An avg melee fight in a mass battle 12-15th century.

[Jeremiah Guffey]

I am just wondering if someone can give me a good rundown of what they would be like, as far as how the soldiers would engage other people and various tactics for melee only (not ranged or such).

One thing that I've thought was that in mass combat, even with many other soldiers about on your side as well as your enemies, that a lot of the battle really boils done to many one on one fights. As engaging one guy with many friends could result in a mishap (glancing blows, blocks, etc that could end up striking your friend instead of your intended target).

Not saying that people never double teamed someone, I mean if you were on opposite sides of him yes, it'd make sense and be a lot more safe. However say if like four guys are around one, it just doesn't seem like it'd be smart for all four to engage him at once, rather then just let one go, etc.

Can someone clear this up for me and provide any other revelant info/details? Thanks.

[Jon Wolfe]

Well, I had thought about the same thing myself, and after following a link on this site for videos of knife attacks, I stumbled accross the videos of soccer hooligan rumbles.

Like the knife attack videos, this and the other videos like it, are not for the squeamish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVkqgnxcKoA

There are many more on site.

You can see how the two groups initially stay tight together, but as the fight continues on individuals begin to break-off into their own microcosms, the wounded limp out of the press, and the side with more combatants still in the fight begin to double and triple team the side that is being more and more outnumbered.

It's feet and fists, with the seemingly random roadflare, but that is as close an approximation that we can get to what a mass combat in the Medieval period or any other period for that matter.

[Jeremiah Guffey]

Thanks, but that would still seem quite different to me. I mean with your fists/feet and such it wouldn't offer nearly the chance of accidental injury to your friends around your target as a glancing blow as a sword or such would seem, or the novelty that the soldiers are trained to fight, etc as those people didn't look like they really were, more just a rumble.

[Stacy Clifford]

That's going to depend a lot on what kind of weapons the troops are using. Long cutting weapons do require more room to swing freely unless you choke up and go to half-sword, but spears and other thrusting weapons can let you maintain very tight formations while directing the threat at what's in front of you, not all around. Think of the Greek phalanx, a walking porcupine, or Roman soldiers thrusting with their gladii between their shields. Hammers and hand axes can also be swung in tight quarters with half arm cuts, just like a gladius, falchion, or katzbalger. If your job is to hack your way into a tight formation from the edges, sweep aside spear points, or attack heavily armored or mounted troops, then longer weapons that have greater reach and generate more power make more sense. There's no doubt that troops will find themselves in situations that are less than ideal for the weapons they are using, but the arms carried by any given soldier would probably be appropriate and functional in the type of fighting that soldier was sent out to do.

[Jeremiah Guffey]

That's going to depend a lot on what kind of weapons the troops are using. Long cutting weapons do require more room to swing freely unless you choke up and go to half-sword, but spears and other thrusting weapons can let you maintain very tight formations while directing the threat at what's in front of you, not all around. Think of the Greek phalanx, a walking porcupine, or Roman soldiers thrusting with their gladii between their shields. Hammers and hand axes can also be swung in tight quarters with half arm cuts, just like a gladius, falchion, or katzbalger. If your job is to hack your way into a tight formation from the edges, sweep aside spear points, or attack heavily armored or mounted troops, then longer weapons that have greater reach and generate more power make more sense. There's no doubt that troops will find themselves in situations that are less than ideal for the weapons they are using, but the arms carried by any given soldier would probably be appropriate and functional in the type of fighting that soldier was sent out to do.

I was thinking more about weapons like Swords, Maces, flails, etc. More from the late crusades era to the high middle ages in terms of available equipment focused on melee weapons like that rather then ranged/polearms/spears and such.

[Benjamin Abbott]

I don't think that video of soccer hooligans bears much resemblance to how men fought in formation. At least in some cases, they stayed extremely close together. Bernal Diaz repeatedly mentioned how he and the other Spanish swordsmen fought standing shoulder to shoulder. They didn't break order for any reason. Doing so would have gotten them all killed.

John Smythe wrote that men could use short halberds in formation without hindering each other at all. I suspect soldiers trained to use weapons in coordination with their buddies. I imagine they could double team enemies quite well.

[Brent Lambell]

I dont think the video was meant to represent the typical medieval battle in exact detail - weapons and armor were obviously missing. However, the idea of a massive chaotic scramble seems to do justice to the medieval battlefield. I have read a lot about how the "battles" of the medieval army began but often enough, formation broke down. A man to man brawl seems to fit the bill so far as I can tell.

That being said, the idea of filming a soccer hooligan brawl is hilarious. We need more videos like this on the internet.

[Carlos Chavez]

One thing that I've thought was that in mass combat, even with many other soldiers about on your side as well as your enemies, that a lot of the battle really boils done to many one on one fights.

