Medieval Tactics

[Silentgoldfish]

I’ve been playing a demo of Medieval, which is meant to be a realistic medieval warfare simulator (for those who don’t know). One thing I’m curious about is, why is the wedge formation better for charges than a box formation?

I would have thought that since it’s men fighting and not a question of physics the more men you have on the front line leading the charge the better.

I’ve plonked this is GQ instead of the cafe or a medieval strategy guide cause I’m more interested in why it worked in real life.

[monica]

Well, I know that in Medieval times the use of the longbow (or maybe it was the crossbow, I can’t remember) was begun. By raining down arrows, horses went down, thus tripping the ones behind them. Now, this is pure speculation of course, but perhaps the guys on the end would be able to get through because they wouldn’t have any guys in front of them to trip them.

Sorry if that sounds a bit confusing…if I could, I would draw you a diagram.

[Tamerlane]

It’s a line-breaker. A wedge formation is for penetrating and disrupting enemy formations - The forward point strikes at one section of the enemy formation and the push of charging bodies together with the natural inclination to engage the ever-widening edges of the wedge as it advances, forces the enemy formation to split farther and farther apart from each other, breaking up the formation until it looses cohesion and disintegrates ( ideally ). Charging in a straight line is fine if you have a superior weight of numbers and are just looking to slug it out toe-to-toe. The wedge formation isn’t necessarily better than a square. It doesn’t work as well on defense for example. You just would use whatever is tactically more advantageous in a given situation ( if you’re playing MTW, don’t line those defensive spearmen sheltering archers in a wedge formation ).

Here an excerpt on Viking tactics, discussing one use of a wedge:

If this was not enough to decide the outcome, each side then attempted to break through and rout the opposition, capturing or killing their leaders if possible. The experienced commander knew that the best way to achieve this was by forming a wedge of 20 to 30 warriors with its point towards the enemy line in what was known as the svínfylking, or “boar formation”, and then charge, hoping to break through by sheer weight of numbers.

• Tamerlane

[Anahita]

My friend Muc wrote this:

The wedge is exclusively a cavalry formation. In no sense can it be regarded as a legitimate tactic regularly employed in medieval combat. Indeed in terms of Western combat the wedge is almost exclusively associated with Alexandrian combat.

There are several reasons why the wedge was not seen on the medieval battlefield. Although it seems a simple manoeuvre to execute this is most certainly not the case. The manoeuvres directional and tactical control is determined by those at the head of the wedge and requires that those hidden in the body of the formation possess the ability respond to said in an almost instinctive manner. The execution of such a manoevre was possible by only highly professional formations. In the European theatre such professional organisations are not found before the Cromwellian cavalry of the 1640’s.

The classic wedge is not a formation of shock but of exploitation. That is to say the wedge is pointed into existing (an often ephemeral) line breaks which are subsequently expanded and exploited. It is not a formation used to break an intact frontage.

As said, the absence of professionalism in the medieval cavalry mitigated against the execution of anything so involved and dependent on such exquisite timing. By means of compensation throughout the medieval period we see the evolution of Heavy - Super Heavy cavalry. Here the emphasis is on weight. Where the weight of armored horse and rider in conjunction with the momentum of the charge is used as a tool to bludgeon and break an intact line. Once a line is broken a formation will looses its fighting cohesion and is invariably destroyed.

As will be plain what is desirable here is to make the point of contact as wide as possible thus ensuring maximum ruptures. The wedge with it single point of contact would never serve.

[Tamerlane]

Anahita: Well, I’m willing to partially concede to your friends obvious expertise - But only partially ;). While I might buy that it was an uncommon formation in medieval times, his view does seem to differ from the Viking account I mentioned above. A localized exception?

