Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVIII

[Mr. Mask]

Cavalry charges on pike are given too little credit, I feel. In games, pikers win consistently and clearly--but in the reality, everyone "lost" in those situations. That's why pikers sometimes broke and ran, because if the horses really weren't going to stop, it was going to be pretty bad for them (even if it was worse for the cavalry). Another way of putting it, is you needed a decent pike to horse ratio if you expected to stop them successfully (1:1 with pikes and cavalry is not going to work, IIRC).

There was also some crazy system the Hussars had to consistently break pike formations with their cavalry, I believe? They kept charging and retreating with two or more alternating teams of horses, I think is the short version of it.

[Yukitsu]

I can't think of many good examples of infantry in good order armed with either pike or bayonet being broken by cavalry. Ones that had been hammered for a while from cannons, muskets, arrows or prolonged combat don't count in this case. Have you got any good battles where that happened?

Hussars wouldn't ever be tasked with breaking a pike formation, except perhaps the Polish heavy hussars. Hussars are light cavalry, their role was to disable artillery and harass retreating or disorderly infantry.

[Mr. Mask]

Look up cases with the Polish heavy Hussars. There was a particularly famous case where they routed several times their number in pikemen. Can't remember the name of the battle, but G might remember (I think I saw him mention it once).

[Yukitsu]

Look up cases with the Polish heavy Hussars. There was a particularly famous case where they routed several times their number in pikemen. Can't remember the name of the battle, but G might remember (I think I saw him mention it once).

There appears to have been one case in all history that pikemen that were only modestly disrupted were broken by the Polish Hussars, that being Kircholm, though it comments that these were untrained and unarmoured militia.

I think it can be taken at face value that this likely had happened, and is an example that a pike formation can be broken by cavalry but there don't seem to be many cases of it, especially given how many battles were fought where one or both sides had pike squares and their opposite had cavalry. By and large, it doesn't look like cavalry is underrated against pikes or other pole arm squares given how rarely either were beaten by cavalry alone.

[Mr. Mask]

"There appears to be one case in all history," is exactly the kind of thought process that's unfortunate. In popular media, pikes beat cavalry. This is true, but it gets simplified to the point where it lacks reality.

Again, pikemen don't "win" when horses charge into them, they survive. The cavalry may not survive, but the damage to a pike block charged by some heavy cavalry that didn't know when to quit is not pleasant. If it were pleasant, and cavalry was easily dispatched, no one would run away from a pike formation when horses were charging (which sometimes did happen). As it was, you can consistently defeat cavalry even if they charge full on, with pikemen--if you have more pikemen than cavalry, and are willing to take some losses in receiving that charge.

Here's an article I found on the tactics that were apparently employed against pikes: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

If these tactics were employed, I don't think it can be said that cavalry lacked any capability against pikes, unless the Polish Hussars were incredibly incompetent.

[SowZ]

"There appears to be one case in all history," is exactly the kind of thought process that's unfortunate. In popular media, pikes beat cavalry. This is true, but it gets simplified to the point where it lacks reality.

Again, pikemen don't "win" when horses charge into them, they survive. The cavalry may not survive, but the damage to a pike block charged by some heavy cavalry that didn't know when to quit is not pleasant. If it were pleasant, and cavalry was easily dispatched, no one would run away from a pike formation when horses were charging (which sometimes did happen). As it was, you can consistently defeat cavalry even if they charge full on, with pikemen--if you have more pikemen than cavalry, and are willing to take some losses in receiving that charge.

Here's an article I found on the tactics that were apparently employed against pikes: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

If these tactics were employed, I don't think it can be said that cavalry lacked any capability against pikes, unless the Polish Hussars were incredibly incompetent.

The superior force ran several times throughout history even though running greatly increased their odds of dying and they would have won had they stood their ground. The human psyche is complicated and people aren't rational under duress.

[Yukitsu]

"There appears to be one case in all history," is exactly the kind of thought process that's unfortunate. In popular media, pikes beat cavalry. This is true, but it gets simplified to the point where it lacks reality.

