The wedge was an an effective assault formation for at least two reasons. First, if it worked, it automaticaly flanked the defensive line. Once it started to push through, the defensive guys on either side of the breakthrough had attackers behind them. The natural reaction is to pull away and dress your line so its square with the line you are facing. This, however, opens a bigger hole in your formation and allows the wedge to advance even further.
The second reason is that the wedge is designed to exploit a breakthrough. If you have two lines clashing and the enemy center starts to give way, you’ve got to send in your reserves to exploit it. The wedge carries its own reserves. If it does breakthrough, the manpower to exploit it is immediately available.
Finally, as attack formations go, the wedge is hard to break. You can surround it, but it’s tough to split it.
How is using a wedge different from allowing an enemy to flank you? Isn’t that bad? In one post I saw someone say the point of the wedge is to break through to the back ranks to get at the leaders. Is this the only viable reason for wedging?
It took awhile and I had to hire a team of forensic archaeoligists, but I was able to dig out my copy of Hans Delbruck, Medieval Warfare, Bison Book 1990 (by arrangement with Greenwood Press, Tamerlane, so there!), ISBN 0-8032-6585-9.
Delbruck is very exasperated with medieval military manuals - they were either copied wholesale from Vegetius, or were invented:
So, it would seem that a lot of my argument in this thread has been a mere parrotting of Delbruck! Well - I could do worse!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Tamerlane Also, though I didn’t have time to paw through Delbruck or other print sources…
[/quote]
It took awhile and I had to hire a team of forensic archaeoligists, but I was able to dig out my copy of Hans Delbruck, Medieval Warfare, Bison Book 1990 (by arrangement with Greenwood Press, Tamerlane, so there!), ISBN 0-8032-6585-9.
Delbruck is very exasperated with medieval military manuals - they were either copied wholesale from Vegetius, or were invented:
So, it would seem that a lot of my argument in this thread has been a mere parrotting of Delbruck! Well - I could do worse!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Tamerlane Also, though I didn’t have time to paw through Delbruck or other print sources…
[/quote]
It took awhile and I had to hire a team of forensic archaeoligists, but I was able to dig out my copy of Hans Delbruck, Medieval Warfare, Bison Book 1990 (by arrangement with Greenwood Press, Tamerlane, so there!), ISBN 0-8032-6585-9.
Delbruck is very exasperated with medieval military manuals - they were either copied wholesale from Vegetius, or were invented:
So, it would seem that a lot of my argument in this thread has been a mere parrotting of Delbruck! Well - I could do worse!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Tamerlane Also, though I didn’t have time to paw through Delbruck or other print sources…
[/quote]
It took awhile and I had to hire a team of forensic archaeoligists, but I was able to dig out my copy of Hans Delbruck, Medieval Warfare, Bison Book 1990 (by arrangement with Greenwood Press, Tamerlane, so there!), ISBN 0-8032-6585-9.
Delbruck is very exasperated with medieval military manuals - they were either copied wholesale from Vegetius, or were invented:
So, it would seem that a lot of my argument in this thread has been a mere parrotting of Delbruck! Well - I could do worse!
OK, so now for the other side! I must say, I continue to be impressed by this newfangled Internet thing! I can see a reference to a relatively new book on a site published in Britain, and order it from a bookseller in the States and have it delivered a week later … now, if only the postman would bring it upstairs and read it to me, then life would be complete!
Anyway, J. Kim Siddorn is a founding member of Regia Anglorum, a re-enactment society of no small merit, and author of Viking Weapons and Warfare, Tempus Publishing, 2000, ISBN 0-7524-1419-4.
It is difficult to argue with experimentation! My first observations are:[ul][li]This is probably a good tactic only for small unit battles, as defense in depth might bring the array to a halt, vulnerable due to the very close order that gives it penetration ability.[/li][li]It is probably a means to exploit a numerical superiority, as the attacking formation and its support groups will be vulnerable while they are forming up.[/li][li]It can probably be countered with a ditch, or other obstacles that are trivial to men in open order, but more problematical to a dense pack moving at speed.[/li][li]It is probably extremely risky against other professional troops, who, I suspect, would simply allow the formation to penetrate and then attack it with reserves.[/li][/ul]
As re-enactment indicates the efficiacy of the tactic, I am more willing to believe a ‘wedge’ likely for Viking ( = late Dark Ages) combat than for medieval combat; and that its use (if indeed it really did happen!) died out as my objections above became easier to implement.
But yet another book is on order! I confess I have become fascinated by the topic.
