Who Will Win?

[caldrail]

Two armies face each other across a grassy plain waiting for the orders to begin their advance upon the other. Try to put yourself there, lined up with the others, taking your place in the line. It's been a long march to this place. You've suffered ferociously hot days, cold nights, wind and rain. You're far from home. Instead of enjoying life with friends and families, you're here, amongst thugs, cheats, warriors, and yes, one or two potential cowards by your side. And there they are. After weeks of weary marching, dragging tired legs up hills and placing blistered feet on rough gravel, not to mention the aching shoulders from hauling your belongings with you, there's the enemy.

 

At this distance you see little more than lines of men, shields, helmets, standards, long lines of spear points at ease. Shouts can be heard. Those spears fall level at the ready. You hear a reaction from your own commanders. Battle is to be joined. They're marching toward you. An older man, a veteran, sees your nervousness and whispers to you to stay calm. He makes it seem easy. Those enemy soldiers are advancing remorselessly, grim faced, seemingly immune to the pangs of fear that are clutching your heart.

 

Oh yes, you made brave boasts the night before, how you would fight and how the foe would flee from your courage. Perhaps your courage feels little more than empty words as a loud voice behind calls for you to march into the face of the oncoming wall of shields, swords, and spear points. Of course you obey. Almost automatically you begin to place one foot in front of the other, marching with your comrades, going through the motions, doing what they taught you in those first few days, but now? You're beginning to lose awareness of your surroundings. As you approach the enemy, you realise which of them you are facing. You can see them, swarthy skinned men of a different realm, staring back at you in cold emnity.

 

A shout! A great yell arises from them, and they begin to charge toward you...

 

Okay, that description is of course nothing more than fiction. The important question is however - Who will win?

 

There is a tendency, which you can clearly see in these forums as much as anywhere else, that in considering the possible outcome of a battle to think in purely mechanistic terms, to play "Top Trumps". Who has the best weapon? The longest range? The most endurance? The best protection? The best reputation? Now I can't dismiss these factors entirely, and they do make a difference, but is that all combat is about?

 

I remember discussing combat with a friend who used to be a member of a dark age re-enactment society. In one display, a situation arose between a Saxon Thane and four Norman spearmen. The Thane was of course better armoured, and armed with an axe. For safety reasons he wasn't allowed to use this axe in the vertical plane, to bring it down on enemy heads with full force - fairly obviously. Against four spearmen? All they had to do was surround him - there were no obstructions to doing that - and move in. Strictly speaking, it was only a matter of time before the Thane fell from spear thrusts in his back.

 

Instead, he yelled. he screamed. He threw his axe from hand to hand and taunted the opponents to take him on. His aggression suprised and terrified the spearmen, who instinctively stood together nervously as they inched forward.

 

Think about it. Who will win?

Edited April 1, 2010 by caldrail

[Centurion-Macro]

In my opinion, it is a number of things which determines how combat is won. The two that are the most important is skill and motive. Skill is important because it will enable you to fight better, and have a better chance of survival. Motive is why you fight. If you are fighting for your homeland and its survival, or if you are in a losing situation you will have an edge. For example, the Germans facing the Russians outside Berlin. They knew they had no where to run, and so the ragtag army held them off for two days against all odds because they had motive to fight. Equipment is a factor, but it can be dismissed. The same can be said for terrain. It is a bonus, but having the right terrain does not ensure victory. Morale and skill does.

 

In that scenario it looks like the person you describe is a Roman facing a Greek phalanx or something similar to that. But personally I do not know enough about the other side to see who would win. What are the others thinking?

[barca]

Instead, he yelled. he screamed. He threw his axe from hand to hand and taunted the opponents to take him on. His aggression suprised and terrified the spearmen, who instinctively stood together nervously as they inched forward.

 

Think about it. Who will win?

 

The one doesn't get distracted by displays of bravado will win

 

[Fides Nemo]

When looking at this sort of "Hand to Hand" combat there are many factors that can turn victory to defeat and defeat to victory, but the most important factor is discipline. Discipline of the individual soldier to obey the commands of the commander, discipline of the commander to make the correct descision and not allow them or their troops to panic.

Remember once a line breaks it is a near Herculean feat to reassemble that line in order. Additionally most soldiers are armoured in the front and not their backs and it is a lot easy to stab someone who isn't fighting back.

 

Just my opinion of course

[Melvadius]

<SNIP>

I remember discussing combat with a friend who used to be a member of a dark age re-enactment society. In one display, a situation arose between a Saxon Thane and four Norman spearmen. The Thane was of course better armoured, and armed with an axe. For safety reasons he wasn't allowed to use this axe in the vertical plane, to bring it down on enemy heads with full force - fairly obviously. Against four spearmen? All they had to do was surround him - there were no obstructions to doing that - and move in. Strictly speaking, it was only a matter of time before the Thane fell from spear thrusts in his back.

