong against mid-tier units whilst getting too weak against high-tier elites. Though I don't see how you could fix that unless you decrease the maximum armor values which is... uh, yeah. A lot of work I can imagine. That being said I think you're definitely on the right track with the spear damage, it needs some tweaks but it's already very satisfying!

@Bratok Spear/lance breaking can be an interesting mechanic but it should definitely be optional. It's a nice touch of realism but it could quickly get frustrating. Unless a proper "resupply" mechanic is added for example, but that's still far from where we are at.
RNG or skill based chance to crit and glance is doable, we were talking about this for a long time internally. Obvious pro is that you can achieve armor weakspots. Con is that it adds more randomness to what is esentially first / third person action RPS game that actually have individual hitboxes with elements of RTS, it would be great for the RTS part but probably not very enjoyable for actual gameplay. Also it would be lot of work and the final result migh not be much different than what we have now. Obviously if we could add new hitboxes like face, proper neck and armpits that would be different story, even better if we could modify the hitboxes to make them look like parts of body instead of bubbles we could actually do angle based efficiency of "plate" and hardened leather armor. Right now all of this would be some sort of RNG, so both crits and glances would happen at random angles and parts of the hitbox.
 
Weren't they meant to break? I mean to make them non-lethal (somewhat).
What about combat lances? I am pretty sure they weren't meant to be unbreakable, cause if it gets stuck or hits something hard and heavy even stirrups won't help.

Thats the problem, the only measurable data ATM is from experiments with jousting lances, however since the results for no lance rest are relevant for lances of bannerlord era we at least have an idea of how efficient these things should be vs stationary target (remember they did not broke without lance rest).

The study is here: Couched lances test

couching without lance rest:
unknown.png

couching with lance rest:
unknown.png

Conclussion:
unknown.png


Some other interesting data and calculation about armor are here: Some data about armor penetration

Video of similiar couched lance test being done with lots of information about war and couched lances is here:
 
RNG or skill based chance to crit and glance is doable, we were talking about this for a long time internally. Obvious pro is that you can achieve armor weakspots. Con is that it adds more randomness to what is esentially first / third person action RPS game that actually have individual hitboxes with elements of RTS, it would be great for the RTS part but probably not very enjoyable for actual gameplay. Also it would be lot of work and the final result migh not be much different than what we have now. Obviously if we could add new hitboxes like face, proper neck and armpits that would be different story, even better if we could modify the hitboxes to make them look like parts of body instead of bubbles we could actually do angle based efficiency of "plate" and hardened leather armor. Right now all of this would be some sort of RNG, so both crits and glances would happen at random angles and parts of the hitbox.
Cool to know you're exploring all possibilities! Perhaps if it was optional, people could deactivate it when they want more consistency, though I understand you might not want to work on something most people may just turn off. Perhaps basing the rng on the armor/damage values would be the best way of doing it? So that high 120+ have the most chances of glancing hits, and 150+ weapons have a more consistent chance to crit? Which, since all weapons able to dash such damage are 2-handers would further enhance their utility on the battleflied! What I would love would be to see glancing for projectiles, especially on helmets, arms and legs. Dunno how doable that is?

Hopefully they allow you to control those aspects soon, I'm very interested by what you could come with these tools in hand.

Edit: A problem I have with the video already is the fact the character is fixed on a wooden frame, there is no give. Didn't watch the entire video though so sorry if they took that into account.
 
As I said, due to limited access to hitboxes any kind of glancing would be RNG, so face shots from behind and arrow bouncing to the face (sometimes). Right now 45° average angle is included in helmet armor values and 15° angle is included in "plate" armor values.
 
you guys are funny. why does no one of you realise that there is no simple answer. None of us was present then. all we can do is rely on sources/tests we hope are accurate. if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)? we don´t know (proof me wrong if you can). all we can do is getting a good idea how it COULD have been. I don´t mind a good discussion but why do you claim to have found the ultimate answer when even people who do this professional don´t have one? be open minded guys. it´s an interesting topic with much room for discussion, don´t be stubborn.
What sources?

No really?

I can think of maybe two battles where archery alone was the decisive factor as opposed to merely contributing to set up for a decisive shock action.

I really want to know what sources you are claiming to use. Maybe one of the big famous battles in the hundred years war was decided by archery, archery usually set the conditions for a victory. But you'll note in descriptions of agincourt from the period, there is an emphasis on the english having to go in and actually start killing hand to hand because arrows didn't actually kill all that many french men at arms.
In that list only the Mongols had archers as a core component of their army, and they weren't used remotely like how the welsh longbow was used. Literally everyone in Eurasia made bows, but they were a specialist weapon that didn't see nearly as much use in battle as most people think they did, and they weren't anywhere near as deadly as most media depicts.