OK, so let’s see what Paddy Griffith has to say in “The Viking Art of War”, Greenhill, 1995, ISBN 1-85367-208-4.
OK, so according to Griffith (a former lecturer at Sandhurst), the idea of wedges is not proven and a little dubious, which seems to me to be about right. Dammit, why didn’t the Vikings write down what the Dark Ages were really like? I do have a copy of the Icelandic Sagas, so I’ll see if I can track down what Ian Heath was talking about (The Vikings, Osprey, 1985).
Not without better proof! So far, there’s only scattered mentions in sagas and an indication from a re-enactment (actually, they prefer the term ‘living history’, as they do a lot more than just battles) group that it seems possible. One thing I would be very interested in knowing is just what the opposition is doing while the killer-pig’s-head formation forms up and starts running. From the description, it seems to me much as if the accepted defensive tactic is to maintain the shield-wall as a static formation, which sounds like the worst possible thing to do. This is not to say it’s totally impossible, mind you - it might be that this is exactly what happened when a few boats of Vikings (at about 30 men per boat) met some poorly equipped and barely trained peasants in the field. But I’ve made some suggestions as to what professional (or at least seasoned) troops might do, and have thought of another: ground your spear and receive the charge with that, not your shield. This would take some nerve: a spear would be 7-9 feet long and you would probably want to have the point no higher than waist-high, which would mean crouching - which would take some nerve! On the other hand, this is how you hunt boars (albeit with proper boar spears, which are more like pikes - say 17 feet long) so it wouldn’t be unknown.
So, I’m not going to apologize to Saxo until I see better proof - which, given that we’re talking about the Dark Ages, probably doesn’t exist one way or the other, so I’m pretty safe!
Oh, and by the way, I can see no mention of wedges in accounts of either the Battle of Stamford Bridge (Kingship of England, semi-finals, Harold 1 - Hardrede 0) or the Battle of Hastings (Kingship of England, finals, William 1 - Harold 0) which are pretty well documented (comparitively speaking). Granted, the attacking Normans used tactics I would characterize as more medieval in nature (soften 'em up with archery, probe with cavalry, try a feigned flight if you’re well trained enough, try to disrupt the formation before you attack it) and would not necessarily be interested in wedges even if they were an accepted tactic - but never-the-less, there ain’t one, even though William must have been getting desperate to break the Anglo-Saxon line towards the end.
The Normans would’ve been unlikely to use a wedge formation since they relied on heavy cavalry charging line-abreast to crush formations of foot troops. The wedge would’ve been used to breach a line formation and create confusion, allowing attack while the enemy force re-groups.
Ah, but would it? My point is that, if the infantry wedge had been a well known and respected tactic, then surely William would have given it very careful consideration after the failure of his third cavalry charge if not before. But we can be as sure as we are of anything about the battle that an infantry wedge was not used - hence it was not a well known and respected tactic.
The logic is not air-tight, I admit: Harold’s troops were seasoned veterens in good formation (except when being suckered by feigned flights) on favourable ground, so it is possible that William wanted to use the wedge but conditions were not acceptable. It could also be that the Norman’s growing reliance on cavalry meant they were out of training and otherwise unwilling to use the tactic if indeed they knew about it.
But we do come down to the essentials[ul]
[li]There was a shield wall (or similar defensive formation in line).[/li][li]The battle continued all day with the Normans attempting to break Harold’s line (as well as targetting him personally)[/li][li]Given the time and place of the battle and background of the attackers, they surely would be familiar with Viking tactics[/li][li]They did not attempt to break the line with an infantry wedge[/li][/ul]
which is not a point in favour of the wedge as a formal tactic.
It’s a weird thing jiHymas, but I do keep running across these references to wedges being used at Hastings. As this one ( emphasis added ):
The Keil or Wedge was not unknown to the Greeks and Romans; {67} but they used it subordinately, whilst with the Germans the ‘Schweinskopf,’ the ‘Svinfylking’ of the Scandinavians, was national: they attributed its invention to Odin, the country god. The apex was composed of a single file, {68} and the numbers doubled in each line to the base; while families and tribesmen, ranged side by side, added moral cohesion to the tactical formation. {69} It lasted a thousand years; and it played a conspicuous part in the Battle of Hastings, where the Normans attacked in wedge, and finally at Swiss Sempach. During its long life it underwent sundry modifications, especially the furnishing of the flanks with skirmishers; evidently the Wedge was admirable for the general advance against line or even column; but it was equally ill-calculated for a retreat. *
Thing is most of these references are from wargaming types and I haven’t found yet where they might be getting this notion. The only original sources I’ve seen don’t seem to mention it. Which makes me wonder if perhaps it is being repeated as a truism based on mistaken assumption.