Jeremiah, beware of over-generalizing more than 400 years of european warfare. Were all battles similar to crusader-era caravan-busting skirmishes similar to hundred-years war 'chevauchees'? How did terrain affect battles? Did it make any difference for the combatants to be trained & disciplined troops? what about their nationality? Their equipment? Were armies trained to fence? or to fight as unit?
Instead of looking for hooligans on the net, look for personal accounts of real battles in books. To cite a few:
1. The song of Roland (VII c)
2. The anglo-saxon Chronicle (Battle Of Hastings XI c.)
3. any account on the battle of Bannockburn (1314)
4. The chronicles of Froissart (just the battle parts) (XIV c.)
5. Bernal Diaz del Castillo & Hernan Cortes' accounts on the siege of Tenochtitlan (1521)
6. Accounts on the War of the Roses battles (XV c)

Two easy & particularly useful sources to start with are Hastings & Agincourt, 1066 and 1415 respectively, you'll find both are extensively covered both in books and in the net.

They are interesting because the armies involved consisted of a wide range of troops from professional/household soldiers, to mercenaries, to rough militia. Yet they shine as examples of how astute strategists exploit the lack of discipline in enemy "soldiers" to win a battle.
In Hastings, a battle between invading normans and defending saxons. The normans break the saxon shieldwall by provoking their less disciplined troops to pursue troops feigning a rout.

In Agincourt, over-eager French knights, disrupt the entire battle plan of the french army just to engage "blinded by honor" in a furious charge into a desperate, ruthless, organized band of englishmen. Needless to say the outnumbered, half-starved but disciplined englishmen won the day.

These are just two cases to consider, cases where discipline and strategy won the day over romantics who desired to engage in valiant "mano-a-mano" melees. I'm sure history can provide as well cases of huge skirmishes or full-blown battles degrading into wild melees. But from the information I have encountered I would be more inclined to think medieval 'melees' to be more than just a collection of one-on-one's, specially when we consider trained troops.

p.s. As an interesting tidbit, some military historians consider "Modern Warfare" saw its first sight around 1513, with the Battle of Flodden Field between scots and the english (Or as I just found out Marignano in 1515) where different weapons -including artillery- had to be maneuvered and counter-maneuvered. The full monty: Pikemen, irregulars, cavalry, cannons, naval artillery all played part in this battle; an interesting read for sure.

cheers,
C.

[Jeremiah Guffey]

Hmm, maybe you misunderstood me. I know about formations and differences of the things like you mention and how it can greatly affect a battle. However what I want to know is that when people weren't in a close formation, when it was literally two lines just clashing into each other and such focused on melee combat with just swords/maces/axes (no polearms/formation stuff, like think of the scene in Braveheart where after the archers and such fire and there's no calvary yet and the two melee lines charge into each other to clash). That sort of a scenario is what I'm interested in finding out about. Once that happens and people are not based on a formation any longer where it's a bit more chaotic, this is where I always pictured it boiling down to more "one vs one" fights for the most part.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

In Agincourt, over-eager French knights, disrupt the entire battle plan of the french army just to engage "blinded by honor" in a furious charge into a desperate, ruthless, organized band of englishmen. Needless to say the outnumbered, half-starved but disciplined englishmen won the day.

That's Crecy, not Agincourt. At Agincourt the French actually had a plan to advance on foot, in tight formation, preceded by two small bodies of horsemen who were supposed to work their way around the English flank. Unfortunately, the English were not so obliging and delivered a devastating counterattack that routed the three French battles in quick succession.

Hmm, maybe you misunderstood me. I know about formations and differences of the things like you mention and how it can greatly affect a battle. However what I want to know is that when people weren't in a close formation, when it was literally two lines just clashing into each other and such focused on melee combat with just swords/maces/axes (no polearms/formation stuff, like think of the scene in Braveheart where after the archers and such fire and there's no calvary yet and the two melee lines charge into each other to clash). That sort of a scenario is what I'm interested in finding out about. Once that happens and people are not based on a formation any longer where it's a bit more chaotic, this is where I always pictured it boiling down to more "one vs one" fights for the most part.

There's one thing I'd never tire to repeat: Braveheart provides grossly inaccurate depictions of medieval warfare. Unlike the confused mingling we see in that movie, the weight of historical evidence tends to point out that hand-to-hand fighting between medieval infantry formations was just that--combat between tight, well-defined formations. Actual melees rarely developed during the central stage of the fight. I mean very rarely. A mingled melee usually signified that one side had broken and run away and the winning side was penetrating into the losing side's formation to cut them down as they fled.

Don't rely too much on the experiences of groups like the SCA, because some historians have described a distinct tendency among them that invalidates many of the tactics they have developed for their own kind of sport fighting--that is, these reenactors often opened up so that each fighter would have room to fight where actual soldiers would have bunched up for the sake of mutual protection. However, there is at least one insight that sounds to be a valid observation for historical warfare. When people are fighting in two opposed shieldwalls--quite a common situation in the early and high medieval period before the development of full plate harnesses--it is usually better to strike the enemy to your right rather than the one immediately to your front, because right-handed men would sometimes expose their right side in order to get some room for striking with their weapons. This strike doesn't always have to be a swinging blow with a sword/axe/mace/whatever; it could just as well be a full-powered thrust with a spear, as long as it requires enough free space that it can't be conveniently done without opening a slight gap in the line of shields. This observation can be used as the basis for an effective "team kill" where one attacker delivers a strong thrust at an opposing man's shield, tilting it off to the side and opening a gap than can be exploited by a second attacker who stood to the left of the first attacker.