The reason modern tests seem to give contradictory results is that there are just too many variables. There are primary sources which tell of horsemen with gambesons being shot with dozens of arrows and still being alive, and during the crusades there are plenty of instances of armies being bombarded for days with literally millions of arrows but only suffering a few casualties. The only way to test this properly would be to set up a real army and shoot it for days, which is obviously unfeasible. The only thing we can do is read the sources and try to infer why longbowmen were used in the hundred years war at all, when they were so rare in that part of eurasia in all the years prior.
They weren't.

The koreans and Japanese and chinese used the equivalent of longbows in pure draw power (and several are similar in design too). Indeed the heaviest draw bow I know of recorded in history is from a chinese archery competition in I believe the early 19th century. The steppe peoples didn't create bows with such a draw because it is difficult even with their superior designs (recurves are better than self bows) to create a bow that can hit the same upper end of a longbow and still be usable from horseback.

The longbow isn't better than other bows. There's a limitation to draw on horseback and people are otherwise quite ignorant on asian archery traditions outside steppe peoples. The longbow had a large draw because it was used on foot against well armored enemies, and the longbow, strictly speaking, is inferior to a recurve in design.

Yes but practically everyone in Eurasia did that. What's exceptional about longbows in the HYW is how many there were. Something like 2/3rd of the English forces at Crecy were archers, while at Agincourt it was almost 100%. The only other societies capable of fielding that many professional longbowmen were the kingdom of Kongo in Central Africa in the middle ages (basically 100% longbowmen with a bodyguard of spearmen), and Nubia as a frontier region of Egypt. But other than that the longbow takes far too long to train people to use compared to how useful it is, and (probably more importantly), giving so many peasants and smallholders access to weaponary they keep all the time makes rebellions far more dangerous.

In the game currently there are just too many archers and they're all more effective than the most well trained nubian bowman in the world. Instead of being a tool for harrassing groups of infantry and slowing them down, they become machine gunners who mow down everything. I'm not saying the game has to be realistic, but reality and believability is a good starting point for balancing any game.

That is more archers than were at agincourt, a battle that was ultimately decided in the melee.
You took it incorrectly. You opinion of maces is strictly Europocentric, more of it, late-medieval Europocentic, while we have steppe, half-steppe and desert cultures in the game. The sabers, maces and flails were there hundreds of years, if not a millennium before, because of developed horsemanship. When Vikings went to the shield wall on their own, steppe people were warring on the horses of theirs. Mace was better than axe for horseman because it did not stick, chance to leave it in the opponent body or armor was minimal, especially with added velocity of horse. And of course, axes never meant to cut, they are cleaving devices, designed for penetration. Isn't it obvious? Will you chop the tree in the same move pattern as you are cutting loaf of bread?

In our history both axes and maces weighted roughly the same 1-3 kilos. When armor went high, both weapons seconded. But there were some borders. Velocity matters the same as weight for impulse, but excessive increasing of weight severely limited ability to accelerate, along with just handling. Moving further, the completely blunt maces got flanges. Ask yourself why was there a need to put dull blades (still blades though) to the head?

SG-3003.jpg


As for me, that pointy part is just like axe's toe or heel, eh?



There will be still no variety, because the whole model of yours ignores the fact that any hard object will deliver energy. And this energy will not dissipated to somewhere, but will be spent, firstly, to the armor damage and secondly to the body behind with blunt trauma if armor was not perforated or pierced/slit wound if it was. Funny thing, most people are agree with an axe as good shield breaker, but hey, it's marked as cut, I should have no damage from it.



I only wanted to say that any model with zero damage will not be unrealistic, but just silly, because IRL first we have blunt force applied, then penetrating ability, then, if in place, cutting damage. In your scheme you are implying that axe has no weight and can't perforate thing, and therefore it shouldn't damage armored unit at all, while real damage received should be laying somewhere between blunt and pierced.
I do want to note that a mace tends to put more weight in the head than an axe, delivering more energy on a blow, which is why maces never really got long hafts like axes could (indeed, the halberd is a axe/spear hybrid reliant on being very long)
And 50hp for thos ****ing looters am i right? **** em!
In warband they had like 45 hp, now we got this "100 + perks for everyone!" progressive body nonsense!
lul, yes the reason they gave looters 100 HP is obviously political.
 