Also re: the formation being an exclusively calvary formation - This site puts forward the claim that the infantry wedge was a standard Roman offensive formation ( but that’s hardly medieval, I grant ) : http://www.roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html

Also, though I didn’t have time to paw through Delbruck or other print sources, I did find an account ( perhaps suspect, it’s a wargamer site ) of the late medieval Battle of Nancy that indicated that the Swiss centre ( it is unclear if it was just the calvary or the whole centre that was so arrayed ) was formed up into a wedge for its assault: http://www.warlords.org.nz/nancy.htm

Still, an expert I’m not and I invite rebuttal. Get your friend to register :).

• Tamerlane

[Tranquilis]

Viking combat was mostly individualistic, a mob of champions, rather than a more-or-less disciplined unit of less martially-skilled soldiers. On foot, in relatively small unit fights, the Viking tactic would work, albeit at a high initial cost to teh wedge. Once the line was broken, the ratio of casulties would change in favor of the attacker.

Likewise, against, say, a peasant levy with spears, the Viking tactic could succeed. But agains a line of well-trained, or even well-disciplined spearmen…? I doubt it would succeed often.

Unit quality in Medieval Europe was very spotty, as was the skill of leaders, and unconventional and often flat-out stupid tactics were tried all the time, with mixed results. Sometimes a stupid tactic would succeed, because everyone knew it couldn’t be done, and so never bothered to guard against it.

This is part of the reason the Condottiori became so powerful… Best trained troops and leaders on the field, and you could count on them making meat out of peasant levies…

[toadspittle]

Here’s a thought (totally unsupported by evidence): The very nature of the wedge attack requires the defenders to have extreme discipline to NOT attack, something they would likely fail at.

In a square confrontation, f’rinstance, you’d have line A come crashing into line B, man per man, and every defender in B would simply strike the man directly in front of him.

^ B B B B B B B
| A A A A A A A

In a wedge, though, the guys in B would have to restrain themselves from piling up on the point of A (who, IMO, is a sacrificial lamb) because …

^ B B BBB B B
| A
A A A
A A A A A

In moments, the rear elements of the wedge will be slamming into B

   BBB

^ B BAB B
| A A A
A A A A A

and if any Bs are busy attacking the point of A and not waiting for the line to come up to meet them, they’re going to get hit from the side/deform their formation enough to create gaps that the rear elements of A can get through.

[toadspittle]

Damn! the spaces got eaten. Oh well. Use your imagination.

[ftg]

*Originally posted by Tranquilis *
Viking combat was mostly individualistic, a mob of champions, rather than a more-or-less disciplined unit of less martially-skilled soldiers. On foot, in relatively small unit fights, the Viking tactic would work, albeit at a high initial cost to teh wedge. Once the line was broken, the ratio of casulties would change in favor of the attacker.

Likewise, against, say, a peasant levy with spears, the Viking tactic could succeed. But agains a line of well-trained, or even well-disciplined spearmen…? I doubt it would succeed often.

Oohboy. Somebody reads a story about Berzerkers being tied to a stake in the ground, killing any and all that come near, and they think that’s the way all Norse soldiers fought. Not really.

The most famous Norse fighting unit was the Varangians of the Byzantine army. Personal body guards to the Emperor. The most elite force in Byzantium. When you’re compared favorably to the Byzantine army, you are talking about the exact opposite of a “mob”. Famously well disciplined. They fought for the Eastern Roman Emperor throughout the eastern Mediterranean.

One strong indication of their esteem: a skilled soldier from Dublin, York, Calais, Bergen, Novogrod, etc. could sail to Byzantium, sign up for the Varangians and immediately earn far more than a Greek NCO.

Throughout the Viking Age, experienced career soldiers of Scandinavian extraction by the thousands could be found throughout northern Europe. No others of comparable skill existed in the region.

Fighting in a wedge would be elementary tactics to these men.

[wu_wei]

Nothing like history, subjects military, or the combination of the two to bring out dogmatic assertions unsupported by evidence. I’d like to thank Tamerlane for actually providing cites (imagine!) for his points, rather than simply proferring claims as to what is “obviously” true. (I’m looking in your direction, Muc…)

[Kilt-wearin_man]

*Originally posted by Anahita *
**My friend Muc wrote this:

The wedge is exclusively a cavalry formation. In no sense can it be regarded as a legitimate tactic regularly employed in medieval combat. Indeed in terms of Western combat the wedge is almost exclusively associated with Alexandrian combat.