I've written a journal post about this very subject ( http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141128.html ) but you'd be better off reading a more comprehensive (and better referenced) professional work on this subject, such as John Keegan's book The Face of Battle. If you can disregard Keegan's occasional references to the outdated concept of the Middle Ages being a barbaric period, his work is an important reference for anybody who is interested in the study of military history.

[Jon Wolfe]

Should those formations breakdown though, I wouldn't think it would be much different than a stereotypical brawl. After doing a little more research into the area of study myself (a university library is a wonderful resource), I must display my humility in jumping the gun a little bit in my first post in this topic. But ya, tight formations were the norm and the hollywood mosh would only happen in the event of a unit being penetrated and/or broken.

[s_taillebois]

And the point of breaking, was one of the reasons it was imperative for medieval leaders (or at least their guidons/arms etc to be seen). Obviously for command and control in an era limited to voice, couriers, trumpet and signal flags and other such methods this presence was needed for tactical reasons.
However, it was needed as much for morale of units, especially levees and yeomanry. If they were in serious trouble and it looked like they were going to lose, there were usually no ransoms for them. So breaking before that point, was from their individual view, judicious. But a seen symbol, such as Joan of Arc, a respected Lord such as Richard, or even a rusted old lance, was often enough to evade disaster.... That actually was Joan of Arcs main contribution to the French effort, and why the English and Burgundians went to such extremes to be rid of her.
But lack of trust in those symbols, such as doubts over some of the relics and bits and pieces found at too "convenient" times before and during some battles in Outremer...demonstrated the fragility of that tradition.
Probably the closest modern era analogy, is the level to which Civil war units were willing to fight to keep the colors.

And there were a contingent of desperate Welshmen at Agincourt also...

[Martin Lysen]

My own experience of group fighting seems to indicate that the best way to stay alive is to stay close to your friends. He who breaks formation usually dies real quick. In a fight with weapons, it's the opponent you didn't see who can give you a well placed mortal blow.

Fighting the guy to your right while in a shield wall does seem to work well too. This however also relies on having the friend to your left protect you from the opponent to your left, who is gunning for you as you expose yourself during the strike.

[Carlos Chavez]

LafayetteCCurtis & Taillebois:
Thank you for your corrections.

Jeremiah:
Not meaning to stray with my response. I just wanted to stress it would be more fruitful -and more precise- for you to look up answers first in historic sources rather than in movies or other media.

I also wanted to address the point implied in your posts that medieval "soldiers" didn't receive a lot of training. Did they receive military training as in group discipline and battle drills? Probably. What kind and how frequent?, I cannot say. Was it as thorough and consistent as modern military training? It would be beyond my present ability to compare.
But I would be willing to help you dig out actual sources pointing to instances of medieval military training and try to find out.

Fiction, both in film and on books has greatly biased the general opinion about the mindset and quality of the medieval warrior. History of the middle ages portrayed an amazingly wide panorama of warrior types: from peasant levies, to proud town militas, to mercenaries to scottish highlanders (without kilts), dismounted knights, mounted archers; the list just goes on and on.
Just supposing nameless armies to having broken rank and clashed into each other into a violent melee is just that: "supposing"; and doesn't really give much insight into the matter.
Did multiple one-on-ones happen in a medieval battle context? probably. Between a knight vs. a knight? Perhaps. Between a "villain" and a knight? hmmm I wouldn't bet on it. Between 2 villains or low-borns? maybe...maybe not. Without proper context its difficult to be sure.

Still, my money is that all through history, good soldiers were taught to think as a unit first and then build from there. Heroes duel, soldiers do war.

C.

[Scott A. Richardson]

I think there are two significant factors to consider. First, that most armies (at least in the earlier periods of the Middle Ages) when under attack would form a tight, well-defended shield wall. This, by the way, is no easy task, and requires quite a bit of training to excecute well, to change frontages, and to move en masse. This suggests that working as a cohesive unit was far more important to individual valor and skill on the field of battle.

Secondly, the spear was by far the more important and first chosen battlefield weapon. The sword was what one used when one's spear was broken. This only makes sense, as its much better to kill your enemy from a few feet away rather than close up, which would give him a chance to kill you as well. This suggests that when defending one would line up as many spears as possible and thrust them at the enemy, while attacking meant much the same thing, just with a different goal in mind.

Perhaps this will help color our image of Medieval warfare, and allow us to see it for the carefully excecuted thing it often was rather than the typical Braveheart-like free-for-all its often depicted as being.