Well, you’d better be paying attention to orders and reasonably co-ordinated in formation, or you’re likely to fall to “friendly stab.” Nobody wants the guy next to them to be 1) a klutz, or 2) a hero. See Episode #1 of HBO’s Rome for what happened to legionaires that broke ranks in a battle.
Make sure you were not in the front line. Remember that meant something different in those days, when a huge army was deployed it was on the first few ranks that stood a chance of actually getting within spear’s length of the the enemy. This is particularly true for the phalanx, but also true for the infantry man in most other organised hand-to-hand armies.
If you aren’t worried about kudos (and your army usually wins) being a few ranks back from the front ensured a pretty good chance of survival. Of course if things go wrong and your side looses this will not save you, in this case practice you long distance running :).
Don’t be the guy carrying the flag (even more important in the gunpowder era). A great honor, usually recognized posthumously.
Pray that you’re the Spaniard and not the Aztec.
This is why you see so much emphasis in the old days about “courage” and “honor”. A rational soldier would run away. But an army that runs away gets slaughtered. If you and your comrades run away you’re paradoxically much more likely to die than if you stand and fight.
This also meant that the guys who were in the ranks further back were performing a very useful purpose, even though they never got close enough to engage the enemy. They were relatively safe so less inclined to run away. Having several rows of comrades blocking your retreat meant that, even if they wanted to, the front rows were pretty much unable to ran away.
It really sucked to be in the front row. But then no one wrote any epic poems about the guy 6 rows back who just pushed real hard 
The line is “Varus, give me back my legions!” In some versions, Caesar said the man’s full name.
Varus’s disaster, though, was a pretty interested event, and it shows the level that chance or treachery played. Many, many wars were won and lost through treachery. Varus was a military amateur, but he had good advisors and could ahve won nearly any engagement. However, his allies betrayed him and led him into a trap where survival was no longer an option.
I think it’s a great maxim on individual, tactical and strategic levels. Underestimating the enemy can lose you wars and bar fights both.
Well, yeah… If you can disengage cleanly, it’s generally speaking stupid to fight on terms that benefit the other guy. But if you can’t make a clean getaway, your odds are often better if you keep fighting as a cohesive unit. (Not saying your odds are good. But better.)
Do whatever is necessary to acquire the very best weapons, armor, and supplies you can own at your status. Do whatever is necessary to care for, and keep possession of, said items. Don’t fall prey to gambling and whores. Well rested, armed, and fed men were infinitely better prepared from their counterparts. You are also more likely to be taken seriously by the populace, who can spot the difference between you and the town-levy dingleberries who spend their money like water. Find yourself some like minded mates and stick together. Have a contingency plan if it all goes pear-shaped. You and your comrades will stand a better chance of getting out alive than if you go it alone. After the mess is over, do what is necessary to blend in or resolve yourself to getting away extremely quickly.
Also of course, the main thing a soldier in that era could do to ensure his survival was to wash his hands after going to the latrine, ensure his water is boiled, and other less dramatic health-concious actions. Far more soldiers died of disease than in action.
Though quite how a medival/ancient soldier would have known to do all those things is another question
An interesting article to read that deals with how Roman battles actually played out is The Face of Roman Battle, by Philip Sabin in the Journal of Roman Studies, 2000. In regards to Roman battles, it’ll answer all the questions raised in this thread.
A year or so ago I ordered some DVDs from the history channel called “Decisive Battles”. Its interesting to watch, but not great. Still, whoever first said dig a latrine, wash your hands, etc, was right…disease killed more soldiers over time than combat probably did.
The romans were successful because their army was trained and well armed, so that does matter, also.
In a story I was working on (a NWN2 module, actually) two characters have a short argument on what weapon is best, a crossbow or a longbow. since the argument isn’t serious I kind of made things up, but I wonder how effective longbows really were in combat before gunpowder? Could they decisive in a battle or were they just a way to “whittle down your foe a bit”.
I’d always heard that crossbows were good weapons because they were easier to train men to use and more accurate. I don’t know how much of that is true or not.
I recall reading some time ago that in the various battles between to French and English, who won depended upon how many longbowmen the English had. The longbow was an excellent weapon, and in fact as good or better than early gunpowder weapons. It’s great weakness was that it required a lot of training to use well, beginning quite young.
So I’ve heard; as I recall, part of the reason the French preferred them over longbows is that they could treat crossbowmen as expendable, because they could be easily trained.
Are there any other documentaries which could be good to watch?
I’d always heard that crossbows were good weapons because they were easier to train men to use and more accurate. I don’t know how much of that is true or not.
