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

[CharlesRyan]

Not true. I have seen a horse charge a shieldwall. It was a demonstration on why there were large gaps kept between the lines in a shield wall.

Hmm. This would be a very different sort of shield wall than the sort I'm used to (in which, almost by definition, the shields overlap or touch).

What era was this a demonstration of?

 

[mmadsen]

I have seen a horse charge a shieldwall. It was a demonstration on why there were large gaps kept between the lines in a shield wall.

What kind of shield wall has gaps in it? And no spears pointed at the charging horses?

 

[Choranzanus]

True at an individual level, but horses won't charge into a formed shield wall. Of course a shield wall is immobile in the dark & middle ages, and spear & shield fell out of use pretty early. In practice, mounted armoured warriors dominated from roughly the 11th century (earlier further east) until the emergence of drilled pike units in the late 15th century.

It is possible that horses will not charge if they were poorly trained, but I don't think this was common. In fact, Polish winged hussars (who are really just knights of course) apparently charged even pikemen and were often victorious. It is worth mentioning that their lances are actually longer than pikes thought. Of course, under normal circumstencies knightly armies would charge each other. There are good reasons why medieval warfare was dominated by mounted knights. Imagine a tight line of long lances moving against you with great speed and enough momentum to propel you a few dozen yards, punching through armor and most shields.

This is precisely the reason why spear and shield, shield walls etc. became obsolete. They never fell completely out of use in middle ages since horses are not always available or practical, but medieval battle manuals knew better than throwing them against knights.

If you look into medieval knightly psyche you will see a lot of emphasis on courage and boldness to the point of overconfidence. You need some if your job is to charge enemy ranks without flinching. If knights cannot charge, they are already defeated.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, but Agincourt was 1415. A discussion that goes from Saxon shield walls to Agincourt in the same breath is about as useful as a discussion the lumps the Gulf War and the American Civil War into the same mish-mash. Sure, they're both in the age of gunpowder, but beyond that they share few tactical traits.

I'd say the difference in terms of tech change from 1066 to 1415 is more like 1861 to 1914 than 1861 to 1991. Norman knight 1066 to French knight 1415 is comparable to the difference between the mature 'first generation' armies of the US Civil War and the 'second generation' armies of WW1 - many differences, but still some basic similarities.

Anyway, technologies overlap. The French had started adopting mounted warriors after Tours-Poitiers (732), hundreds of years ago, while the Saxons' tactics at Hastings weren't much different from those of the Franks at Tours over 300 years previously - tactics which worked against the Arab heavy cavalry.

 

[S'mon]

Hmm. This would be a very different sort of shield wall than the sort I'm used to (in which, almost by definition, the shields overlap or touch).

What era was this a demonstration of?

Yeah, I was thinking of the Saxon shieldwall where the shields overlap closely, you can't break through it without knocking the whole wall down. This is an immobile formation, so very inflexible, but no horse is going through it.

 

[mmadsen]

It is possible that horses will not charge if they were poorly trained, but I don't think this was common. In fact, Polish winged hussars (who are really just knights of course) apparently charged even pikemen and were often victorious. It is worth mentioning that their lances are actually longer than pikes though.

I think you're making a mistake equating the Polish winged hussars with typical western knights.

First, their heyday was in the early days of gunpowder, when their enemies were musketeers guarded by a smaller number of pikemen (who did not have shields).

Second, they were a truly elite unit, literally awesome, with, as you mentioned a special hollowed-out lance that was significantly longer than the pikes they faced. (They also used an enormous thrusting sword, once their lance broke. And pistols.)

There are good reasons why medieval warfare was dominated by mounted knights. Imagine a tight line of long lances moving against you with great speed and enough momentum to propel you a few dozen yards, punching through armor and most shields.

I think you misunderstand the point being made. No one is claiming that knights are inferior fighters, just that a cavalry charge relies on a break in the formation of the defenders. This break might already exist, or it might form when the defenders lose heart and begin to flee.

And, as you recognize, a charging line of winged hussars should send most troops running.

This is precisely the reason why spear and shield, shield walls etc. became obsolete. They never fell completely out of use in middle ages since horses are not always available or practical, but medieval battle manuals knew better than throwing them against knights.

You can't "throw" footmen at mounted knights. Mounted knights are mobile and only engage when and where they want to -- and a moving formation of infantry has trouble maintaining a perfect "hedge" of spears against cavalry without revealing a gap.

If you look into medieval knightly psyche you will see a lot of emphasis on courage and boldness to the point of overconfidence. You need some if your job is to charge enemy ranks without flinching. If knights cannot charge, they are already defeated.

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 found an article on How the Hussars Fought, for anyone interested.)

 

[Choranzanus]

I think you're making a mistake equating the Polish winged hussars with typical western knights.

First, I used hussars as example that heavy cavalry can charge even pikemen. It should be clear they can charge a shield wall, which presents far less of a danger.

First, their heyday was in the early days of gunpowder, when their enemies were musketeers guarded by a smaller number of pikemen (who did not have shields).

Second, they were a truly elite unit, literally awesome, with, as you mentioned a special hollowed-out lance that was significantly longer than the pikes they faced. (They also used an enormous thrusting sword, once their lance broke. And pistols.)

Yes, hussars are from later age and armed with superior weapons and tactics, they can defeat pikes after all, and I do not claim such feats for knights. But really they have the same basic weapons and basic tactics the same as knights and are formed from Polish nobility. Pistols are not essencial to their tactics.

I think you misunderstand the point being made. No one is claiming that knights are inferior fighters, just that a cavalry charge relies on a break in the formation of the defenders. This break might already exist, or it might form when the defenders lose heart and begin to flee.

And, as you recognize, a charging line of winged hussars should send most troops running.
You can't "throw" footmen at mounted knights. Mounted knights are mobile and only engage when and where they want to -- and a moving formation of infantry has trouble maintaining a perfect "hedge" of spears against cavalry without revealing a gap.

NO. This is a valid tactic, but decidedly not *knightly* tactic. They did not maneuver around until enemies broke their formation. They were taught to charge head on. If you look at battles where knights were defeated, and all of them are famous, you will notice that willingnes of knights to attack head on, despite common sense, was important part of their failure.

 

[RFisher]

According to medieval battle manuals a trained knight is equivalent to 4-12 footmen (which would be spearman armed with a heavy shield), with 8 being often quoted figure.

Depending on whether he was a Hero or Superhero.

(^_^)

 

[El Mahdi]

. . .This is precisely the reason why spear and shield, shield walls etc. became obsolete. They never fell completely out of use in middle ages since horses are not always available or practical, but medieval battle manuals knew better than throwing them against knights. . .

Hey, the wall of spears worked in the movie Braveheart. (Of course it was a recreation of a battle on a bridge re-enacted as a standard open field conflict. But hey, what the hell.)

 

[S'mon]

NO. This is a valid tactic, but decidedly not *knightly* tactic. They did not maneuver around until enemies broke their formation. They were taught to charge head on. If you look at battles where knights were defeated, and all of them are famous, you will notice that willingnes of knights to attack head on, despite common sense, was important part of their failure.

I've read a lot of medieval military historians, they all say what I said above - cavalry did not charge head on into formed spear/pike/shield line. Not even heavy armoured cavalry. Maybe Polish hussars were an exception, but it sounds like they were equipped to strike effectively before reaching the line, not go into the line. Also, cavalry charges were at a trot, not at a gallop; which would be fatal as one fallen horse would cause a pile-up. They were a much more controlled affair and could be broken off if the enemy line didn't break before contact.