Again, pikemen don't "win" when horses charge into them, they survive. The cavalry may not survive, but the damage to a pike block charged by some heavy cavalry that didn't know when to quit is not pleasant. If it were pleasant, and cavalry was easily dispatched, no one would run away from a pike formation when horses were charging (which sometimes did happen). As it was, you can consistently defeat cavalry even if they charge full on, with pikemen--if you have more pikemen than cavalry, and are willing to take some losses in receiving that charge.

Here's an article I found on the tactics that were apparently employed against pikes: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

If these tactics were employed, I don't think it can be said that cavalry lacked any capability against pikes, unless the Polish Hussars were incredibly incompetent.

Can you find other cases in history where it happened? I can find other pike squares being broken, but almost all other cases involve them also being attacked by infantry, cannons and or musket fire with the cavalry simply being an additive force. (or it wasn't the Polish Hussars)

Notable as well, the only battle that web page cites is Kircholm, the same one I did. It seems the Polish in general just weren't charging their cavalry straight into pike formations on account of them having more effective tools for the job.

On the note of "winning" or not, the point of the pike square is to protect the gunners in a formation. It is not to directly defeat the cavalry, as obviously, an infantry square cannot force cavalry to engage them. They act as a mobile bastion on the battlefield that can provide fire against the enemy army. An infantry square that remains in place has achieved its tactical goal. The cavalry that is repelled has not.

[Incanur]

While I agree that men-at-arms and lancers could rarely rout pikers on their own, it's important to remember how relatively few men-at-arms in full plate and barding there were in 15th- and 16th-century battles. You might have a few hundred such men-at-arms against many thousands of pikers - and the men-at-arms still played an important role on the battlefield.

For example, at Grandson 1476, Louis Chalon-Chateugueyon and fewer than six other men-at-arms penetrated the opposing Swiss formation and managed to kill thirty Swiss before perishing themselves.

[Brother Oni]

My suspicion here is that cuts don't really start to bleed heavily until the cutting object is removed from them.

Indeed. It's why when administering first aid, you're advised not to remove any foreign objects imbedded in wounds as it's currently stopping all the blood from escaping.

Sir John Smythe, for example, argued that his ideal formation of five ranks of pikers backed by halberdiers was sufficient to resist cavalry and went so far as to give instructions on how halberdiers should engage cavalry that managed to get through the front five ranks of pikers. So at least Smythe thought a dedicated charge might penetrate five ranks of pikers, albeit at some cost to themselves and with little ability to withstand halberdiers at that point.

To add this excellent post, since the ranks are staggered so are the pikes, so even if a cavalryman gets through the first or second rows, there's still at least 3 more. Assuming 18ft pikes and the front rank loses ~4ft for grip/setting, the first row of pikes is 14ft out in front, which is a fair distance away in terms of melee combat.

Spoiler: Pikemen set versus cavalry

Show

Note the grip the front rank of pikemen have - it's intended to have the best bracing they can provide (even if they kill the rider, momentum will carry both his body and horse forward into their lines), but some variations also have them prepared for melee combat. The more rearward ranks don't have the same luxury of space, so they're holding their pikes in a more expected grip.

An infantry square that remains in place has achieved its tactical goal. The cavalry that is repelled has not.

If taken in isolation, I would agree with you. In reality, things are little more complex - infantry forced into square make for excellent artillery targets since they're so gathered together, so if the threat of cavalry (rather than repelled cavalry) forces enemy infantry to form square for friendly artillery to pound them, then the cavalry have also done their job.

There's a slightly off colour phrase I remember but can't remember the source of - "Infantry are the queen of the battlefield but artillery is the king and we all know what the king does to the queen".

[Straybow]

No, the physics of the sword are that the whole weight of the sword, and the force of muscle behind it, hits the enemy.

That is not true, none of it is true.

Really? The mass of the sword and the force behind it has no effect, it just disappears when the sword hits the target? You don't put your weight into a blow? I was responding to SowZ:

A feder doesn't come to a sharp edge, but it certainly comes to an edge of sorts. The flat on the edge is very thin. Yes, it will have less focused force than a proper sword, but only just. Either way, the physics are clear. You only have a couple ounces behind the part on the blade that hits the enemy. ...