There are several reasons why the wedge was not seen on the medieval battlefield. Although it seems a simple manoeuvre to execute this is most certainly not the case. The manoeuvres directional and tactical control is determined by those at the head of the wedge and requires that those hidden in the body of the formation possess the ability respond to said in an almost instinctive manner. The execution of such a manoevre was possible by only highly professional formations. In the European theatre such professional organisations are not found before the Cromwellian cavalry of the 1640’s.

The classic wedge is not a formation of shock but of exploitation. That is to say the wedge is pointed into existing (an often ephemeral) line breaks which are subsequently expanded and exploited. It is not a formation used to break an intact frontage.

As said, the absence of professionalism in the medieval cavalry mitigated against the execution of anything so involved and dependent on such exquisite timing. By means of compensation throughout the medieval period we see the evolution of Heavy - Super Heavy cavalry. Here the emphasis is on weight. Where the weight of armored horse and rider in conjunction with the momentum of the charge is used as a tool to bludgeon and break an intact line. Once a line is broken a formation will looses its fighting cohesion and is invariably destroyed.

As will be plain what is desirable here is to make the point of contact as wide as possible thus ensuring maximum ruptures. The wedge with it single point of contact would never serve. **

This may be true generally speaking, but the Scots under Robert the Bruce (early 14th century) did not posess heavy cavalry, and used light cavalry wedges to good effect on several occasions with either the Bruce, Sir James Douglass or Sir Robert Keith (or a combination thereof) commanding the wedges.

At the Battle of Bannockburn, the English heavy cavalry charged as you describe, its line-abreast charge breaking on three Scottish schiltron formations - a variation on the Roman phalanx which required a good deal of training to deploy successfully (especially when one considers that a large portion of the Bruce’s army consisted of Highlanders, who usually tried to seek single combat rather than employing unit tactics).

The light Scottish cavalry (under Sir Robert Keith, the Earl Marischal) then attacked the English bowmen and infantry in order to protect the schiltrons from engaging in hand-to-hand combat or suffering under the rain of arrows - it was the English archers that had destroyed Wallace’s schiltrons at Falkirk leading to the Scottish defeat. By detailing his cavalry to attack the archers directly, then focus on the infantry formations, the Bruce kept his schiltrons intact and allowed them to take a heavy toll of the English cavalry as the knights repeatedly charged into the rows of Scottish spears. The English chivalry was broken by the “hedgehog” formation of the schiltrons, which also used the pile of dead horses and knights as defensive cover while the Scottish cavalry wedges massacred the bowmen and routed the infantry.

By the time the schiltrons broke up to engage the infantry, the English forces were in full retreat.

Cites, you ask? Freedom’s Sword by Peter Traquair, Robert the Bruce, King of Scots by Ronald MacNair Scott, and The Bruce Trilogy by Nigel Tranter - granted, Tranter’s work is technically ‘fiction’, but it is well researched and agrees with the nonfiction sources also cited.

[jiHymas]

The best book I know of on medieval warfare is Verbruggen, J. F., The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages: from the eighth century to 1340, The Boydell Press 1997, ISBN 0 85115 630 4.

Wedges refer to formations, not individuals:

Verbruggen, “General Tactics”
Attacks were also sometimes made by echelons rather similarly [to wedges] disposed. The first line charges first, then those formations move which are to the right and left of the front line, but form a second line. These units can react to the enemy’s manoeuvres, and either protect the two flanks of the front lines, or else attack at each end of it in order to relieve their own men or outflank the enemy

He cites the battles of Sarmin (Sept 14, 1115), Athareb (June 28, 1119) and Hab (1119) as good examples of this.