Thats the problem, the only measurable data ATM is from experiments with jousting lances, however since the results for no lance rest are relevant for lances of bannerlord era we at least have an idea of how efficient these things should be vs stationary target (remember they did not broke without lance rest).
An interesting study.
It makes me wonder if we have any documentary proof of "ramming" lance charges used in actual field combat...
Medieval games teach us to accept this as a historical fact. However is it really possible to ram a deep infantry formation (where every soldier weighs 100+ kg) with a long sharp stick (even with lance rest)? I mean, how strong (i.e. heavy and thick) should it be in order to "plow" a file of at least 5-10 armoured footmen? Almost impossible without breaking or getting stuck, even considering the total weight of horseman+horse (~650 kg).
I saw an opinion that instead of head-on lance charges, heavy cavalry just penetrated an enemy formation in order to split it in two halves and slowly advanced forward, driving a wedge. And if enemy footmen had balls (and bills, he-he), the knights were pretty much ****ed. Only the lack of professional heavy infantry in early/high middle ages allowed heavy cavalry to dominate battlefields.
 
Only the lack of professional heavy infantry in early/high middle ages allowed heavy cavalry to dominate battlefields.
I think there is a problem with the umbrella term "heavy infantry": it fails to note the big difference in what the heavy infantry is actually equipped with.

Not too long ago I was involved in an argument on this topic, and went through lots of historical battles/sources from the early medieval period. I found plenty of examples of heavy, professional infantry being defeated, even slaughtered, by heavy professional cavalry. It depended a lot on what weapons were used by the infantry.

Professional infantry with long pikes were obviously highly effective against melee cavalry, because they could form a wall of braced pikes supported by the ground that would outrange a charging rider's lance and either impale his horse, or force him to stop, nullifying his advantage. Most of the examples of this are more high medieval than early, such as the Battle of Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn.

But professional infantry carrying a large shield and shorter weapon generally were of average effectiveness against cavalry. They could form a shieldwall which was likely, but not guaranteed, to stop a charging horseman from trampling them; but even if it did stop him, it would just put them on a level playing field in the ensuing fight. And what I found was that in many cases, the professional heavy infantry in shieldwall formation would eventually be defeated. Examples being the 1066 Battle of Hastings, where the Norman knights eventually wore down and broke through the veteran Saxon housecarl shieldwall; or the 971 Battle of Dorostolon, where the Byzantine cataphracts eventually "rolled right over" a densely packed shieldwall of Sviatoslav's infantry. There is also the second Battle of Dyrrhachium, where cataphracts charged a Norman force of primarily infantry and routed them.

Professional infantry with a two-handed axe/sword, with no large shield or long pike, had no way of defending themselves from being trampled in a horse charge, or skewered by the rider's lance. This led to their slaughter in situations such as the Battles of Olivento and Montmaggiore, where elite infantry of the Varangian Guard (who typically used long two-handed axes in the Viking style) were massacred by Norman knight charges.

For the purposes of gamification, I think this can be expressed as:
* professional heavy Pike infantry should defeat professional heavy melee cavalry in a fight.
* professional heavy Shield infantry should go roughly even with professional heavy melee cavalry.
* professional heavy shock infantry should be defeated by professional heavy melee cavalry.

As for depth of formation: while a nice deep formation would indeed be quite difficult for cavalry to penetrate through, they could potentially still charge into the front ranks and inflict significant damage, even if it didn't make it all the way through. Having your infantry in a deep formation would also leave you open to being encircled by an enemy infantry force of similar size who had their ranks shallower and wider. And being encircled is the last thing you want as a tactician.
 
Last edited:
Examples being the 1066 Battle of Hastings, where the Norman knights eventually wore down and broke through the veteran Saxon housecarl shieldwall
Just a nitpick, the Normans tried again and again to break the Saxon shieldwall on that battle trying cavalry charges, arrow barrages and combined arms assault to no avail, it was only when they feigned a retreat that the Saxons willingly broke their own shieldwall to pursue the fleeing enemy believing they were beaten only for the Normans to turn around and charge their now disorganized lines, this combined with the arrow that unluckily found king Harald's eye made the Saxons lose spirit and eventually be defeated.

When the Italian-Normans faced the Varangian guard a few years later full of veteran Saxons from Hastings surprisingly they made them fall for the same tactics again.
 
Just a nitpick, the Normans tried again and again to break the Saxon shieldwall on that battle trying cavalry charges, arrow barrages and combined arms assault to no avail, it was only when they feigned a retreat that the Saxons willingly broke their own shieldwall to pursue the fleeing enemy believing they were beaten only for the Normans to turn around and charge their now disorganized lines, this combined with the arrow that unluckily found king Harald's eye made the Saxons lose spirit and eventually be defeated.
I fully acknowledge the Normans initially failed to break the wall in repeat attempts, and that there was a feigned flight which successfully drew out and killed some English troops.

