Shiled Wall as Offensive Aggressive even if Static through Javelins?

[Pisces Axxxxx]

We often think of Shield Wall formations as being melee troops that are completely static and defensive. They are portrayed as staying in a tight formation safe in their shields and waiting for the enemy units to clash into them. This is especially true for Hollywood's portrayal of the Roman Tetsudo and Greek Phalanx in movies like Gladiator and The 300 Spartans.

 

 

However I just finished The Battle of Hastings by Jim Bradbury and contrary to the popular notion that the Shield Wall is a static melee formation that "Stands the ground", he shows that at Hastings, even though the Saxons were static for much of the battle (especially at the beginning), they acted anything but defensive passive as.

 

Even though they were in a static shield wall, when the battle commenced, they are shown throwing javelins at the Normans. In fact a big reason for William sending the cavalry charge after his Archers fired barrages in addition to the fact the Saxon Shield Wall proved unharmed by WIlliam's archers was that Harolds "Static" Shield Wall formation was counterattacking William's archers with javelins.

 

Indeed when William sent his Knights to charge at the walls, they suffered casualties from thrown javelins.

 

What do you think? I think this is another proof of how popular media inaccurately portray tactics in the battlefield and History.

[Melvadius]

I think this is another proof of how popular media inaccurately portray tactics in the battlefield and History.

 

Of course it is - anyone who has seen a decent group of modern re-enactmentors is well aware of how mobile a shield wall can be.

 

Of course there are exceptions - a certain major group are often cited by re-enactors I have known as tending to send slooooow moooootion shield walls against basically empty villages with only one or two women defending it with brooms

[caldrail]

There are important considerations with a shield wall however. In static form it is as defensive as possible, in that the wall is formed without distraction. Once employed more aggressively, although the shield makes a useful asset in melee, it also introduces temporary potential weaknesses in the line that an alert enemy could in theory exploit. With the wall advancing, there is a risk that the wall will deform and disrupt.

 

Strictly speaking the Romans had for centuries advanced with a semi-shield wall successfully, though in their case the coverage was by shield design in close order formation with gaps between shields for the gladius to be employed.

[barca]

Once employed more aggressively, although the shield makes a useful asset in melee, it also introduces temporary potential weaknesses in the line that an alert enemy could in theory exploit. With the wall advancing, there is a risk that the wall will deform and disrupt.

 

 

 

Isn't that what happened at Hastings? The Anglo-Saxons were doing OK until they decided to charge after the "retreating" Norman Cavalry...

[DecimusCaesar]

I've been somewhat at a loss to understand how the shieldwall actually functioned at times. Whenever I've seen re-enactor's recreate it, the entire formation falls apart within minutes and everyone's dropped their spears and switched to fighting with their swords, man to man. But according to accounts of the battle of Hastings the English held the formation for most of the day until they were tricked into chasing the Normans during their false retreat at the end of the battle. I could understand how the shieldwall was effective at repelling the Norman cavalry, but surely the infantry and archers would have smashed holes in the formation, breaking it apart?

 

Perhaps one of the biggest differences with re-enactment is that the scale is much smaller - usually there are only enough men to fill the first rank - while the real thing was many men deep, enough to fill in the gaps shoudl some soldiers fall in battle.

[GhostOfClayton]

I think the shield wall may have been more stable than you might intuitively think. There's a body of thought that each man in the SW was held in place by a man behind, and probably another behind him. The guy behind is strongly motivated to keep the front guy in place. This would be both through fear of having to take his place, but we mustn't forget that the drilling (both physical and mental) reinforcing of the importance of the SW would have been constant. Let's face it, you had a better chance of surviving behind a stable SW than in a free for all you weren't trained much for.

[Melvadius]

The other aspect to consider, so far as modern reenactment is concerned, is that depending on size of event when re-enactors are paid to put on a display they normally get given 3 or 4 slots throughout the day in which to present their display. This effectively means they have to represent a full battle in a relatively short period of time and often in between at least some of them have to be in costune presenting every day life in the period.

 

You therefore cannot present a battle as it would have actually have been fought with short sharp periods of conflict followed by redressing of lines and preparation for the next round of fightimg/ replacement of dead and injured from the front line.