I have real difficulties with the concept of wedges as an actual formation. I can see them developing in the course of a battle, when a breakthrough is made and exploitation begins, but not as formal tactics. Not for Vikings, Saxo notwithstanding, and not for Scots (my sources attribute the success of the Scottish cavalry at Bannockburn to their taking the English archers in the flank, not to wedges).

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by jiHymas *

I have real difficulties with the concept of wedges as an actual formation. I can see them developing in the course of a battle, when a breakthrough is made and exploitation begins, but not as formal tactics. Not for Vikings, Saxo notwithstanding, and not for Scots (my sources attribute the success of the Scottish cavalry at Bannockburn to their taking the English archers in the flank, not to wedges).

How about Vegetius ? In his case, he seems to be describing using a deluge of directed javelins at one point to open a gap that said wedge can then force their way into:

Likewise there are appointed methods of countering a “wedge” of the enemy. A “wedge” is the name for a mass of infantry who are attached to the line, which moves forward, narrower in front and broader behind, and breaks through the enemy lines, because a larger number of men are discharging missiles into one position. Soldiers call this tactic a “pig’s head”. Against this is deployed the formation known as a “pincer”. A body of crack troops is formed into a letter V, and this receives the “wedge”, shutting it in on either side. Once this is done, it cannot break through the line

From here: http://www.richmond.edu/~wstevens/romanhistory/history331texts/Vegetius.html

Tacitus also mentions in the course of his comments to the Germans. 'course I suppose ‘wedge-like’ ain’t necessarily a wedge: Their line of battle is drawn up in a wedge-like formation.

From here: Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Another comment, on Alexandrian infantry: *The phalanx was trained to form a circle for defence, to advance one or both wings to envelop flanks, to defend the front and refuse flanks, to form a wedge for penetrating the enemy’s front, to form pincers to receive an enemy’s wedge formation, wheeling and marching to the flank. The phalanx was irresistible on its front on level ground, it lost cohesion on broken ground, it cavalry and light infantry to protect the flanks. *

From here: http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/jan/weapons-tactics.htm

Likewise on the Macedonian army: * These were probably 2000 strong like the other regiments of the phalanx, the Hypaspists at Pelion are described as in a ‘wedge’ formation 120 deep, which fits a 16-strong file. *

From here: DBM - Philippic Macedonian

Eh, okay - I’m mostly just treading water here for the sake of being argumentative :). But if majority opinion holds that it was rare, I’m okay with that.

• Tamerlane

[jiHymas]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
How about Vegetius ? In his case, he seems to be describing using a deluge of directed javelins at one point to open a gap that said wedge can then force their way into…

Well, Vegetius was a classical author (Fourth Century AD), so he would be describing classical tactics and would only be used as a reference in the medieval period. I cannot claim any expertise at all in classical tactics; note that as far as medieval tactics go I only claim status as an enthusiastic dilettante

Stephen Morillo, in Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135, Boydell Press 1994, ISBN 0-85115-555-3. makes the assumption throughout that any correllations between Vegetius’ recommendations and medieval practice were simply the result of basic common sense and were independently derived (Chapter 4, note 89). He also states:

Morillo, ibid, Chapter 4, note 156
Vegetius’ work was well known in monastic circles but, I have argued, of less relevance among the practitioners of warfare in the 12th century

Morillo, ibid, Chapter 5, note 68
M. Bennett … explores the Rule of the Temple as a military manual. Significantly, as this clearly was a military manual that saw use by military men, it contains no reference to Vegetius.

Also of great interest is the reference by Saxo to the wedge he alleges was used by the Vikings:

Barry Ager
The experienced commander knew that the best way to achieve this was by forming a wedge of 20 to 30 warriors with its point towards the enemy line in what was known as the svínfylking, or “boar formation”, and then charge, hoping to break through by sheer weight of numbers.

