Medieval Military Tactics

[drewtam]

Can anyone explain why Roman legion combat organization and tactics never came back into style in the high Middle Ages (1000AD +) ?

My understanding...
The legion was an effective war fighting organization. The cohort unit seemed to work like a more powerful phalanx. With all the soldiers providing shield walls and the spears and gladius used for stabbing from behind the shield wall. Western empire decayed from within and military and politcal blunders led to total collapse and being overun by the germanic tribes.

The germanic tribes used similar weapons but had a lot less discipline and used mostly a surprise hoard attack.

As the centuries roll on. Organization returns to the military with the rebirth of civilization in 11th and 12th centuries. Steels are better, archery gets slightly better and cavalry gets better....

But the weapons of the time begin to be used in the same fashion as old roman tactics. Get a big polearm or two handed sword and thrust at the enemy line. So why not re-introduce the shield and formation strategies of the greek and roman times while including the heavy cavalry and archers that were developed since?

[Fly320s]

My highly uneducated guess:

1. Ego. The newer armies didn't want to use the old methods or they thought the Romans were inferior.

2. Poor history records and lack of knowledge. The Germanic tribes never heard of the Roman ways.

3. Every major army knew of the Roman style, and therefore knew how to defeat it.

[Regolith]

My guess: Flying boulders.

Catapults and such were much more common in the middle ages as compared to Roman times, and it's hard to maintain a phalanx when you have boulders raining down on your formation.  Or cannonballs, for that matter. My guess is the looser formations kept casualties down a bit (made it a bit more difficult to take out a lot of people at once).

[roo_ster]

Ignorance, poverty, and the general decline since the fall of Rome in the West.  Eleventh & Twelfth centuries?  Still barbarians rutting in the mud relative to the Romans at their peak.

Gotta remember, the West lost serious ground after Rome went tango uniform.  So much so that much of hte West did not fully recover (urban density, roadways, etc.) until the mid-1800s.  Damn near 1400 years.  Don't let anyone fool you into thinking the trajectory of humanity is always onwards & upwards.

It took until about the 1600s or later until the West was recovered enough to impose "Roman" discipline on professional armies and the late 1700s & early 1800s to do the same to citizen armies an order of magnitude larger.

[MicroBalrog]

Heavy. Cavalry.

After the invention of the stirrup, knights were capable of flanking an infantry formation, and carrying weaponry that out-ranged the roman spear. A bunch of properly-bred warhorses, when angered and accelerated, could kill their way right through an infantry formation even without the help of the massive lances that their masters packed. There are recorded incidents where a knight would kill as many as eight enemy troops before he drew his sword by merely driving his horse into them.

Towards the late Middle Ages, legion-like formations did make a comeback, but they were armed entirely differently.

[HankB]

The Roman Empire was just that - an Empire - and was able to raise and equip large professional standing armies; moreover, they had long-term, highly experienced professional leaders to provide training and "institutional memory" of what worked and what didn't. Later on, after Rome fell, much of Europe was comprised of relatively small kingdoms which depended on levies of peasants, ill-trained and ill-equipped by comparison.

Also, the Romans, based on professional infantry, never really got involved with cavalry to the degree they could have. This cost them. (Wasn't it largely the Parthian cavalry that pretty much handed Crassus his head when he invaded?) But by Medieval times, everyone knew that mounted knights were very effective against infantry.

Missile weapons also came into vogue . . . aside from things like catapults and such, improved bows (the English longbow) made tight formations of infantry less effective.

[makattak]

Heavy. Cavalry.

After the invention of the stirrup, knights were capable of flanking an infantry formation, and carrying weaponry that out-ranged the roman spear. A bunch of properly-bred warhorses, when angered and accelerated, could kill their way right through an infantry formation even without the help of the massive lances that their masters packed. There are recorded incidents where a knight would kill as many as eight enemy troops before he drew his sword by merely driving his horse into them.

Towards the late Middle Ages, legion-like formations did make a comeback, but they were armed entirely differently.

Precisely.

A warhorse was the tank of its day. Infantry simply could not deal with heavy cavalry.

As I recall, many of the stories about Charlemagne and Charles Martel include cavalry pushing the muslim infantry into the river to die.

Even the cavalry of the roman day was a fearsome thing (see Hannibal), but it pales in comparison to the warhorse.

[SADShooter]

Micro and Hank have pretty much covered it. Heavy cavalry as an impact force negates the value of flexible heavy infantry. In the clan/tribal mode of warfare, the Roman level of discipline and organization were impossible, given the requirement of charismatic leadership from the front and drive for individual glory.

[RevDisk]

Heavy. Cavalry.

After the invention of the stirrup, knights were capable of flanking an infantry formation, and carrying weaponry that out-ranged the roman spear. A bunch of properly-bred warhorses, when angered and accelerated, could kill their way right through an infantry formation even without the help of the massive lances that their masters packed. There are recorded incidents where a knight would kill as many as eight enemy troops before he drew his sword by merely driving his horse into them.

Towards the late Middle Ages, legion-like formations did make a comeback, but they were armed entirely differently.

Heavy cav could shred a peasant infantry army in minutes.  Prior to the stirrups, lances were held in the overhand position to bring the whole weight of the back and shoulder into a downward thrust, while still maintaining balance.  After stirrups, you have the more well known underarm approach that gives better accuracy, and balance was relatively easy to maintain.

However...  Against the Roman legions in their prime?   'em early Middle Age knights would have given the Romans something to laugh about for a couple centuries.   Do you really think the Romans wouldn't engineer something like a halberd or some type of pike?   And I've YET to see a heavy cav that punch through decent field fortifications.  Don't forget, they faced Persian heavy lancers.  Yes, yes, I realize that there are huge differences between Persian heavy lancers and Middle Ages Euro heavy cav. 

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is socioeconomic.  The Legions relied on a LOT of infrastructure.   Professional training, formal education, organized logistics, well designed command structures, common tactics, combined arms, even medical support (yea, not great medical support, but still).  Don't forget organic combat engineers.   Early Middle Ages had few if any of those.  Not to mention they were further shackled with feudalism.  Don't get me wrong.  The first time the Legions would face down a large group of knights, they'd be butchered.  Soon enough?  Those high n' mighty lords would crushed and their fine shiney armor would be opened like a can of tuna.

[Balog]

I believe the only infantry formations to ever defeat heavy cavalry were Swiss pikemen (lightly armored, highly mobile) and longbowmen. Been a while since I did my reading though so I could be wrong.

[makattak]

However...  Against the Roman legions in their prime?   'em early Middle Age knights would have given the Romans something to laugh about for a couple centuries.   Do you really think the Romans wouldn't engineer something like a halberd or some type of pike?   And I've YET to see a heavy cav that punch through decent field fortifications.  Don't forget, they faced Persian heavy lancers.  Yes, yes, I realize that there are huge differences between Persian heavy lancers and Middle Ages Euro heavy cav. 

Again, one name: Hannibal. (And it wasn't elephants that made up the vast majority of his cavalry. They were a sideshow.)

Your point about the structure and discipline necessary for an integrated military unit such as the legion is correct. I believe that the cost in the middle ages of creating such a unit was not as prohibitive as you think. I simply think the rewards were far smaller than you estimate.

The legion was a formidable tactic. It was not the invincible force you describe. Hannibal more than proved that with a less skilled and smaller force + a VERY good cavalry.

[RevDisk]

Again, one name: Hannibal. (And it wasn't elephants that made up the vast majority of his cavalry. They were a sideshow.)

Your point about the structure and discipline necessary for an integrated military unit such as the legion is correct. I believe that the cost in the middle ages of creating such a unit was not as prohibitive as you think. I simply think the rewards were far smaller than you estimate.

The legion was a formidable tactic. It was not the invincible force you describe. Hannibal more than proved that with a less skilled and smaller force + a VERY good cavalry.

And Hannibal won many battles if anything else due to the minor fact that he was one of the best strategists to have ever existed.  But Carthage DECISIVELY lost the Second Punic War, even with Hannibal.  And Carthage was effectively wiped off the map at the end of the Third Punic War.

Invincible?   Of course not.  Ask Publius Quinctilius Varus for the invincibility of the Legions.   

[roo_ster]

Heavy. Cavalry.

After the invention of the stirrup, knights were capable of flanking an infantry formation, and carrying weaponry that out-ranged the roman spear. A bunch of properly-bred warhorses, when angered and accelerated, could kill their way right through an infantry formation even without the help of the massive lances that their masters packed. There are recorded incidents where a knight would kill as many as eight enemy troops before he drew his sword by merely driving his horse into them.

Towards the late Middle Ages, legion-like formations did make a comeback, but they were armed entirely differently.

I disagree.  Rev Disk hit a few of the points.

Heavy cavalry is impressive, but is no match for disciplined, massed heavy infantry.  Unless the infantry is outnumbered by an order of magnitude or loses its morale, it will prevail*.  This is one-on-one.  Combined arms forces and the means in which they are used play a huge role, of course.

Against the undisciplined, poorly-equipped, poorly trained, and indifferently deployed infantry of the Dark & Middle Ages, heavy & medium cavalry will cut through them like a hot knife through butter.  Against Roman-quality heavy infantry, not just "no," but "hell no."

And the field-transportable artillery of the era were not effective at dispersing much of anything.  (The siege-engines could be impressive, but were relatively worthless on a battlefield.)  Heck, if even the artillery Napoleon had at his disposal wasn't a sure thing vs infantry, Medieval arty doesn't have a chance.

As far as Hannibal, he had a quality combined arms force with better cavalry than the Romans.  it was a better-balanced field force than the Romans', but lacked siege ability.  The vast majority of his forces were always infantry.  Oh, and Hannibal was a stinking genius.







* Or some other circumstance that renders the infantry ineffective.  See the end game of the Athenian debacle at Syracuse for such an example.

[roo_ster]

Precisely.

A warhorse was the tank of its day. Infantry simply could not deal with heavy cavalry.

As I recall, many of the stories about Charlemagne and Charles Martel include cavalry pushing the muslim infantry into the river to die.

Even the cavalry of the roman day was a fearsome thing (see Hannibal), but it pales in comparison to the warhorse.

Chas Martel & the Franks were the ones on foot at the Battle of Tours.  The Franks had yet to develop/acquire the compound, recurve bow or any cavalry of note.

They faced a largely cavalry Muslim force at the Battle of Tours.  Pretty much a "medium" cavalry with the addition of the compound recurve bow.  As far as cavalry goes, about as good any single sort of cavalry to be found, as it had most of the punch of heavy cavalry, but added a serious ranged weapon and greater mobility.

That cavalry force was whipped by a mostly heavy-infantry force that managed to stay massed and did not lose its morale.  The infantry could move where it willed despite attacks.  And it willed to go toward the enemy camp, which caused the Muslims to lose heart (at the thought of losing their loot*).

The Franks beat the cavalry with infantry, but did appreciate the utility.  They, therefore, adopted the compound recurve bow and put much much effort into breeding better quality horses.  They ended up with likely the best combined arms force in W Europe since the fall of Rome.






* Always the achilles heel of medium cavalry.  Faster than infantry or heavy cavalry, but not so much when laden with loot.

[mtnbkr]

And Hannibal won many battles if anything else due to the minor fact that he was one of the best strategists to have ever existed.  But Carthage DECISIVELY lost the Second Punic War, even with Hannibal.  And Carthage was effectively wiped off the map at the end of the Third Punic War.

Invincible?   Of course not.  Ask Publius Quinctilius Varus for the invincibility of the Legions.   

I recently listened to Dan Carlin's 3 episode analysis of the Three Punic Wars.  It was rather interesting and walked you through what happened in painful detail.

Chris

[Balog]

Where can one find that mtnbkr? Is it online?

[agricola]

I disagree.  Rev Disk hit a few of the points.

Heavy cavalry is impressive, but is no match for disciplined, massed heavy infantry.  Unless the infantry is outnumbered by an order of magnitude or loses its morale, it will prevail*.  This is one-on-one.  Combined arms forces and the means in which they are used play a huge role, of course.

Against the undisciplined, poorly-equipped, poorly trained, and indifferently deployed infantry of the Dark & Middle Ages, heavy & medium cavalry will cut through them like a hot knife through butter.  Against Roman-quality heavy infantry, not just "no," but "hell no."

And the field-transportable artillery of the era were not effective at dispersing much of anything.  (The siege-engines could be impressive, but were relatively worthless on a battlefield.)  Heck, if even the artillery Napoleon had at his disposal wasn't a sure thing vs infantry, Medieval arty doesn't have a chance.

As far as Hannibal, he had a quality combined arms force with better cavalry than the Romans.  it was a better-balanced field force than the Romans', but lacked siege ability.  The vast majority of his forces were always infantry.  Oh, and Hannibal was a stinking genius.

I agree with much of this, though one wonders how the English armies that fought during the early stages of the Hundred Years War would have faired against the legions.  After all, I cant think of an earlier army in Europe that combined great leadership, disciplined infantry, effective heavy cavalry (also capable of fighting on foot, of course) and troops able to put out as much firepower as the longbowmen were.  Given what happened at Crecy and Poitiers (and what had happened to the Scots earlier) one wonders if the legions would have even got close enough to fight in melee.    

[mtnbkr]

Go here http://www.dancarlin.com/ and select hardcore history.

I just looked and it looks like it has dropped too far down the list to be available via his site.  I got it via Zune Marketplace (similar to Itunes).  I think his stuff is also available via iTunes. In either case, it was free via those two.  I subscribe to his podcasts (also free).  His 4 part series on the Eastern Front of WWII is fascinating.

I'll see if I still have it on my drive, if so, I'll put it up somewhere for download. 

Chris

[makattak]

And Hannibal won many battles if anything else due to the minor fact that he was one of the best strategists to have ever existed.  But Carthage DECISIVELY lost the Second Punic War, even with Hannibal.  And Carthage was effectively wiped off the map at the end of the Third Punic War.

Invincible?   Of course not.  Ask Publius Quinctilius Varus for the invincibility of the Legions.   

Hannibal won, indeed, because he was one of the greatest strategists of all time.

Carthage lost, not because of Hannibal or the superiority of the Roman legion over other infantry tactics (it was superior, indeed), but because of internal political fighting. The party opposed to the Barcas did everything they could to cut off support for Hannibal while he was in Italy and then begged him to come back to Carthage to save them because Rome realized they couldn't defeat Hannibal in Italy and decided to attack Carthage instead.

Hannibal STILL almost won the Battle of Zama, had the Roman cavalry not returned from driving off his cavalry at just the wrong time for Hannibal. (Ironically, the Roman cavalry had been his cavalry until the Romans secured their allegiance through various means) Note, though, it was the cavalry, not the legion that was the deciding factor in that battle.

Would medieval heavy cavalry have utterly destroyed the Roman legion? Likely not, but I very much doubt the legion would have previaled.

[MechAg94]

Rome always beat Carthage largely because they had the manpower to raise new legions of young men every year and could build new fleets of warships even after getting defeated multiple times.  Also, while Hanibal sitting in Southern Italy, the Romans were sending legions to Spain and Greece and Sicily and knocking off all his potential allies.  One book I read indicated that was probably the one time where if all the big powers in the Mediteranean had combined, they might have defeated Rome and maintained a balance of power.  However, Rome was able to defeat all of them separately and therefore become the Roman Empire.


Does anyone know if Middle Ages Europe used horse archers to any great extent?  I hadn't heard of that much.  I remember it came up when I read about the Monguls attacking Eastern Europe and some stuff about Bellisarius retaking Rome.  It seems to me that horse archers with bows/arrows capable of damaging heavy infantry at a distance would be a major threat to infantry base legions without a great deal of cavalry support.  

[MicroBalrog]

I remember reading a vast historical article on the different kinds of horses prominent in the Middle Ages. They explained in great detail why horse archers weren't very prominent in Europe at the time, and IIRC it had something to do with the horse breeds. Maybe I should translate relevant bits over the weekend, when there is still interest.

[roo_ster]

Blame it on the Rain

Archery in Europe is always chancy due to the maritime climate.  Rain is tough on bow springs.

And it is especially tough on the aforementioned compound recurved bows, which used a water-soluble glue to hold the laminated bits together.  So, we saw a series of horse-archers blast in from the east to make great headway at first...only to then be deprived of one of thier advantages: a horse-mounted bow more powerful than the sorry-*expletive deleted*ss bows used by most the Euros.  And those fleet-footed horses were not so fleet when slogging through mud.

Non-compound non-recurved bows small enough to be packed on a horse were of insufficient power to penetrate most armor at distance.  The Welsh long bow could, but it was too, uh, long to be used much on a horse.

[makattak]

Another thing to note that if the Romans had any strategy whatsoever, they would not have given battle on a site suitable for heavy cavalry, anyway.

During most of the middle ages, battles occurred, by design, where heavy cavalry was unsuited. Undoubtedly any good general would do the same.

[agricola]

As a semi-related aside, have any of you lot tried Mount and Blade yet?  For those who havent, its a sandbox RPG with no magic, relatively primitive graphics but easily moddable and the best melee combat system in gaming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecNHq4464PI

The demo (basically the full game, minus a few features but capped at level 7) is available via Steam.  The multiplayer is, allegedly, in Beta testing now.

[AJ Dual]

Blame it on the Rain

Archery in Europe is always chancy due to the maritime climate.  Rain is tough on bow springs.

And it is especially tough on the aforementioned compound recurved bows, which used a water-soluble glue to hold the laminated bits together.  So, we saw a series of horse-archers blast in from the east to make great headway at first...only to then be deprived of one of thier advantages: a horse-mounted bow more powerful than the sorry-*expletive deleted*ss bows used by most the Euros.  And those fleet-footed horses were not so fleet when slogging through mud.

Non-compound non-recurved bows small enough to be packed on a horse were of insufficient power to penetrate most armor at distance.  The Welsh long bow could, but it was too, uh, long to be used much on a horse.

And that's why the English/Welsh longbowman became one of the first dominant archers of battle in all of Europe. The Yew tree's wood and it's combination of using inner heart-wood and outer sap-wood gave it the massive draw-strength for long distance volley fire. One solid piece of wood, and few parts to fail unlike a laminate recurve. And it's one-piece construction and simplicity gave them a logistical advantage because they could be produced in cottage industry without much specialized materials or skills.

(not that fashioning a proper long-bow didn't take skill, just that it was a skill that was easily distributable...)

I suppose they could have innovated some kind of assymetrical longbow that would have been useable from a horse in the Japanese style, but that would have negated it's utility for creating massive volley-fire at a long distance.