The center of mass is different for a balanced weapon vs an unbalanced weapon such as an axe or mace, but the whole mass and force is critical. If this weren't so, swords would be made as light and narrow as possible because a little drop in the "few ounces" of blade at the striking point wouldn't make a difference. As it is, narrow blades are most used for thrusting and slashing rather than downright blows (and maybe that's where SowZ got his thinking).

That the arm and body wielding it are equally critical can only be demonstrated. We show students the difference between a blow with the arm properly aligned and a weak pivoting blow or shoulder chop, much less a slash from the wrist. There is also a noted difference when the body is not well aligned behind the blow.

As already pointed out, the 'feders' they use for tournaments actually tend to be heavier these days that most typical sharps (if you can say there is such a thing)

Dunno about that, none of the ~100cm blade sharps at Therion are below 1.5 kg, and only some of the shorter sharps are under 1.5 kg. These are, I believe, reasonable repros (never handled a real medieval sword, only 17th+ cen swords).

Look at the strikes in this clip, I guarantee that is hard enough to split his head if it were a sharp and he had no gear, but a blade makes a poor hammer. With the minimal protection (probably some plastic and leather or rubber) he's basically perfectly safe. Not going to be knocked out.

Feders are designed to be less dangerous. Either they failed in their objective and folks fighting with them are idiots, or you're exaggerating somewhere. I guarantee you those blades are far more flexible than a repro, and getting hit with a stiff blade vs a whippy blade makes a huge difference. Otherwise they'd use blunt reproductions with a tip guard in those tournaments. If you asked some of those soft-armored tourney-goers if they'd go into the ring so armed, I surmise you'd have few takers.

Here is a link to a guy cutting a tatami with a fully rebated longsword:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10

I wager you can't do the same with a feder.

Still, you're right about edged vs full harness, but I'd use a quarterstaff.

[snowblizz]

There appears to have been one case in all history that pikemen that were only modestly disrupted were broken by the Polish Hussars, that being Kircholm, though it comments that these were untrained and unarmoured militia.

Modestly disrupted... hmm... by the accounts I've seen the infantry was moving down off it's hill positions in pursuit of supposedly fleeing enemies when they are suddenly counter attacked, its cavalry was routed, and partly running through infantry formations, and subsequently surrounded. I'd say they'd be fairly low on cohesion. The Poles had "missile cavalry" and had been shooting at them for 4 hours already. The Swedes IIRC were said to be fairly heavily armed in the shooting department, ie many guns to pike, but they were lighter calivers rather than heavier muskets like later on.
I'd say they were not untrained nor unarmoured, but they were deploying in the "new manner" and would not have had much experience beyond training drill.

[goto124]

How practical are corsets for combat? I wonder this everytime I see an image of an woman warrior wearing a corset (or at least a tight stiff thing wrapped around her waist).

Is having flexibility in your back really important? Or are there combat styles in which restricting your back actually helps somehow?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How practical are corsets for combat?

My guess is "not very". I think a real corset hinders movement enough to compensate for the positive "sports bra" effect.

[/but I'm a guy, so no idea really]

On the cavalry VS pikes issue: don't forget cavalry is much more expensive and harder to replace than infantry. In the late middle ages a rule of thumb was that every knight was/should be able to take on ten foot soldiers. That's the difference training, equipment and a horse make. And given that lvl 1 warriors are a lot more common than aristocrat1/fighter2's with heavy plate, a masterwork sword and a heavy warhorse (to put it in more familiar terms, even though you can drop the aristocrat level for the early modern period) it's probably fair to say you don't want to lose them much faster than that. If fifty horses charge a pike and shot formation of five hundred heads strong and do anything other than tear straight through it it's basically a loss. It's not always about winning every encounter, often you can win the battle or the war by making the enemies victories expensive enough. Thus cavalry often has better uses than straight up charging those square formations.