 

Instead, he yelled. he screamed. He threw his axe from hand to hand and taunted the opponents to take him on. His aggression suprised and terrified the spearmen, who instinctively stood together nervously as they inched forward.

 

Think about it. Who will win?

 

One against four if the indecision holds for long enough the Thane has a very good chance of being able to rush forward and get around behind the points of the spears so taking out several of his opponents in quick succession while they try to either back-pedel fast enough to get their spears pointed at him again or else drop their spears and try to draw a close range weapon in response. Either way, with a 'normal' short-hafted battle-axe the superior manouverability of the axe is liable to leave the spearmen at a distinct disadvantage with the odds rapidly dropping from 4-1 to 2-1 or 'evens' at which retreat for any surviving spearmen is strongly recommended. If he was using a long-hafted axe instead, as a Viking re-enactor friend used to do, then at best his opponents are all liable to find themselves 'short' a lower limb, as a sweeping downward blow is very difficult to guard against even with a shield, or even 'killed' outright. Retreat in the face of a lethally close axe bearer who lknows how to control his weapon is usually a preferred option.

 

On a slightly larger scale, I have heard of one example of unexpected tactics where a 'shield-wall' met an opposing shield-wall and instead of approaching for a 'shoving match' (effectively phalanx angainst phalanx) split in two leaving a 'forlorn hope' (OK one very large and heavily armoured man) to crash into the middle of the opposing shield wall - instant confusion and subsequent decimation amongst the opposition as the two wings closed on the ends of the line and spears went wevery which way int he centre (axeman again). N.B. This engagement was followed by said 'forlorn hope' chasing his own side about the field of battle as no-one told him of the intended plan of attack

 

In a full-sized military clash it always boils down to a combination of experience, terrain, equipment, discipline and unit tactics - especially the ability of the opposing sides to react to or initiate the unexpected.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Melvadius

[caldrail]

Running around the back of four spearmen seems an unlikely tactic. It was after all a display of aggression and a more frontal approach might actually produce a better result.

[Melvadius]

Running around the back of four spearmen seems an unlikely tactic. It was after all a display of aggression and a more frontal approach might actually produce a better result.

 

I said

...and get around behind the points of the spears....

This is a frontal assault which doesn't mean he physically runs behind the spearmen only diagonally beyond where their spear points are effectively pointing at him.

 

He can then attack with relative impunity while they try to sort themselves out and get their weapons back into an effective position - ie retreat, shorten their grip on the spears or draw a close quarters weapon.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Melvadius

[Fides Nemo]

Running around the back of four spearmen seems an unlikely tactic. It was after all a display of aggression and a more frontal approach might actually produce a better result.

 

I said

...and get around behind the points of the spears....

This is a frontal assault which doesn't mean he physically runs behind the spearmen only diagonally beyond where their spear points are effectively pointing at him.

 

He can then attack with relative impunity while they try to sort themselves out and get their weapons back into an effective position - ie retreat, shorten their grip on the spears or draw a close quarters weapon.

 

As I am ignorant of these matters wouldn't either side have some safegaurds setup to prevent such a maneuver like Archers, Slings or some other distance weaponary.

[caldrail]

No, it was a situation that happened in re-enactment at random. There weren't any safeguards other than health & safety restrictions and everyone else was busy wacking each others shields elsewhere. 'Running diagonally between the spears' sounds like one of those bright ideas roleplayers come up with (no offence intended) - It really wouldn't work like that. Spears are useful because of not just the pointy bit at the end, but also the butt and indeed could still serve as a quartstaff if need be.

 

It sounds like you're trying to apply logic and thought to tactics in melee. You'll lose. Desperate men don't behave in an entirely predictable manner and by the time you've thought out how to achieve this result and chosen your moment to go for it, you've lost the initiative you won with all your aggression.

 

So keep yelling and menacing. They're already scared, and knocking their spears away is possible, Don't waste your time thinking about it. Fatal.

[Melvadius]

No, it was a situation that happened in re-enactment at random. There weren't any safeguards other than health & safety restrictions and everyone else was busy wacking each others shields elsewhere. 'Running diagonally between the spears' sounds like one of those bright ideas roleplayers come up with (no offence intended) - It really wouldn't work like that. Spears are useful because of not just the pointy bit at the end, but also the butt and indeed could still serve as a quartstaff if need be.

 

It sounds like you're trying to apply logic and thought to tactics in melee. You'll lose. Desperate men don't behave in an entirely predictable manner and by the time you've thought out how to achieve this result and chosen your moment to go for it, you've lost the initiative you won with all your aggression.