Saxo lived in the Late 12th - Early 13th Century A.D. and was one of the “servants of the brilliant Bishop Absalon, and probably set by him upon their task, proceed, like Geoffrey of Monmouth, by gathering and editing mythical matter.” He wrote:

Saxo, Book I
For this man, in arranging the system of the columns, used to take special care that the front row consisted of two, the second of four, while the third increased and was made up to eight, and likewise each row was double that in front of it.

Saxo, Book 7
And when Harald wished to inquire of oracles how this war would end, an old man of great height, but lacking one eye, and clad also in a hairy mantle, appeared before him, and declared that he was called Odin, and was versed in the practice of warfare; and he gave him the most useful instruction how to divide up his army in the field. Now he told him, whenever he was going to make war with his land-forces, to divide his whole army into three squadrons, each of which he was to pack into twenty ranks; the centre squadron, however, he was to extend further than the rest by the number of twenty men. This squadron he was also to arrange in the form of the point of a cone or pyramid, and to make the wings on either side slant off obliquely from it. He was to compose the successive ranks of each squadron in the following way: the front should begin with two men, and the number in each succeeding rank should only increase by one; he was, in fact, to post a rank of three in the second line, four in the third, and so on behind. And thus, when the men mustered, all the succeeding ranks were to be manned at the same rate of proportion, until the end of (the edge that made) the junction of men came down to the wings; each wing was to be drawn up in ten lines from that point.

So Saxo (presumably speaking in his role of historian, rather than servant to a Christian bishop!) attributes the formation to Odin; I suggest the idea may be attributed to Vegetius. Saxo was writing about two centuries after the Viking era and the chroniclers in general are not notable for their military precision.

So I suggest that the concept of Viking wedges comes from Saxo, who got the idea from Vegetius, who was ignored in practice. But I invite rebuttal!

And if anybody knows where I can get a copy of “Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown”, Boydell Press, 1989, Harper-Bill, Holdsworth & Nelson, eds., which contains “La Regle du Temple as a Military Manual, or How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge” by Matthew Bennett; or a translation of “La Regle du Temple” itself, I would be most appreciative.

[jiHymas]

Also, I should note that infantry would almost never charge. The charging would disrupt their order, making them easy meat for the receiving line of infantry; and if there was any cavalry in the vicinity they’d be quickly toasted.

Even cavalry would only charge a formation that was at least somewhat disordered; if those receiving the charge were in good order and held their nerve (no easy thing, I’m sure!) the horses would ‘refuse’.

[Tamerlane]

Interesting speculation on Saxo, jiHymas. I wasn’t aware he was writing at a little distance - Thanks for the info :).

*Originally posted by jiHymas *
Well, Vegetius was a classical author (Fourth Century AD), so he would be describing classical tactics and would only be used as a reference in the medieval period.

Oh to be sure. I was just throwing it out more as an extension of use of the wedge in general and as a refutation of Muc’s claim that the wedge “is exclusively a calvary formation”.

But I might buy the idea that it might be a formation ( sudden battlefield opportunities aside ) best suited to a highly disciplined unit that could maintain it under the actual pressures of combat. Given that such quality disappeared in the West as Rome declined, I can accept that it wasn’t a heavily used formation in the middle ages ( though the fiftteenth century Swiss at Nancy were indeed a highly disciplined infantry force - but that is virtually the early renaissance period ).

• Tamerlane

[jiHymas]

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
I was just throwing it out more as an extension of use of the wedge in general and as a refutation of Muc’s claim that the wedge “is exclusively a calvary formation”.
…
I can accept that it wasn’t a heavily used formation in the middle ages ( though the fiftteenth century Swiss at Nancy were indeed a highly disciplined infantry force - but that is virtually the early renaissance period ).