[/QUOTE]
I with you on the ‘easier to train part’, but I am not sure about the accuracy, its penetration power or range…
OK, so we’re earlier than 19th century.
Is this a melee, or a pitched formation battle? If its formation, when Parmenion signals the Scythians advance, you advance en masse. Not a lot you can do.
I can only add my encouragement to the advice above not to run away. Setting aside the corporal remedies for desertion in the face of battle, fleeing men are easily cut down by cavalry.
I have also reconsidered my advice on loot. Engish armies had prize agents who were intended to collect and distribute loot. Often it took many years before a foot soldier’s meagre share came through. During the Peninsula War, some Englishmen captured the French paymasters and robbed him. The sergeant in charge of the brigade got a small fortune. He was a lucky one, however: a thousand lashes was recorded as the severst penalty for taking loot without authority on the field of battle (officers were allows to keep “mementos”, but if enlisted men did the same then they were looters). So the advice is do it only if you can get away with it.
I’m no historian, but I hear that the much greater reach of the English longbow over French ones made a big difference for almost 100 years.
If you can’t start putting pointy bits into your enemy until you’re (numbers taken out of my elbow) 50 yards away, by which time they’ve been putting pointy bits into your team for another 50 yards, there will be
- a toll in your numbers by the time your shots become effective,
- fallen people breaking formation and making it harder for those behind them to keep it,
- a bad effect in morale,
- people trying even harder than usual to get a back row spot.
In Spanish history (and I think our OP may be confusing history with stories, in many languages they’re the same word) there are almost no “1 vs many” fights. Sancho VII el Fuerte of Navarra (called “the Strong” for a very serious reason) in Las Navas had a very impressive individual contribution, but he wasn’t alone; at one point he did get surrounded and his horse cut out from under him but he didn’t get trapped under the horse and his companions were able to rejoin him while the enemy was still trying to decide whether to run away from the pissed-off giant or try to chop him down. El Cid was in more battles than it’s worth counting, but the only times he was alone so was his opponent.
As for the general leading the charge, some did, most didn’t. It changed a lot with time, location and personal preference/skill. Using two XX century references, both of them superb generals but very different, Patton would have charged and Eisenhower wouldn’t have.
You crush your enemies, you drive them before you, and you hear the lamentation of their women.
That is good.
At either Crecy or Poitiers, possibly both, the English longbowmen loosed off about a third of a million arrows in the first twenty minutes. That’s a fair bit of whittle, and emphasises the old maxim that is as true now as it was six hundred and many more years ago:
“It’s not the one with your name on it that you need to worry about. It’s the nine hundred and ninety-nine labelled ‘To Whom It May Concern’.”
Also, wash hands, dig latrines, and don’t catch the clap or the pox. If you can manage not to get wounded by one of those longbowmen then so much the better, because they’ve been standing in ranks for hours waiting for the battle to start, and the ground they’ve got their arrows stuck in ready to loose is humming a mite. That’s not surprising, because they’ve been campaigning for months in horribly insanitary conditions and all have their arses hanging out of what’s left of their drawers thanks to dysentery. But they can still draw a bow, and even dysentery’s mild stuff next to tetanus.
Acouple of points raised by various posters…
Someone said make sure that you’re not in the front row,.
The Romans actually didn’t have a single front row that fought from beginning to end during the battle, when circumstances allowed the front row would retire vertically to the rear of their individual formation and then reform as the rear row.
What had been row 2 now took on the brunt of the fighting until they too were in turn relieved and so on.
The reason for this was to rest soldiers from the sheer hard physical punishment of of swinging/thrusting a weapon for hours.
Roman soldiers were trained to kill the enemy to their right where possible not the man in front of them as physically that man would be exposed to them whereas the man in front would tend to be covered by his shield.
Its usually much more effective to stab not slash.
Slashes often tend to wound not kill but even a couple of inches of stab will in most cases be a meat maker.
Even if the medieval soldier was aware of the benefits of hygiene its doubtful if he could actually practice it.
Latrines were not a standing operational practice,men would often crap on the open ground sometimes where they stood if facing up for or in a battle.
(The English Archers would push there arrows into the ground as quivers were for hunting and in their own excrement if this was present)
It is unlikely that water would be "wasted"on hand washing unless they were actually by a body of water.
Alexandra apparently encouraged his troops to adorn their weapons and armour with gemstones etc,as this discouraged thesoldiers from discarding them on exhausting marches or if routed.
Finally have just finished “Before they Hang”,bloody good read but I think that the advice that The Bloody Nine was giving was more for individual combats rather then pitched battles.