Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Spiryt]

How much does a strike's power vary, just on how solidly it lands? Could a strike end up twice as powerful as what's normal, if the opponent was lined up perfectly?

Well, I guess we should first come with some definition of "power" - this may not be so obvious.

Sheer kinetic energy of bodies in swing? Kinetic energy actually used to do x? Force of impact between x and y?

Anyway, assuming the same individual, with the same weapon, strikes will vary quite a bit obviously - depending on amount of energy and velocity he can achieve, body mechanics, how much of it is at point of impact, if target is moving, and so on.

Most certainly one can produce a blow two times 'stronger' than some of his other ones.

[Storm Bringer]

Tactic with firearms anyway revolved around mass volleys, at least roughly coordinated -tough to do if every man would try to shoot as quickly as possible with multiple pistols.
.

actaully, as far as i know. coordinated volleys didn't tend to last more than one or two reloadings in a stand up firefight, as, understandably, soliders were rather loathe to wait for the slowpokes when they had a loaded weapon all ready to go, so mustket exchanges often degenerated into two lines of men loading and firing as fast as they could.

also, thier is the cavalry tactic known as Caracole , which involved a unit of cavalry firing two pistols at point blank then retireing to reload while the next rank did the same.

[Conners]

On the mention of cavalry: How does cavalry fighting work historically? Games have given me plenty of mental images of horsemen standing in an infantry line, swinging down from their horse (ala medieval total war). Generally in these games, the horsemen are fragile units.

Realistically, I guess horsemen aren't likely to be so static, and more likely to keep moving when possible? Possibly fighting more like skirmishers ala Mount and Blade, where they sweep in and attack, sweep out, and repeat the process?

[Spiryt]

also, thier is the cavalry tactic known as Caracole , which involved a unit of cavalry firing two pistols at point blank then retireing to reload while the next rank did the same.

Cavalry is different thing, obviously, and cavaliers were generally know to carry few pistols, at least.

They had means to - you can really strap quite a few pistols to the horse, sometimes small arquebus etc.

[Storm Bringer]

On the mention of cavalry: How does cavalry fighting work historically? Games have given me plenty of mental images of horsemen standing in an infantry line, swinging down from their horse (ala medieval total war). Generally in these games, the horsemen are fragile units.

Realistically, I guess horsemen aren't likely to be so static, and more likely to keep moving when possible? Possibly fighting more like skirmishers ala Mount and Blade, where they sweep in and attack, sweep out, and repeat the process?

as i understand it, cavalry almost never charged home into a formed, well ordered infantry unit. For one if they did, then they tended loose badly (like at Crecy, or Waterloo). Somewhat more importantly, though, horses will not gallop headlong into a line of spearpoints or a solid sheild wall. they have brians, and will shy away form a running into a formed unit without a LOT of training, and even then they won't do anything blantantly suicidal.

instead, they preffered to charge into disordered infanty close to breaking, who often did break when they realised the knighters were in the formation. good flim examples would be the japanese conscripts breaking in their first battle agianst the samurai in The Last Samuari, or the Charge of the Rohirim in Return of the King (where, agian, the orcs start to break and run before the charge connects).


ideally, the target infantry have been bombarded with arrow or shot to the point that their line is ragged, theri morale is low, and the sight of a few hundred big men on big horses coming at them is the last straw and the turn to flee, which is the very worst thing they can do, as it lets the horsemen thread a path though the mass of fleeing man, cutting left and right as they go.

[Galloglaich]

Muskets and other 'full scale' firearms were going to have bigger velocity, so flatter trajectory of bullets, more range, bigger caliber, all in all more power, armor/obstacle penetration, two handed hold was more stable and accurate, and so on.

Carrying such a lot of pistols would be greatly impractical, in theory it would allow some 'rapid volleys', but in practice would mean a lot of carrying around, trouble, confusion, more things to operate in battle, confusion - which one had I loaded, again? - and so on.