[Raunchel]

I've never really tried any kind of activity in a corset, but it sounds like a horrible idea to me. Those things are unpleasant and constricting, not at all what you need when you want to be moving around, running, and all that sort of thing. It basically is one of those weird ideas that fantasy artists somehow love.

[Brother Oni]

It basically is one of those weird ideas that fantasy artists somehow love.

So much like 'boob plates' then?

[Raunchel]

So much like 'boob plates' then?

Yes, and chainmail bikinis, and all that way too tight stuff you see, like those skin-tight leather whatevers. They would be an absolute pain to move around in, I mean, skinny jeans are already restricting enough.

[goto124]

Are thigh-high boots more freedom-giving than skinny jeans? Leaving your thigh exposed is another questionable thing, though probably not that bad compared to, say, the cleavage.

[Raunchel]

To be honest I don't have any such shoes, due to not working in a specific industry, but it does not seem all that comfortable. But still better than running around on stilettos, especially in the wilderness.

[SowZ]

Really? The mass of the sword and the force behind it has no effect, it just disappears when the sword hits the target? You don't put your weight into a blow? I was responding to SowZ:
The center of mass is different for a balanced weapon vs an unbalanced weapon such as an axe or mace, but the whole mass and force is critical. If this weren't so, swords would be made as light and narrow as possible because a little drop in the "few ounces" of blade at the striking point wouldn't make a difference. As it is, narrow blades are most used for thrusting and slashing rather than downright blows (and maybe that's where SowZ got his thinking).

That the arm and body wielding it are equally critical can only be demonstrated. We show students the difference between a blow with the arm properly aligned and a weak pivoting blow or shoulder chop, much less a slash from the wrist. There is also a noted difference when the body is not well aligned behind the blow.

Dunno about that, none of the ~100cm blade sharps at Therion are below 1.5 kg, and only some of the shorter sharps are under 1.5 kg. These are, I believe, reasonable repros (never handled a real medieval sword, only 17th+ cen swords).
Feders are designed to be less dangerous. Either they failed in their objective and folks fighting with them are idiots, or you're exaggerating somewhere. I guarantee you those blades are far more flexible than a repro, and getting hit with a stiff blade vs a whippy blade makes a huge difference. Otherwise they'd use blunt reproductions with a tip guard in those tournaments. If you asked some of those soft-armored tourney-goers if they'd go into the ring so armed, I surmise you'd have few takers.

Here is a link to a guy cutting a tatami with a fully rebated longsword:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10

I wager you can't do the same with a feder.

Still, you're right about edged vs full harness, but I'd use a quarterstaff.

Listen, we also fight with real blunts. These are actual swords that don't have a honed edge, but otherwise are real reproductions. Feders hurt more because they are generally a little heavier. I was watching people in my club duel with blunted arming swords and bucklers just yesterday. Some feders are really flexible and whippy but some aren't. Some feders are reasonably stiff. The difference in pain between the whippy and stiff feder is fairly minimal. And all tournament feders I've used are actually a little longer and heavier than the average historical longsword.

[NRSASD]

Thank you for all your help with blades and stabbing people! I never knew triangular blades actually existed, though ironically I just saw some at a museum the day after Brother Oni responded. It's rather surprising that more blood doesn't get on the cutting implement, but very interesting nonetheless.

With regards to using a corset in combat, it seems like a really terrible idea. If Pirates of the Caribbean 1 is anything to base off, it seems that corsets severely restrict the amount of air someone could breathe in. Combat is quite strenuous and anything that impairs your endurance better provide quite a lot of protection, which a corset does not. If a corset had a lot of bone or metal "staves(?)", I could see it deflecting a glancing shot from a small weapon, like a dagger or maaaybe a low poundage bow, but against anything more deadly it I doubt it.

Being able to bend forwards and backwards is also extremely important, as it is one of the easiest ways for the human body to dodge short of sidestepping. I struggled to come up with an example where back restriction in combat was a good thing, but couldn't. Anyone got any ideas?

[Mike_G]

Spoiler: Pikemen set versus cavalry

Show

infantry forced into square make for excellent artillery targets since they're so gathered together, so if the threat of cavalry (rather than repelled cavalry) forces enemy infantry to form square for friendly artillery to pound them, then the cavalry have also done their job.