On the other hand, I don’t have all the relevant references, so I dunno :).
I have a hearty respect for Richard Burton, although I haven’t read The Book of the Sword whence this is quoted; so lets not go calling him a wargaming type, Tamerlane!
What can I say? Burton’s note on the Svinfylking looks an awful lot like an unattributed crib from Saxo, for starters. There will be a secondary source to support any position you want to take - and it is a matter of regret that I have neither the time nor money to make a thorough investigation of the primary sources (which often results in frustration anyway). I regret that have but one life to give to my library!
As an aside, note (67) of the Burton quote above is to work by Jahns, whom patient readers of this thread will remember was not liked very much by Delbruck. Note number (69) is:
My Latin, sadly neglected in my youth, isn’t much good (I do know that the last clause is something to the effect of ‘but with family and close ones’), but I do recognize ‘cuneum’: the famous wedge of many meanings, one of them being phalanx. A Roman legion’s phalanx moving against rabble would have parted them much like a wedge!
It certainly would have been nice if Burton had given an explicit reference with respect to Hastings - but this is the first I’ve heard of the Normans attacking in wedges.
I’m going to stick to my guns:
[ul][li]There is no hard evidence either way.[/li][li]Wedges are militarily suspect; they may have been used against greatly inferior troops, or have developed in the course of battle when the opposing line started to break.[/li][li]They get more suspect as time progresses: I will admit to some possibility in the context of the Dark Ages, much less in the medieval era.[/li][li]They have a nice metaphorical appeal to readers - and remember, chroniclers in general weren’t worried about fact checking by the New York Times! Literal fact carried much less weight then than now.[/li][li]One source of a lot of confusion is the word cuneus, which does mean ‘wedge’ but was used more generally to refer to just about any military formation[/li][/ul]
Oh, I wasn’t really referring to Burton with the ‘wargamer’ comment. His was the most trutworthy looking cite I found. It was most of the rest that seemed to be from wargamers ( i.e. notes to arrange starting formations of Normans in ‘wedges’ for tabletopping ).
Anyhow, I find your summations to be reasonably sound based on what has been presented so far in this thread ( though I still do wonder about the Swiss - I might pursue that a bit more at some point ).
jiHymas, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of an infantry wedge as well - from what I’ve read, it seems to be an effective formation for light cavalry that can use speed to its advantage. As for creating confusion, think about this: The first enemy soldier is cut down or trampled. The two on either side of him are cut down, trampled, or simply shoved aside, the two on either side of them suffer a similar fate. Pretty soon, you’ve got a disorganized rabble being shoved aside by the cavalry wedge, getting in the way of any force that attempts to attack the wedge as it passes. After breaching the enemy line, the wedge turns and repeats this process from behind the enemy formation in an unaffected area. Seems like a pretty good strategy, as long as the speed is there to make counter-attack difficult.
I’m afraid I’m even more skeptical of the effectiveness or use of cavalry wedges than I am of infantry wedges.
An infantry wedge at least has the advantage of mechanical logic: by gripping each others gear, controlling their falls when the formation is checked and maintaining good order, a group of men can transmit, to some extent, the momentum of each individual to the apex of the wedge (though the guy up front would have to be well padded indeed to avoid injury when delivering that force!).
This mechanical process will simply not be operative for cavalry.
Given this, I fail to see any advantage in knocking over one defender first, then his neighbors, etc (and note too that if the defending formation is in good order, the horses will simply ‘refuse’. The irresistable force will not meet the immovable object!).
I suspect the discussion of the question will quickly bog down in the same quagmire that allows room for debate with respect to infantry - but do you have any citations for cavalry wedges?
I gave my cites for the cavalry wedges in a previous post - they’re all in books on my bookshelf, primarily books on Scottish history, since the Scots never had much in the way of heavy cavalry and relied on light cavalry during the Wars of Independence.
Here they are again: 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’ (mostly because dialogue has been added and holes in the historical record are filled in based on conjecture in order to make the story flow better), but it is well researched and agrees with the nonfiction sources also cited.
I’m afraid I don’t have them - are any primary sources or other secondary sources cited in the works? I just don’t see a “wedge” of charging cavalry making any sense whatsoever, whether it’s light or heavy.
An academic who has looked at this thread has told me most emphatically that there is no evidence for that from any of the primary sources.
As I said, I have a healthy respect for Burton, but it’s not due to to his prowess as a historian!