Tactic with firearms anyway revolved around mass volleys, at least roughly coordinated -tough to do if every man would try to shoot as quickly as possible with multiple pistols.

At close ranges, it could possibly be feasible, but at close ranges shooters are obviosuly not going to involve in any serious shooting -it's time to retreat or fight hand to hand.

I think it is probably impractical for infantry, probably, but this was used by cavarly quite a bit. The German Reitter, which just means cavalry or rider, came to have a speicific meaning in the 17th Century of pistol armed knights, and they would carry 4-6 pistols on their saddle holsters, in addition to a sword or a saber. These guys wore armor as well, three quarters or half-harness. They were direct competitors with the lance-armed heavy cavalry.

These are horse-pistols so they actually have a bit more range than a regular pistol, though due to the armor the doctrine of the day advocated point blank shooting, literally touching the pistol to the unarmored part of the opponent, or the more lightly armored part like the thigh or the face.

The Polish Hussaria also sometimes carried a brace, or up to four pistols on their saddles, in addition to a ton of other weapons; lance, sword (palash), saber, mace, lasso... sometimes an axe or a stabbing sword (kanzer / estoc).

The Spanish also had some pistol armed cavarly.

I think the reason you might see this on ships and on horseback but not as much on foot is that A) it's a lot to carry around with you (pistols are heavy) if you have to march and B) ship combat almost guarantees close-quarters, at least during any boarding action, and cavarlymen can often arrange for it to happen... but (by the time of flint-lock and wheellock pistols) on he battlefield infantry tends to most often remain at a distance, protected by pikes or later bayonets, and their formation. In a chaotic situation a pistol is great, but at that close of a range, an organized pike phalanx could be more deadly, and muskets are much more likely to be able to pierce armor on the front ranks of the formation.

G

[rrgg]

Personally, I think that the cavalry were a bit hardier then they are generally given credit for and that there would have been very little a man with a one-handed spear or "short" musket and bayonet could physically do against a charging horse, but at the same time I highly doubt suicidal, head on charges would have been popular with anyone for obvious reasons.

I wonder if a knight with a long enough lance could effectively charge, strike, and wheel about without colliding with the enemy line.

[Galloglaich]

On the mention of cavalry: How does cavalry fighting work historically? Games have given me plenty of mental images of horsemen standing in an infantry line, swinging down from their horse (ala medieval total war). Generally in these games, the horsemen are fragile units.

Realistically, I guess horsemen aren't likely to be so static, and more likely to keep moving when possible? Possibly fighting more like skirmishers ala Mount and Blade, where they sweep in and attack, sweep out, and repeat the process?

Yes, I think Mount and Blade is much more realistic for this, even though it's mainly on a smaller scale.

The whole point of cavalry is their incredible mobility, so I agree it's not very realistic to show cavalry always just sanding there and duking it out, though that did sometimes happen (and was a tactic for certain types of 'heavy' cavalry in the 18th and 19th Centuries)

More generally though, cavalry warfare is all about achieving local numerical superiority. Your enemies forces are positioned just so, stronger here, weaker there; more organized in this place, less in the other... up against a natural obstacle like a stream or a hillside in one place, or out in the open on the other.

Cavalry can suddenly concentrate forces where the opponent is weakest. On a smaller scale this can be as simple as a string of enemy soldiers, and the cavalry sweeps down on the tail end of the column and gangs up on the few guys there just long enough to do some damage, then sweeps away again before strong opposition can be organized. On a larger scale, an army can be caught for example while they are crossing a river, with half their forces on one side and half on the other, one side struggling with the baggage train and one ready to fight. The cavalry can go for the former and wreak havoc.

For this reason, situational awareness, battlefield communciation and battlefield intelligence are extremely critical for cavalry warfare. It's why cavalry uses flags, bugles, drums and so on to coordinate their activity. This is where the Mongols, for example, really excelled. They used whistling arrows, flags, and so-called 'arrow riders' (couriers) to communicate, and were really superb at detecting weakness in their enemies armies.