There's a slightly off colour phrase I remember but can't remember the source of - "Infantry are the queen of the battlefield but artillery is the king and we all know what the king does to the queen".

Which doesn't mean the square isn't effective against cavalry. In fact, it means the opposite. It means it's vulnerable to artillery. The cavalry are only a threat to a looser formation, which would be less vulnerable to the artillery.

The fact that cavalry scared the infantry into forming a square, just means that the square is the only ay the infantry felt safe from cavalry. It was a good enough formation that they were wiling to take some casualties from artillery rather than be ridden down en masse by the cavalry.

Combined arms will always have an advantage over any single troops type. Look at the British infantry squares and artillery combining to slaughter Napoleon's cavalry at Waterloo. The artillery killed horsemen on the advance, then the gunners took shelter in the squares, which the horsemen couldn't break, even when pounded by their own artillery. Eventually the cavalry got sick of riding around the squares, slashing at bayonets while getting shot at from point blank range and retreated. Then the gunners ran back out and killed more horsemen in the retreat.

A lot of battle is psychology. If the infantry stand fast, they repel the cavalry, if they run, they die. But it's hard to stand still and trust the men beside you when there's a huge mass of men and horse with pointy objects hurtling toward you at 40 mph.

Likewise, just try to make a horse run headlong it no a fence of sharp stakes. Not saying it never happened, but it's not a thing you do on purpose.

Horses are

A:Possessed of self preservation instinct, and
B: Expensive.

Infantry are often neither.

And that's coming from an infantry Marine.

[Spiryt]

From what I recall, sources sadly aren't particularly clear on how exactly hussars were breaking those pikemen formation, so it's hard to claim that some of those could be head on meeting.

Hussar pikes could be well over 5 meters long though, will plenty of pikes, particularly Moscow ones could be pretty short, not much above 3 meters.

Swedish troops in particular liked to employ something like that, as well:



Which was even more serious wall against horses than pikes.

[snowblizz]

Swedish troops in particular liked to employ something like that, as well:



Which was even more serious wall against horses than pikes.

In Swedish known as "Spanish riders". Cheavuex des Friese many other places. It is probably not far fetched to say one of the reason they did was because of their experiences in Poland.

There was also the hard placed "swinefeatherers", I think they are/were basically the same. They even tried having musket rests that doubled as that kind of obstacle (combine two and get one obstacle), but as always soldiers were liable to get them mysteriously lost during marches.....

AFAICT was a shortlived experiment but didn't stop it from being part of miniature soldiers kit anyway (Warlord Games 28mm Swedish 30YW infantry, to be specific). Gamers like those clever things real soldiers couldn't be bothered with.

[Telok]

Gamers like those clever things real soldiers couldn't be bothered with.

Gamers don't have to carry those bloody things on fifteen mile hikes in the middle of summer either.

Corsets: I'll ask my wife later today if I remember.
Boob plates: I've seem modern female epee fencers wear metal rounds and/or plastic breastplates under the jacket. It's the same reason guys wear cups, those are sensitive and squishy anatomy.

[Brother Oni]

Which doesn't mean the square isn't effective against cavalry.

I don't think I said otherwise.

Boob plates: I've seem modern female epee fencers wear metal rounds and/or plastic breastplates under the jacket. It's the same reason guys wear cups, those are sensitive and squishy anatomy.

Huh, well whaddayaknow.

Spoiler: Female chest protector

Show

Can any ladies who wear them shed any light on the common flaws touted about boob plates, such as the inside of the cups deflecting blows onto the sternum much like a shot trap? Or does the jacket even it out enough to prevent this and the chest protector just works as a rigid reinforcement, much like plates in a ballistic vest?

[SowZ]

I don't think I said otherwise.



Huh, well whaddayaknow.

Spoiler: Female chest protector

Show

Can any ladies who wear them shed any light on the common flaws touted about boob plates, such as the inside of the cups deflecting blows onto the sternum much like a shot trap? Or does the jacket even it out enough to prevent this and the chest protector just works as a rigid reinforcement, much like plates in a ballistic vest?

