Are some of the basic elements of medieval combat too weak in D&D?

[S'mon]

EDIT: I'd be curious to see if there were any medieval tactics for small group combat. I can't imagine there were, and even if so, the small group still wouldn't reflect a standard D&D group, but it'd be a closer analogy at least.

The Vikings had some pretty well developed tactics AIR, since they spent a lot more time on raids than pitched battles.

 

[Umbran]

I think you're right about that but isn't the spear indispensible to the shieldwall anyway? Obviously a speeding horse could theoretically plow through the shields, but could it possibly survive the point of impact?

Yes, the spears are crucial - note that I'm responding to the idea that the horse couldn't get through the interlocked shields. Whether or not it would be smart for them to try is a separate question, with an answer dependent upon the situation. All I'm saying is that interlocked shields alone don't stop cavalry.

Plus there are the back ranks to consider.

That sounds like it would be suicide for cavalry.

EDIT: i.e. It's not the line of men that stops the cavalry charge, but the whole formation.

Yes, however, now you are perhaps assuming an optimal arrangement for the defender. Rarely in history has anything been optimal for anyone in a war, or at least not for long.

A battlefield is a dynamic place - you have blocks and lines of footmen, bodies of archers, and wings of horse all moving around, jockeying for position. It is suicide for the cavalry to wash against a real mass of footmen, but the footmen don't get to choose to stand there in a still block and wait for the horses, because the archers are busy pelting the footmen, and so on.

End result, you will occasionally get vulnerable spots, where there are insufficient footmen to be secure against cavalry charge, even if they have a shield wall. You'll also get cavalry charging at footmen who occasionally have more backup than originally expected, and so on.

 

[El Mahdi]

. . . There was a tendency to make lance as long as possible, as advantages of a long lance are readily seen even if you are going knight vs knight. In later years however, lances have become shorter, probably reflecting decreased training. . .

Sounds logical. Decreased use of heavy cavalry with lances would probably result in less emphasis on training such skills. And may also have been influenced by the shift towards jousting as a sport. Although difficult and sometimes dangerous (or deadly), jousting is as much about the visual impact of the hit as well as dealing your opponent a solid strike, and not necessarily realistic as to what such opponents would do in real combat.

Also, tilting and rings seem to be more of an exercise in control and aim, and keeping conscious of defending yourself from a counterstrike, rather than simulating battlefield conditions and maneuvers.

 

[Choranzanus]

Let me repeat myself:

The charge is a game of chicken; whoever flinches first loses. If the pikemen are professional and don't run at the sight of charging knights, they can hold their ground. If they lose their composure, they get run down.​

I do understand what you say but disagree

On the other hand you perhaps do not understand what I say.

First, let me remind you again that knights can attack spearmen long before the spearmen reaches the knight and horses can maneuver rather well, they can for example stop rather quickly from trot. I never claimed that knights can attack pikemen, thought they can perhaps pretend the attack. While morale is a major factor on medieval battlefield, knights are more than just psychological force. If defending force is to break formation before the attack, the danger better be real.

The knights did not lost those famous battles because they flinched, but because they did not. It is not that they followed through the charge and got impaled but because charge was in fact impossible. At Courtrai there were ditches around battlefield. At Crecy there was the ridge. At Agincourt there was mud. At other battles knights charged uphill or into rocky terrain. Narrow or narrowing places are a real bane of knights, but they often failed to realize that. At other times knights charged into pincers and were slaughtered from flanks.

The point was that knights often got so overconfident in the face of infantry that they abandoned sound military tactics.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, the spears are crucial - note that I'm responding to the idea that the horse couldn't get through the interlocked shields. Whether or not it would be smart for them to try is a separate question, with an answer dependent upon the situation. All I'm saying is that interlocked shields alone don't stop cavalry.


Yes, however, now you are perhaps assuming an optimal arrangement for the defender. Rarely in history has anything been optimal for anyone in a war, or at least not for long.

A battlefield is a dynamic place - you have blocks and lines of footmen, bodies of archers, and wings of horse all moving around, jockeying for position. It is suicide for the cavalry to wash against a real mass of footmen, but the footmen don't get to choose to stand there in a still block and wait for the horses, because the archers are busy pelting the footmen, and so on.

End result, you will occasionally get vulnerable spots, where there are insufficient footmen to be secure against cavalry charge, even if they have a shield wall. You'll also get cavalry charging at footmen who occasionally have more backup than originally expected, and so on.

OK, you're probably right I overstated shield wall impenetrability.
I agree about battlefield dynanism. Only very highly trained spear/pike infantry can advance in good order. This is why heavy cavalry dominated the European battlefield for centuries. They didn't go charging into lines of spears; but those lines were immobile; if they tried to move the knights would get them. Or the spear line would be engaged with infantry, then the mounted knights would go round and attack from flank or rear.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Take a deep breath. Repeat after me. "D&D is just a game. It's not, nor has it ever been, nor will it likely ever be, an accurate representation of real world mideviel combat."

There, that should handle the whole mounted combat, weapon type vs. armor type and hit point argument.

 

[mmadsen]

Take a deep breath. Repeat after me. "D&D is just a game. It's not, nor has it ever been, nor will it likely ever be, an accurate representation of real world mideviel combat."

No one's pretending it is or has been an accurate representation of real-world medieval combat -- but that doesn't mean that grounding it in reality is a bad idea.

All the stories we love -- Howard's Conan stories, Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, Dumas's The Three Musketeers, etc. -- are grounded in reality, even if they diverge from it from time to time.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

There is a continuum between "pure game" and "simulation of reality." Finding the right setting on that slider bar is going to be different for everyone. Wanting a game to suport a little more realism does not equal wanting a precise simulation of medieval life.

 

[Choranzanus]

While the medieval combat history lesson is all really interesting (it is, really, no sarcasm there!), I think it actually serves to illustrate why these tactics (and thus the importance of the equipment they rely on) don't really apply to D&D. You don't have a shield and spear wall, you have one guy in plate, shield, and sword, a second guy in leather armor with a dagger, a third in chain with a mace, and a fourth in robes with a staff. And if you're the group charging, that's still what you have, but on horseback.

EDIT: I'd be curious to see if there were any medieval tactics for small group combat. I can't imagine there were, and even if so, the small group still wouldn't reflect a standard D&D group, but it'd be a closer analogy at least.

Minions could still use shield wall or pike formation or attack the party with a ballista. Big guns vs big guns. You really have to break from 3e mindset of very few combatants.

 

[Choranzanus]

Sounds logical. Decreased use of heavy cavalry with lances would probably result in less emphasis on training such skills. And may also have been influenced by the shift towards jousting as a sport. Although difficult and sometimes dangerous (or deadly), jousting is as much about the visual impact of the hit as well as dealing your opponent a solid strike, and not necessarily realistic as to what such opponents would do in real combat.

Also, tilting and rings seem to be more of an exercise in control and aim, and keeping conscious of defending yourself from a counterstrike, rather than simulating battlefield conditions and maneuvers.

Long lance is advantageous in charge, but is perhaps unwieldy when you just maneuver around. It is a compromise. It could be changing battlefield tactics that brought this about.