Long range missiles can help create these weaknesses, which again is one of the ubiquitous tactics of the Central Asian steppe, and the Mongols, Ottomans, Mughals, and various nomadic groups thereof. Flight arrows rained down from a distance could create panic among enemy fighters (and their horses) which the Mongols could practically smell...

Many of these tactics, like the couriers and signalling arrows, were quickly adapted (or maybe they already existed and were re-emphasized) by Europeans who had to face Steppe Nomads, particularly in Poland and Hungary, who adapted both light cavalry of the Central Asian style and the heavy cavalry . The Czechs went the other direction and emphasized infantry with war wagons and crossbows (later guns) which properly coordinated, could resist and annihilate cavalry charges.

The charge of the heavy cavalry is also part of cavalry tactics, and it comes at the wavering enemy line, it's a more decisive move, but has always been part of cavalry tactics and actually also originates on the Steppe - the Scythians and Sarmatians had heavy cavalry. This was something the Europeans really perfected, though against more sophisticated cavalry they had to learn to put this type of fighting in it's place.

The other big factor in cavalry warfare is morale. Infantry tends to be more steadfast. A lot of cavalry fighting involves mad chases, confrontations, deceptions, backing down, regrouping, false retreats, sudden splits of formations and coordinated maneuvers... the outnumbered side suddenly becomes the larger force, and vice versa. The morale of both the riders and their horses can suddenly fluctuate, a sudden fullisade of guns, a steady rain of flight arrows, enemy maneuvering which looks like it's cutting off hope of escape. Many cavalry battles seem to hinge on sudden changes in morale. This is why strong personal leadership can be so important, which in turn is, I think, why the best heavy cavalry comes from feudal aristocracies; the best light cavalry from nomadic tribes, and the best infantry from republics.

G

[deuxhero]

Does the type of water (such as clean vs dirty, fresh vs salt) used for quenching a blade (or anything you are forging) effect anything about the blade?

[fusilier]

I was at the New Mexico museum of history and I remember they had some chain mail on display. I can't remember when exactly it was from, but northern New Mexico wasn't settled until 1598 so I would think after then. It wouldn't surprise me if things like that hung on longer in New Spain. After all Kearny was attacked by lancers in the Mexican-American war.

It's been way too long since I've been to the Palace of the Governors, or the Albuquerque History Museum, which is a real shame as I live in Albuquerque, but I think there is a chainmail shirt (with a hole through it) at the Albuquerque museum as well.

Mexican (and many other "Latin" Americans) vaqueros used lances in herding, and also warfare against the natives, so they were very adept at lance use.

[fusilier]

Helmets were also the first piece of armor that returned in world war 1. Might not stop a rifle, but there are more than enough things in war that can cause significant head injuries that makes them worth wearing. The same thing would have applied to the spanish in south america.

New Mexico (and old Mexico, and all of central america) are actually part of North America -- although it wouldn't surprise me if this held true across most of "Spanish America".

I think the Pueblans were very fond of slinging/throwing stones, and that's why the Spanish tended to hold on to helmets in New Mexico. They must have fallen out of use sometime around 1700. At which point the conflict may have shifted to the Apaches and Navajos -- or trends in europe and lack of replacements finally caught up with them.

[Yora]

Does the type of water (such as clean vs dirty, fresh vs salt) used for quenching a blade (or anything you are forging) effect anything about the blade?

All I can say is yes, because it's actually prefer to not use water but other liquids. But I can not say what exactly the differences and and what chemical processes are going on there.

Sticking a blade into snow does not work, because the snow touching the blade just evaporates and forms a hole in the snow, you effectively just sprinkle some water on it, which is not enough and results in uneven cooling, most likely destroying the blade.