I of course can't say from experience, but I know that some ladies don't like them at all. I was just talking with a fencer yesterday about how she doesn't like tournaments that require her to wear a hard plastic breast protector as it hinders her flexibility too much.

[Telok]

Can any ladies who wear them shed any light on the common flaws touted about boob plates, such as the inside of the cups deflecting blows onto the sternum much like a shot trap? Or does the jacket even it out enough to prevent this and the chest protector just works as a rigid reinforcement, much like plates in a ballistic vest?

Well how do you feel about having an epee tip deflected away from your balls and towards the inside of your thighs?

People aren't stupid about this, if something is extra vulnerable it gets extra armor. Once you're sufficently armored for the risks* you're taking you stop adding armor. So if you see real world plates on someone who wears armor because of real world risks then it probably works well enough.

*Acceptable levels of risk vary between people, cultures, time periods, cost/benefit analysis, and activities undertaken.

[fusilier]

Routing? Drop everything heavy and run as fast as you can, make sure the "from" is a lot more important than the "to", and hope there's no cavalry anywhere nearby that can run you down, or drop to the ground, play dead and hope no one gets close enough to make sure you are before you get chance to sneak off.

It really depends on the quality of the troops in question - poorly trained conscripts without officers and NCOs to keep them in line will run or surrender, veterans are more likely to make a fighting withdrawl to a defendable position. And if troop quality in general is bad, with poor morale, you could see a large portion of your army essentially evaporate if one unit breaks.

I remember reading an analysis of the Crimean War, where Russian infantry, after being broken, tended to cluster together in small groups, and fight with the cavalry sent to finish them off. The allies actually found it easier to send infantry after them to shoot them down. A different mentality I suppose.

[rs2excelsior]

I remember reading an analysis of the Crimean War, where Russian infantry, after being broken, tended to cluster together in small groups, and fight with the cavalry sent to finish them off. The allies actually found it easier to send infantry after them to shoot them down. A different mentality I suppose.

In the Napoleonic era, British NCOs were told to try and rally a small group of soldiers around them if their formation began to rout (by physically grabbing those men and preventing them from continuing to run, if necessary) so as to form a small knot of resistance. It was hoped that these clusters would help attract other fleeing men, either those who were routing reluctantly or by showing the panicked ones that there was still some resistance, and form little groups that could fight off pursuing cavalry and retire in some semblance of order. I don't know how well it worked on the battlefield, but that was the idea.

In any case, the idea of some gruff noncoms physically grabbing running soldiers, pointing them out at the enemy, and planting them somewhere is kind of funny.

[fusilier]

While I agree that men-at-arms and lancers could rarely rout pikers on their own, it's important to remember how relatively few men-at-arms in full plate and barding there were in 15th- and 16th-century battles. You might have a few hundred such men-at-arms against many thousands of pikers - and the men-at-arms still played an important role on the battlefield.

For example, at Grandson 1476, Louis Chalon-Chateugueyon and fewer than six other men-at-arms penetrated the opposing Swiss formation and managed to kill thirty Swiss before perishing themselves.

Just a couple things I would like to point out in this discussion:

1. Napoleonic era formations were more "closed" than pike formations -- I don't think it would matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it might tie in to the next point.

2. Formations get disrupted, it happens, and small gaps can be created and exploited. Not just through combat but while maneuvering. During the Napoleonic era (I'm not sure how much earlier, but lasting through the American Civil War) the soldiers marched *literally* shoulder-to-shoulder, i.e. they were actually in physical contact with the people next to them while maneuvering on the field. The purpose of this closeness appears to be to help keep unit cohesion (you don't have to pay much attention to where you are in the formation, as the physical contact keeps you where you need to be). Even then, larger formations often had to be careful, and occasionally stop to realign the formation. One of the jobs of file closers was to quickly fill the gaps that appear temporarily in the formation. The *slightly* more open formations of pikemen may have made it *slightly* easier to lose cohesiveness -- thus making exploiting of the formation a more frequent event. Just a potential factor.