[caldrail]

I've been somewhat at a loss to understand how the shieldwall actually functioned at times. Whenever I've seen re-enactor's recreate it, the entire formation falls apart within minutes and everyone's dropped their spears and switched to fighting with their swords, man to man. But according to accounts of the battle of Hastings the English held the formation for most of the day until they were tricked into chasing the Normans during their false retreat at the end of the battle. I could understand how the shieldwall was effective at repelling the Norman cavalry, but surely the infantry and archers would have smashed holes in the formation, breaking it apart?

 

Perhaps one of the biggest differences with re-enactment is that the scale is much smaller - usually there are only enough men to fill the first rank - while the real thing was many men deep, enough to fill in the gaps shoudl some soldiers fall in battle.

 

Firstly re-enactors aren't trying to kill each other thus their behaviour is slightly different, aside from anachronistic modern mindsetm (I'm not decrying their research and efforts, but be honest, the people who did this for real grew up in a world where it happened around them, unlike today).

 

A shield wall is a temporary barrier of overlapping shields designed for maximum protection. The late roman empire developed the idea into two rows of shields, one above the other (jeez - those guys must have strong arms!).

 

It is not possible to charge with a shield wall. It is, despite opinion given above, more difficult to maintain a shield wall during advance. The formation is primarily defensive for those reasons.

 

When we consider the use of a shield wall remember that fighting throughout the event is not constant. Warriors get tired as sword & shield melee is physically intensive, thus there would be periods where both lines stand apart, regaining their breath, taunting the enemy, or simply readying themselves for the next surge. Descriptions of the battle wouldn't generally mention that (one roman source does but does so in order to stress the relentless and determined nature of legion vs legion), and although the actual fighting is sporadic or intermittent, both sides are confronting each all the time.

 

It's also worth mentioning that pushing is as useful a tactic as swinging a sword around. Does that sound odd? Watch a modern riot with armed police. Human psychology is no different to other creatures in many respects and so getting pushed back is liable to induce a sense of failure or defeat. This is an inherent part of a shield wall in that it presents a harder barrier to force backward.

[Onasander]

Throwing javelins from behind a shield wall is still defensive if your hunkered down defensively.

 

Hastings was the battle on the rainy day in France where French knights dismounted and assumed a defensive position on a hill surrounded by muddy fields, right?

 

French knights had larger, stronger shields, better armor, better spears and swords, stronger morale and a high degree of training. They held the high ground, and didnt really have a place to retreat to.

 

Its doubtful any infantry 'rush' under muddy conditions on a heavy infantry position is going to do squat for days. Thats pretty much what French knights when dismounted were, heavy infantry. You would have more success in unleashing a attack dog on a tank.

 

And yes, a shield wall could be used offensively, they chinese proved this in many clever battles using infantry mazes that would shift around once the enemy army penetrated, finding the interior of the formation walled as well, disciplined, with no obvious way out once their entrance closed up.

 

The tortoise formation could also storm positions, and support seige operations. A medieval italian work called De Rei Militari shows heavy archer shields used in both offense and defense, and shields were often used for artillery, ancient and modern.

 

If the shield was large enough, it could be used as a ambulance for the sick and the dead, as a shelter from the rain, and a seat to rest your butt on in the march when resting. Also as a art platform for the bored. Many uses for a shield.

[GhostOfClayton]

I should just correct you for the record, Onsander. The Battle of Hastings took place at what is now the imaginatively named town of Battle, which is in England. Anyone wishing to visit the battle site should visit Battle Abbey. Here you can take an very good audio tour around the battle site and the hill you mentioned. It has my personal recomendation for a pleasant afternoon out.

[Onasander]

I get Hastings confused with the French battle because of Age of Empires 2, I read up about the two, but always question myself when it comes to applying Names to Times and Places, even though I remember sequenced chronology well. 

 

I thank you for pointing this out, It's my major weakness. I spent the last fifteen minutes trying to track down the title to Diogenes lost work of Statecraft for another post, remember everything I need to say but the name, and am stuck with 15 Google books I bookmarked in my phone, trying to find the name...... despite literally remembering everything else. It's proleteria or something like that. I remember the entirety of it save the stupid word, and the titles get jumbled in my head, because I jumped between them so much..... experience tells me that as a result, I'm always going to be jumbled in accessing words from those texts, even if I can recite the essence of every argument in sequence as it was laid out in the text.

 

Gotta love nuance mnemonics.