[a_humble_lich]

It's been way too long since I've been to the Palace of the Governors, or the Albuquerque History Museum, which is a real shame as I live in Albuquerque, but I think there is a chainmail shirt (with a hole through it) at the Albuquerque museum as well.

Mexican (and many other "Latin" Americans) vaqueros used lances in herding, and also warfare against the natives, so they were very adept at lance use.

This was actually at the new history museum right behind the Palace of the Governors, which I thought was really well done. It has been way to long for me as well since I've been to the Palace of the Governors.

And very adapt at lance use is right. If I remember right the US cavalry was initially dismissive of being attacked by "primitive, medieval" weapons. After the battle of San Pasqual I don't think they were as dismissive.

As far as armor goes that is a good question. Why did the Spanish continue to wear armor in the New World but the British/Americans didn't seem to. Given the weapons the Native Americans used, I would think armor would be very effective.


As for liquids used for quenching, my blacksmith friend used oil heated to about 200 C to quench swords. That gave a more gradual quench and made the blade less brittle (If my memory is good).

[Autolykos]

@Quenching: From your descriptions, it's the physical, and not the chemical qualities that matter (mainly the rate at which heat gets transferred away from the blade). And while dissolving salt (or dirt) in water will change it's boiling point slightly, the effect won't be large enough to be noticed. So, for the purpose of quenching a finished blade, all water is equally mediocre, and oil is better.
Where it might make a difference is when the dirt/salt has a chance to get into the metal, for example when pattern welding the steel. It may be a way to get some of the components of the dirt into that "pseudo-alloy". I recall this being done with bird droppings (for phosphorus), but most of it is probably best chalked up to myths that originated with a specific soil in one region (where it worked) and got copied in other regions (where it didn't).
EDIT: Some soils could contain either organic matter (carbon in some form) or flux, so they could be used to adjust the carbon content of the steel. It's different for each region, and would only have the desired effect with a specific combination of iron ore, smelting process and soil type, and be bad with other combinations. The people back then weren't stupid, and probably found out by trial and error.

[Yora]

A mention for people who might be interested.

A Homebrew thread for a "reality inspired" RPG armor system.

[Storm Bringer]

Personally, I think that the cavalry were a bit hardier then they are generally given credit for and that there would have been very little a man with a one-handed spear or "short" musket and bayonet could physically do against a charging horse, but at the same time I highly doubt suicidal, head on charges would have been popular with anyone for obvious reasons.

I wonder if a knight with a long enough lance could effectively charge, strike, and wheel about without colliding with the enemy line.

see, the thing is, it's not one spearman vs one rider. its four or five spearmen vs one rider, as any horse and rider who can reach a spearman to strike him is in thrusting range of half a dozen or more spears.


you can charge into the mix, and more than likey knock the frist two guys over.... but your horse will have three mortal wounds in it's chest and your going to be getting a few in a moment.

also, do not forget that for a lot of history, cavalrymen provided their own horses. a well bred war horse was easily as expensive as Full Plate armour, and often more. You wanted to look after that large an investment,

think of it this way. your average sports car might well be able, when driven at high enough speed, to snap a small tree it two. but if it was your sports car, would you try it?

[Galloglaich]

For the most part, I think you are right, but not in all cases... keep in mind for example that it's not just multiple ranks of pikemen, but also multiple ranks (or waves) of heavy cavalrymen whose points can come to bear in an attack... and in the later case often the horses are nearly as well armored as the riders.

It was a power struggle which went back and forth, the best pike infantry could often defeat the middle of the road cavalry but sometimes the best cavalry could defeat middle of the road pike infantry. Even quite late in the game sometimes heavy cavalry maintained their edge; once again we find a good example in the Polish Hussars who seemed to find a way to sometimes beat the pike squares with direct charges, partly because they had such long lances. There is a good article about them here:

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm


G

[Spiryt]

It's worth to consider that not every infantry, especially before 15th century was pikemen braced to take a charge.

With less suitable weapons/tactics it would probably be still very possible to receive charge that's hard to retaliate against.

I wonder how reliably could one charge on to hit stuff with lance/spear, but at some angle/lower speed to not get impaled.

[Galloglaich]

The other thing to keep in mind was that while we tend to think in terms of the West, especially Italy and Holland, where pike and shot was the preferred method for infantry to cope with cavalry; in Central Europe and further East where there was perhaps more open ground it was the war- wagon, the tabor, which was the preferred method, and the latter was apparently quite effective indeed, at least with good well disciplined troops. Notably the Czech Hussites and later, the Cossacks, who used this tactic effectively for centuries against both the armored Western heavy cavalry and the nomadic horse-archers of the Turks and the Mongols. The Germans and Hungarians and others also used this system in different variations.

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

Here the challenge for cavalry wasn't as much about out-reaching the enemies pikes but getting at them behind their moving wooden fortress without getting shot or knocked off your horse with a flail.


G

[Yora]

Are those hussite War Wagons?

[Wardog]

“No, no—no water for that; I want it of the true death-temper. Ahoy, there! Tashtego, Queequeg, Daggoo! What say ye, pagans! Will ye give me as much blood as will cover this barb?” holding it high up. A cluster of dark nods replied, Yes. Three punctures were made in the heathen flesh, and the White Whale’s barbs were then tempered.

Tempering (or quenching) a blade in blood is a trope that shows up in stories every now and again. Is there any real benefit (or any effect) of doing so? Can it even work?

[Yora]

Highly doubt it. At temperatures over 40 degrees blood becomes solid and it would just form a baked layer around the blade. With a big clot of hardened blood, cold liquid could not flow in to replace the hot one, making rapid uniform cooling impossible.

I think it's much more likely that an already quenched blade is heated to a relatively low temperature just too hot to touch and then dipped into blood for purely ceremonial or magical purposes. It's a ritual reenactment of the quenching process, symbolically simulating a quenching in blood.
But it shouldn't work as a way to actually heat-treat the metal.

[Mistral]

Are those hussite War Wagons?

Yes, they are, and they are quite lovely. The problem with the war wagons, and the reason they fell out of style, was the development of practical field artillery. In the 15th century, they were lovely works, essentially portable palisades; by the time of the Peasants War a single century later, their opponents could just stand off and bombard them to splinters. It's the reason why, while the Hussites could stand off dear Siggy, they couldn't do the same against Tilly. It's only in the east, where combined arms wasn't a thing and local Tatars and Mongols didn't have foundries or tactics up to the task, such things remained effective, and even in the American Wild West of the 19th century, the same fundamental defensive principle appears in the form of "circling the wagons."

EDIT:
Oh, and ironically, it's also from the Hussites that the first effective field pieces came, with Zizka's ox-drawn howitzers. They really were quite clever.

[Yora]

Must have been really quite spooky to fight them. First you hear about this bohemian rabble who is winning a number of battles against seasoned knights and when you face them they bunker up in their mobile fortresses and have almost all the gunpowder weapons on the battlefield.
And they didn't had half of Europe on their side, they were fighting their reformation war on their own against all of Europe. As Underdog stories go, you hardly can't beat the Hussites.

And on top of that, they won.

[Galloglaich]

Yes, they are, and they are quite lovely. The problem with the war wagons, and the reason they fell out of style, was the development of practical field artillery. In the 15th century, they were lovely works, essentially portable palisades; by the time of the Peasants War a single century later, their opponents could just stand off and bombard them to splinters. It's the reason why, while the Hussites could stand off dear Siggy, they couldn't do the same against Tilly. It's only in the east, where combined arms wasn't a thing and local Tatars and Mongols didn't have foundries or tactics up to the task, such things remained effective, and even in the American Wild West of the 19th century, the same fundamental defensive principle appears in the form of "circling the wagons."