I don’t see the wedge as being a cavalry formation any more than for infantry. Phillippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans Michael Jones, Barnes & Noble 1998, ISBN 0-76070-737-5 is another well-respected source:

Contamine, Chapter 7
A compact order was, in fact, necessary. To take up comparisons which were current in texts of the time, horsemen and lances should ride so close to one another that if a glove, an apple or a plum had been thrown amongst them, it would not have fallen to the ground but onto the vertical lances. Apparently ‘the wind should not be able to blow through’ the lances. This line of battle was rarely engaged at a single clash, but section by section, often beginning from the right…The groups of horsement began to move slowly at a given signal… taking care to keep in line; then speed picked up until the moment of contact, at which it should have reached a maximum.

Contamine is kinder regarding Vegetius than is Morillo: he cites a great heap of libraries in which the work could be found, and cites its utility in preparing an incendiary bomb for Geoffrey Plantagenet in 1147, and a crane for Charles the Bold in 1474-5. However:

Contamine, Chapter 7
The real, solid influence of this authority is difficult to determine; on the one hand because the army to which Vegetius referred was so profoundly different in its composition, recruitment, organization and spirit from medieval armies and, on the other, because in the majority of cases one can only guess at the theoretical understanding of the commanders and leaders

Contamine refers only in passing to the Battle of Nancy (1477) but does give some detail on the Battle of Morat, 1476.

Contamine, Chapter 7
(type of formations for intantry) 3. A massive disposition in depth where there was no hollow in the centre of the formation, like the solid ‘triangular battle’ of the infantry of Liege, where the point of the triangle facing the enemy was composed of the most resolute men (note 84). The Chronographia regum Francorum mentions a troop of almost 7,000 Flemings in 1303 who were arranged in shield formation*(in modum scuti), with the men placed at the point of the shield bound together(illaqueati)*** so that they would not be penetrated by their enemies. In the same way at Morat (1476) the army of the Confederates was made up of a small troop of cavalry, then a vanguard of 5,000 men, including the Swiss elite (crossbowmen, hand gunners and pikemen) and, above all, by a battle corps***(Gewalthaufen)*** in the form of an elongated quadrilateral, headed by a pointed or wedge formation (Keil). On the periphery of this corps of about 10,000 men were four ranks of pikemen (armed with pikes some 5.5 m long), while all the centre was occupied by halberdiers whose weapons were only 1.8 m long…**

That, I think is the source of the wedge mentioned at the wargamers’ report on Nancy … but you certainly don’t charge while carrying a 5.5 m long pike, let alone while tied to your buddies!

Perhaps the best argument against the wedge being used as a tactical formation for charges is simply that the question needed to be asked in the first place. It doesn’t feel right. Most of us, I’m sure, would be hesitant to express views on the credibility of cavalry formations, but we’ve all heard, read, thought about (and some of us may have participated in!) modern era gang ‘rumbles’ with knives, chains, baseball bats, etc. You wouldn’t charge in a wedge even if you did charge! By preference you’d advance in line, making sure your buddies were guarding your sides and that you weren’t off balance or wrong footed at the moment of contact.

[Tamerlane]

Hmmm…Yes, not a charge. But it is still presumably an offensive ( maybe not charge, but still assualt ) formation, since I can’t see the advantage in using it in a defensive manner. And also since that it is how it always described. Given Vegetius and the Swiss account, it seems that very disciplined bodies of men could pull it off and presumably found it effective - Presumably against formations of low mobility ( like a continuous shield line ) or who were otherwise fixed in position.

But your point on wild charges does make sense, especially considering the lack of formation discipline associated with most medieval armies ( and this might relate to the Viking example ).

By the by just checking for the sake of any lurking readers - are you sure on your Contamine cite? My copy is Blackwell, 1986 ( 1990 printing ). Did they switch publishers?

• Tamerlane

[jiHymas]

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
By the by just checking for the sake of any lurking readers - are you sure on your Contamine cite? My copy is Blackwell, 1986 ( 1990 printing ). Did they switch publishers?

My edition, 1998 Barnes & Noble, was published by arrangement with Blackwell. Blackwell is cited as the copyright holder for the 1984/1986 translation.

[Tamerlane]

Ah, gotcha :).

• Tamerlane