However, there's an important middle part; that feigned flight only killed a small part of the English army. Those troops were replaced in the shieldwall early in the afternoon, which continued to hold, and the battle continued until dusk; this means that during those six hours inbetween, something other than the feigned flight must have broken the shieldwall.

Harold dying due to an arrow through the eye is now regarded by historians as dubious; so it is unlikely to be the reason the shieldwall fell. Only the later accounts from the 1300s claim that an arrow killed him directly. Three earlier accounts from the 1100s (the Song of the Battle of Hastings, the Roman de Rou, and William of Malmesbury), tell variations on the following story: that while he was indeed hit by an arrow, he pulled it out, and continued fighting until the Norman knights broke through the shieldwall and killed him with lances and swords. The 1180 Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that Harold was killed in the press of fighting, to an unknown fighter, which could make sense with the above accounts. The original Bayeux tapestry didn't even necessarily depict an arrow through the eye- it is now thought that it used to actually be a spear, changed to an arrow in 1800s reconstruction efforts.

To me, it seems most likely that the shieldwall was breached first and then Harold was killed at some point during the fighting, then followed by the general rout.
 
Professional infantry with long pikes were obviously highly effective against melee cavalry, because they could form a wall of braced pikes supported by the ground that would outrange a charging rider's lance and either impale his horse, or force him to stop, nullifying his advantage. Most of the examples of this are more high medieval than early, such as the Battle of Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn.
No objections. The problem is that professionals with long pikes were probably the least numerous type of professional medieval infantry. Only the Scottish and other native tribes of Britain come to my mind. The humanity forgot the phalanx concept just to re-invent it again almost 1700 years later.

Examples being the 1066 Battle of Hastings
As vonbalt has already stated, Normans had big trouble fighting uphill, while suffering from constant volleys of arrows and javelins. And those nasty Dane axes were said to split an armoured horseman with his mount (an exaggeration, but let's consider the poor quality of 11 century iron mails).
or the 971 Battle of Dorostolon, where the Byzantine cataphracts eventually "rolled right over" a densely packed shieldwall of Sviatoslav's infantry.
From what I've read about the battle, Russians stead firmly (spears+shield wall) and inflicted heavy casualties on both Byzantine infantry and cataphracts. Both sides used to gain the upper hand and had to retreat several times. Constant skirmishes and clashes (as this was a siege) eventually depleted human resources of both armies and the parties had to start peace negotiations. So, technically, that was a draw.
Battle of Dyrrhachium
Hmmm, funny thing. The wikipedia article states that in this battle Varangian detachments (traditionally armed with two-handed weapons) managed to rout Norman cavalry (in the open field!!!), but were eventually cut off from their main forces and destroyed by Norman infantry.
Professional infantry with a two-handed axe/sword, with no large shield or long pike, had no way of defending themselves from being trampled in a horse charge, or skewered by the rider's lance. This led to their slaughter in situations such as the Battles of Olivento and Montmaggiore, where elite infantry of the Varangian Guard (who typically used long two-handed axes in the Viking style) were massacred by Norman knight charges.
Well, real life does't work like games work. We can't say that non-polearm heavy infantry has no chances against heavy cavalry. Because medieval footmen were well aware of their own strengths and weaknesses. Many means of countering enemy cavalry were at their disposal - loose formations, stakes, wolf pits, forests:mrgreen:, hills and rocks and etc. Unfortunately, games do not give us the tactical depth of the real world, and usually all we can have is rock-paper-scissors "balance" - spearmen beat cavalry, cavalry beats swordsmen, swordsmen beat spearmen... And that sucks...
Having your infantry in a deep formation would also leave you open to being encircled by an enemy infantry force of similar size who had their ranks shallower and wider. And being encircled is the last thing you want as a tactician.
When I said "deep formation" I didn't mean COLUMN of course, but not a "thin red line" either.
 
Last edited:
To me, it seems most likely that the shieldwall was breached first and then Harold was killed at some point during the fighting, then followed by the general rout.
I am pretty sure that before Harold's death, Normans simulated a fake retreat and lured Saxons down from the hill. Both parties were already exhausted, and Saxons broke the formation in order to finish the "retreating" enemy, only to be scattered, encircled and destroyed unit by unit. At some moment of that "fake retreat" Harold was slain and his host was decisively demoralised.
 
So, again, clever tactics won the battle, not the brute force of heavy cavalry charge. It also should be noted that Normans were very close to being defeated themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom