Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.

WARDUKE: Sep 18, 2012; Muscly armed warrior with glowing eyes and shit.

Thanks for the excellent thread. In reading through it, I think it kind of speaks a bit to a couple of question that I have always wondered about when watching movies/documentaries on warfare during the Medieval period: How did anyone walk away from a Medieval battle without some form of crazy grievous injury?

Much like the classical era, It seems like warfare at the time could be a swirling mass of confusion and death, and that with whole units of footman engaged against other units (sometimes after a charge), combat could last an unknown amount of time and be completely exhausting (as Vigilance and others mention). You stated that the knight trained extensively and was an athlete. That kind of explains the ability to swing a sword, or axe, or halberd for long periods of time in armor. Adrenaline would be another factor. You also mentioned the tactics like a shield wall, and formations staying in good order, which would also play a part in keeping troops protected.

Even so, I have always wondered how in that exhausting, confusing mass of bodies, almost everyone would be a target for someone else who they were not ready for - someone coming up from behind them and stabbing them while they were engaged with another enemy, someone finishing off an enemy, and smashed in the head by one of his allies, etc. The close in-nature of warfare at the time, and the weapons used also point to downright nasty wounds being commonplace. In your studies, I just wanted to know if you have noticed any trends in battles that might help explain how the average footman could hope to walk away from any given battle without the loss of a limb or worse?

Finally, how advanced was battlefield medicine at the time?

# ¿ Feb 14, 2013 15:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:37

WARDUKE: Sep 18, 2012; Muscly armed warrior with glowing eyes and shit.

Pimpmust posted:

There's a reason people invented formations and lines to do battle, things didn't really turn "massacre" ugly until one of those formations broke and got charged down by dudes on horses.

That and massive field battles just didn't happen all the time either, due to the risks/cost involved.

Thanks for the response. What are some of the largest battles that occurred during this time period?

Railtus posted:

At the risk of sounding flippant, one way was winning, another was surrendering (not always reliable) and a third was running away.

Although this is more for knights than the footmen, armour worked really well. A good suit of mail was very reliable, there were stories of Crusaders on foot covered with arrows and seeming completely unaffected. A coat-of-plates was very reliable too, able to stop a couched lance fitted with a graper. Essentially most armour used at the time would stop most hand-held weapons � at least initially. Once you got stunned you were more vulnerable.

To a degree you are right. Re-enactors doing shield walls and other competitive battle simulations found that most people never saw the guy that scored a killing blow on them.

My guess is that both individual warriors and their commanders actively avoided the kind of exhausting, confusing mass of bodies you describe � precisely because it was so dangerous. A good case for it is made by I-Clausewitz; http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141128.html

Essentially formations staying in good order was what stopped the swirling mass of confusion and death. If one group lost cohesion first, that would be the group that started taking lots of casualties, and the carnage that followed would be fairly one-sided. The only times both sides would end up in a swirling mass would be if both groups lost cohesion at the same time, which was more common post-1500 during pike-and-shot, referred to as �Bad War�.

As opposed to the nice friendly kind of war.

Another thing to consider is fear. Quite a lot of people would hold back from the fight, there were complaints about soldiers �fencing� with the pike, which is standing at full pike length and just poking at each other with neither side continuing their advance more aggressively.

Battlefield medicine, from what I could tell, was moderately advanced. I did find this - http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Medicine/military.html - which I find fairly trustworthy because it openly points out the limitations of its own information.

Thanks Railtus. Great information.

The only armor I have seen up close, and had a bit of time to actually study, was that at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. I know there are a lot of common misconceptions about medieval armor (several examples are discussed in this very thread), but I was unaware that it was so effective at stopping the weapons in common use at the time. Fear being a huge factor is understandable as well considering the type of injuries that could result from these battles.

I thought the following was interesting from the link you posted regarding Battlefield medicine (especially the first two):

Medieval Military Disease Prevention:

Avoid marshy, swampy land
Put higher ranking personnel in better winds
Change is dangerous � in weather, diet, routine (and new soldiers more vulnerable than veterans)
Ensure sufficient shelter (for example, provide straw to protect from damp ground)
Provide proper diet � tisane (from barley) prevents fever
Choose safe water � test by dipping a white cloth in the water and checking it for stains
Dispose of refuse, waste and bodies properly (pits outside the camp)
Don�t stay in one place too long. Static situations (winter camp, sieges, etc.) increase disease

Thanks again!

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 14:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.