EDIT:
Oh, and ironically, it's also from the Hussites that the first effective field pieces came, with Zizka's ox-drawn howitzers. They really were quite clever.

Yeah it's a good overview of how the war wagons started, but it's not actually true that the Hussite war wagons were so vulnerable to cannon... first of all they were used on the move, not just in the static wagonbergs, which is a common misapprehension, and as a result they were frequently able to outmaneuver cannon used both by the Turks and by Germans and other Western / Central Europeans.. (and as you noted, they had their own guns with them, in fact arguably the most mobile field artillery until Gustavus Adolphus). The wagon forts continued to be used successfully as a tactic in Central Europe all the way into the 18th Century. Why they were never adapted in say, France or Italy or Holland, is subject for conjecture, though in some cases it's because of the terrain.

In the German peasant uprising of the 16th Century, it was first of all the peasants in question were mostly serfs who had no idea how to use war wagons. The Germans in fact historically had rarely managed to get them right (German crusaders tried to use them during the Hussite wars in imitation of the Czechs but could not make the system work and were quickly routed). It was also untrained, ill-disciplined, poorly armed rabble with little to no effective militia elements, which is a big difference from the original Hussites who were formed around militia from several Czech towns and landfryds, and were extremely well disciplined and led.

But this continued well past the era of the Hussite Crusades. After the Czech moderates won the battle of Lipany in 1434, disgruntled Hussite radicals formed lapka war bands and went to Hungary and Prussia to fight in the various wars in these places, where they continued to do so for several generations, forming the core of the infantry on both sides of the 13 Years War (and proving instrumental in several battles) as well as the hard core of the infantry for both Janos Hunyandi's "Black Army" (and especially under his son Matthias Corvinus) and his fierce rival Janos Jiskra, who went on to found Slovakia.

And under the 'moderate' Hussite armies under the Czech 'commoner king' George of Podebrady as well, who also relied extensively on the tabor. All of these military leaders were highly successful and won numerous major battles against the Germans, the Austrians, the Turks and the Mongols using the war wagons. In fact in spite of more or less continual efforts to crush the Hussites the articles of Prague remained in effect in Bohemia which remained officially religiously tolerant (and predominantly though by no means exclusively Hussite) until the Battle of White Mountain in 1620.

By the 16th Century the Cossacks of the Zaporizhian Sich had also adopted the war-wagon tactic from the Czechs and the Poles and successfully adapted it to the open steppe, where they repeatedly defeated the Turks and Tartars (though they also lost a few battles)

Must have been really quite spooky to fight them. First you hear about this bohemian rabble who is winning a number of battles against seasoned knights and when you face them they bunker up in their mobile fortresses and have almost all the gunpowder weapons on the battlefield.

Yes it was apparently quite scary, the Hussites were seen by many as a sign of the apocalypse and viewed with superstitious awe. At the Battle of Meiss for example in 1427 a huge Crusader army basically collapsed as soon as they started to hear the Hussites singing their war-songs. They also had women fighting in their ranks, which was also pretty unusual by Medieval standards (if perhaps not unheard of).

After all their victories against the Crusaders they went on so-called 'beautiful rides' which were brutal raids against all of their neighbors who had sent armies to invade them, and in some cases well beyond, terrorizing Silesia, Hungary, Poland, Austria and a lot of Germany, all the way to Prussia.



G

[Conners]

How are prisoners captured and kept, during battles? You often hear about noble knights being taken prisoner, but hear little about how they are safely taken from the front lines to somewhere they can be safely held, during a battle.

[Galloglaich]

How are prisoners captured and kept, during battles? You often hear about noble knights being taken prisoner, but hear little about how they are safely taken from the front lines to somewhere they can be safely held, during a battle.

That is an interesting question.