 

So keep yelling and menacing. They're already scared, and knocking their spears away is possible, Don't waste your time thinking about it. Fatal.

 

 

I am not talking role playing I am talking from the viewpoint of someone who has been actively involved in small scale re-enactment combat - I know the odds and have seen or experienced these manouvers used in action.

 

You can run between spear points if you wish I said 'around' ie in the situation you described it appeared that all four spear wielders were more or less in a line abreast and totally unerved by the Thane's tactics. Ignorign the possibility that other combatants in the area might have interfered on one side or the other in this circumstance a quick diagonal move forward was one possible attack method BUT if you wish the additonal issues which need considered by one man against four spear wielders these include:

 

Are the spearmen 'apparently' experienced fighters, able to work closely together as a team or not?

How far down the shaft are the spears being held?

Are they being held by one hand or both?

Are they carrying shields?

Are they armoured?

How close together are they?

Are they spreading out to try and surround me?

Can I manouver them so some of them will obstruct each others weapons or I can get one by himself?

Are the ends of any of the spears metal shod?

How am I equipped?

Do I feel lucky?

Is it a good day to die?

If I am going to die anyway how many can I take with me?

 

Depending on the answers to these and a few other questions any exerienced fighter with sword/axe and shield (or secondary weapon) can make a closing move AND take out at least one of their spear armed opponents before the others have time to react. A shield can be used to block and lift spear points out of the way as can a secondary weapon for the time it takes to advance one or two steps and 'kill' or disable the first of your opponents after that the odds will increasingly shift your way.

 

A long hafted axe in particular is deadly at close quarters, a good friend was an expert with axes and could guarantee to take out a series of opponents lower legs by quickly shifting his grip and making a sweeping downwards blow at least nine times out of ten, even if only using a short hafted axe but more often with a long hafted axe. He was no means swordsmen and could make similar inroads even without his favoured axes or having the benefit of a shield most of the time.

[Brucecarson]

Well said.

 

Motive and interest play such a large role. You see this again and again in the middle east. Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war had quite a good force. But they were cowed by Saddam's internal purges and erratic behavior.

[caldrail]

I take your point Melvadius, but then again my point was considering various aspects of a situation is a waste of time. Combat needs to be an instinctive thing - why else did the Romans insist on drills and practise? I remember a lad I used to work with. He was a skinhead who'd been previously jailed for soccer violence, and although he claimed to be a reformed character, his love of fighting still emerged in bouts of rough and tumble (much to my exasperation, but was I going to let him beat me? ) Truth of the matter was, he was so much more practised at swinging his fists that he remained calm and capable, lashing out quite skilffully (albeit pulling his punches - he was reformed after all) and reacted way faster than me - siimply because I had to observe, interpret, and decide on what I was going to do next in a fast paced situation, when all he had to was switch off his thinking process and let his well honed instincts take over.

 

So I lost. And rather embarrasingly fell through a door into an adjoining office, much to his amusement. But hey, I died bravely.

[Melvadius]

I take your point Melvadius, but then again my point was considering various aspects of a situation is a waste of time. Combat needs to be an instinctive thing - why else did the Romans insist on drills and practise? I remember a lad I used to work with. He was a skinhead who'd been previously jailed for soccer violence, and although he claimed to be a reformed character, his love of fighting still emerged in bouts of rough and tumble (much to my exasperation, but was I going to let him beat me? ) Truth of the matter was, he was so much more practised at swinging his fists that he remained calm and capable, lashing out quite skilffully (albeit pulling his punches - he was reformed after all) and reacted way faster than me - siimply because I had to observe, interpret, and decide on what I was going to do next in a fast paced situation, when all he had to was switch off his thinking process and let his well honed instincts take over.

 

So I lost. And rather embarrasingly fell through a door into an adjoining office, much to his amusement. But hey, I died bravely.

 

We find ourselves in agreement on this point as I did originally make my comments on basis of the the ability of someone with fully functioning instinctive 'trained' reactions being able of overcome an inferior group who were uncertain and needed time to think how to react. The list I gave above are 'considerations' which would probably have passed so quickly through a trained warriors mind he wouldn't have conciously been aware of them.

 

Against a group of 'trained' spearman the outcome would probably be much more likely to end in his defeat. I can sympathise with your own 'combat' defeat, I don't like to remember how many times one 'expert' axeman took out two or three of us together until we finaly managed to work effectively together and one of us even slightly 'wounded' him - although we did get better with training. With this experience in mind I would expect that even then an axeman could, at worst, have a reasonable chance of disabling at least one of his opponents no matter how skilled they were.