I don't know in every case, but in at least some cases, knights were taken prisoner kind of on the honor system. I know of some major battles in Poland where this happened, in fact in one battle a powerful mercenary Captain named Bernard von Zinnenburg was captured by the Poles, but then the battle went the other way and the Poles lost, he actually participated as a leader, but couldn't fight because he had given his word as a knight, and when the battle was over he turned himself back over to the Polish King and was kept by the Poles for 3 years (in comfortable captivity). In cases like this the knight is often even allowed to keep his sword. Some anecdotes suggested that English longbowmen used to use lead mallets to subdue armored French knights on some occasions so they would be relatively unharmed and could be ransomed.

In the short term, in several other cases, captives including knights were disarmed and tied up. Wealthy captives will usually be kept after until they can pay ransom. Captivity could be very comfortable, like an honored guest, or horrible, chained in some damp basement, or even worse.

Ordinary soldiers can have a widely varying fate. In a lot of Central and Northern Europe, Sweden, Germany (HRE), Poland, Bohemia, Silesia, Prussia... captives between Latin Christian armies were frequently 'paroled', i.e. just disarmed and sent home, with or without a promise not to fight their captor in the future. This sounds kind of crazy but the practice remained common all the way up to the first half of the American Civil War. In the case of wars against different ethinc religious groups, such as in the Crusades against the pagan baltic peoples, or wars with the Russians, Turks or Tartars, it was often nastier, captives were more often killed or enslaved.

Further East, Russia and the Ukraine, and Southeast down in the Balkans, it was much more common for battlefield captives to be killed or become permanent property of their owners (or whoever they were sold to), as slaves or serfs. In the Novgorod chronciles they mention how after one victorious battle with another Russsian town (Suzdal) the price of Suzdal captives went down to one wolf pelt on the marketplace. The Mongols tended to kill everyone who weren't ideal as slaves and enslaved the rest, mainly women and young boys. Same for the Turks.

In the West, in France and Spain notably, captives of common blood were often simply executed if they couldn't afford ransom. The English also famously did this to the French on some occasions, notably Agincourt. On others they were more chivalrous. The Swiss used to have a policy of executing all prisoners, knights or commoners. The Italians used to ransom or parole fellow Italians but execute French or Spanish captives since the latter did the same to them.

It seems often in the heat of the battle, right after a victory, blood lust would lead to a lot of captives being murdered. When there is a negotiated truce, or after the initial crazed moment, it was more likely they would survive to captivity or even be released.


G

[Storm Bringer]

How are prisoners captured and kept, during battles? You often hear about noble knights being taken prisoner, but hear little about how they are safely taken from the front lines to somewhere they can be safely held, during a battle.

what Galloglaich said, plus a little extra:

I think it's important to understand that in a culture of capture and ransom, people fought differently.

firstly, a fighter who got his foe in a fight winning position (ie sword to neck, dagger to belly, etc) would tend to offer "surrender or die", as he could profit more form ransoming a living man than looting a dead man. someone knocked senseless by a blow would also be taken captive rather than just stabbed.

Secondly, a man with a realisitic chance of living would, when faced with a "surrender or die" offer, surrender, having nothing to lose, and everything to gain. thus they will be more likey to co-operate with their captors. almost certainly, they would be escorted to a rear holding area by either their captor or thier captors men at arms.

now, such a system was highly dependant on the captives co-operating, but the fact is one man surrounded by dozens of foes is effectively helpless if it tries to resist, so it becomes a "hard way or easy way, your call" system.


also, while we have this mental image of battles being one huge melee, i am under the impression the battles were more organised, and that two lines might be enguaged without being in contact, thus thier are lulls in which wounded who would be killed off in other times are dragged to saftey or captivity, depending on to gets to who first.


as for people honouring promises, it agian relies on them being men of thier word. but many of the promises not to take arms were made in front of a priest or in chruch, i.e. in front of god, which made them more binding. plus, these were normally offerd to rich men "of honour", the sort that couldn't afford to be seen to be going back on thier word.

plus, thier is alway that human drive to limit the excess of wars. "don't kill my prisoners and i won't kill yours", basically.


a rich noble taken captive could expect to pay a small fortune to be released (a kings ransom, in fact, if you would excuse the pun), thus giving the would be captor a major incentive to take a man alive, much as prize courts made capturing ships a major motive of many naval captains in the napoleonic wars.

the english killing the noble captives at agincourt was a case of military nesscitity overriding financial gain, as their was a threat of french reinforcements arriving and freeing the captives. the knights refused to kill thier ransomable french captives, so the archers (who wouldn't get any money form teh ransoms, and would expect to be killed by the french if taken) had to do the dirty work. it was this massacre of prisoners that caused most of the noteable losses, as i understand it, as all those who would have survived the battle normally were killed.

[Galloglaich]

I think this is a good point:

as for people honouring promises, it agian relies on them being men of thier word. but many of the promises not to take arms were made in front of a priest or in chruch, i.e. in front of god, which made them more binding. plus, these were normally offerd to rich men "of honour", the sort that couldn't afford to be seen to be going back on thier word.

To build on what Storm Bringer said, here is an interesting (and I think kind of cool) excerpt from the annals of Jan Dlugosz, printed in 1480, on his entry for 1451. I think it's a good example of the price you can pay for not being willing to stick by your word and treat captives fairly. John Hunyadi, a ruthless and very powerful warlord from Hungary accustomed to winning victories in the ultra-high sakes battlefields of the Balkans against Turks, Germans and others, is feuding in the northern part of his realm against a powerful Czech mercenary captain, John Jiskra. Hunyadi's reputation for cruelty to the defeated ends up causing him a problem.

"Janos Hunyadi and Jan Giskra are again at loggerheads. Hunyadi is suspected of having tried to kill Giskra while he was attending the wedding of the laters widowed siser. After this, Giskra occupies the monastery at Luzeniec and pronounces Hunyadi his enemy. Hunyadi then invests Luzeniec town which is protected neither by Nature nor by artificial defences; but the fort there is defended by 500 brave and resolute men, who repulse all assaults. Hunyadi surrounds the fort with a double ditch, fenced and reinforced with baskets of earth, and expects it to surrender. The defenders, many of whom are Poles and Czechs, though short of water and provisions, are afraid that if they surrender they will lose eye, nose, face or hands, and so they fight on.

In the meantime, Giskra has assembled a scratch force of some 4,000 foot and horse obtained from outside, and advances against Hunyadi's army, reputed to number some 17,000. Hunyadi is ready to do battle and issues from behind his rampart, leaving only a handful to guard the camp and the waggons, and small force to see that the besieged to not make a sortie. But this is just what the desperate besieged do and attack their besiegers. Hunyadi sends the latter refinforcements, but when the besiegers see them, they think they are fleeing, not coming to their assistance, and so themselves take to their heels; whereupon the rest of Hunyadi's troops follow their example. Giskra's men become exhausted with killing and taking prisoners, one of whom is the Bishop of Eger. Hunyadi's camp is given to the troops to loot, Hunyadi himself escapes."

On the one hand, Hunyadi usually has the element of fear on his side, since he is known to be harsh to those who oppose him (and he rarely loses) but Jiskra, also a successful commander, is known for being fair to his troops and loyal, and the latter have the tough defensive discipline for which the Czechs (and Poles) are known, and in the subtle game of morale that these battles often hinge on, Jiskra's strategy proves to be more beneficial, at least in this case.

G

[Eorran]

Go a question from comments a page or so back. Comments were made to the effect that one of the most important roles of heavy cavalry was to break enemy formations whose morale was low or wavering.

If a commander misjudges the enemy's morale and the infantry holds, this can be disastrous for a cavalry charge, correct?

Was it possible to stop a cavalry attack mid-charge if it became apparent the enemy wasn't going to break?