How continuous was combat?

[Patrick Waterson]

Merci beaucoup.  It looks as if a tentative limit of about one hour for continuous mediaeval close combat may be a reasonable yardstick, Don Pero Nino excepted.  Is this your impression?

I do not propose Dupplin Moor and Agincourt as 'the norm'; I was just interested to see how long the defender could keep going with attackers piling in more or less continuously.

Things are starting to look relatively consistent: Aljubarotta has two half-hour bouts, the Portuguese van doing both with a short interval between; Othee 'upwards of one hour'; Verneuil approximately three quarters of an hour of unusually tough fighting.  The melee at Agincourt is provisionally reckoned as three hours (at least in the Wikipedia article; not sure about the Gesta Henrici), though the tightness and immobility of the attacking formation doubtless made things easier for the English, much as at Dupplin Moor.

[Erpingham]

Merci beaucoup.  It looks as if a tentative limit of about one hour for continuous mediaeval close combat may be a reasonable yardstick, Don Pero Nino excepted.  Is this your impression?

From our limited sample, I'd say provisionally that 30-60 minutes combat would be a good baseline for a phase, or round or whatever term we want.  What being in combat meant in this context is still to be determined.  We know that the first onset was the fiercest and it was important to keep together and absorb this.  After that it seems to be slower, and only enlivened by a fresh force joining the fray (because they come in with initial aggression long siince drained from a standing melee).  Everything is tight packed yet attacks into an enemy mass, sometimes leading to being cut off and killed, obviously occured. 

  The melee at Agincourt is provisionally reckoned as three hours (at least in the Wikipedia article; not sure about the Gesta Henrici), though the tightness and immobility of the attacking formation doubtless made things easier for the English, much as at Dupplin Moor.

Given other examples, I genuinely doubt that the decisive part of Agincourt took three hours.  There is beyond the 30-60 minutes stage the fact that many battles overall were longer (2-3 hours seems quite common but there were longer - Towton and harlaw were both all day battles, for example).  The example of Neville's Cross perhaps hints to a more formal break-and-renew pattern in these cases.

[Patrick Waterson]

Then again, at Neville's Cross both sides were willing and able to call a halt to proceedings: this does not seem to have been in evidence at Dupplin Moor (or Agincourt).

I would suggest we have at least two patterns for mediaeval infantry fighting, or at least for the battles we have looked at: the voluntary engagement, which lasts 30-60 minutes and then either reaches a decision or peters out (but with a possible later retry) and the involuntary engagement, where attackers are coming in all the time and the defender gets rather more stretched.  It is interesting that despite the extended duration of such fights the defenders seem able to cope, albeit we do get the occasional person of rank suffocated in his armour.

Harlaw is interesting because deaths are given as 900 for MacDonald's attackers (said to be 10,000 or so) and 600 for Mar's defenders (said to be between 1,000 and 2,000) for what is pretty nearly an all-day fight (whether intermittent or continuous).  Both sides appear to have used tight formations and those at the sharp end appear to have worn decent armour.  Even so, both sides felt themselves too weak to renew the fight and Mar felt unable even to retreat, which hints at a very high proportion of wounded.

Dripping in a soupcon of theory for the moment, the idea of breaks in melee after every 15-20 minutes of fighting seems to have arisen from the idea that men could not sustain combat for longer and is underpinned by the belief that frequent intervals for self-revival reduce overall casualty figures.  I wonder at the logic here: as men become more fatigued, their fighting capability wanes, so if they carry on for an hour they are probably not achieving all that much during the last half hour unless their opponents are in a worse state, whereas if they took a break every so often they would be refreshed and their killing efficiency would, if anything, increase.  Hence they would make up for the lost time and there should be no discernible effect on overall loss rates.

[Erpingham]

Harlaw is interesting because deaths are given as 900 for MacDonald's attackers (said to be 10,000 or so) and 600 for Mar's defenders (said to be between 1,000 and 2,000) for what is pretty nearly an all-day fight (whether intermittent or continuous).  Both sides appear to have used tight formations and those at the sharp end appear to have worn decent armour.  Even so, both sides felt themselves too weak to renew the fight and Mar felt unable even to retreat, which hints at a very high proportion of wounded.

Yes, and the battle went down in memory as "Reid Harlaw" because it was so bloody.  As neither side broke, the casualty rates might be reflective of an even but steadily attritional fight - both sides seem to have lost under ten per cent.

[aligern]

The idea that breaks were necessary every fifteen minutes or so was based upon the need for recovery after intense physical activity.  I doubt anyone believes that troops could not maintain a more measured level of activity for longer, or that certain types of fighting, advancing with a levelled pike for example, are considerably less draining than fencing around with a sword and a heavy shield with a central grip, wearing a helmet and a mail shirt. The purpose of the breaks is that fighting continuously and exhausting yourself is very dangerous because the warrior is much more prone to make a fatal mistake when tired.
I don't buy the easy assumption that we can say that medieval combat lasted for an hour in which the same men traded blows all the time. A reenactor of considerable experience ,and a Society member, commented to me that troops work in small teams, the chap in full armour fights and then his seconds stand forward whilst he is pulled back to recuperate, breathe and process the lactic acid in his muscles, before he steps forward again.

[Patrick Waterson]

While we have this thread open, is it worth looking at a) the Swiss, for a look at the cream of mediaeval close-combat infantry and b) the continuity and duration of cavalry fights (mediaeval and generally).  Received wisdom has it that cavalry vs cavalry fights were usually over fairly quickly compared to infantry vs infantry struggles, while cavalry vs infantry fights seem to have been broadly speaking of two varieties: the charge-and-kill (or try to) and the stand-off-and-shoot, the former havign discontinuity as its usual trademark and the latter usually being noted for its duration and continuity (cf. Caesar being surrounded by Numidians at Ruspina or Richard's army being assailed by Saracens at Arsuf, our upcoming Battle Day engagement).

A reenactor of considerable experience ,and a Society member, commented to me that troops work in small teams, the chap in full armour fights and then his seconds stand forward whilst he is pulled back to recuperate, breathe and process the lactic acid in his muscles, before he steps forward again.

This is the key: there is a direct relationship between fatigue/exhaustion and lactic acid buildup (it is not the only cause, but for a well-fed person it is the big one).  If you manage to pace your activities so that you do not get a buildup of lactic acid - and men who train for much of the day with double weight weapons are at an advantage in this regard - you can go on for a lot longer than people think.

[aligern]

Short term it is a matter of lactic acid build up, but battle fatigue is far more than that. There is the tiring effect of stress and fear as the price of a mistake is your life, as is the price of failure by others along yourr line whose failure and rout might subject you to a nasty wound or death. The soldier is also trading blows which is why boxing and rugby are good analogies. Even if the blows land on armour or  shield , or if they miss, they exhaust the giver and the receiver. Whther the soldier is pushing in an othismmos or  dodging and seeking advantage there is a lot of straight physical effort.

As an example of intense effort by highly trained athletes we might choose the Boat Race. There the crews go all out from the start, though they are pacing themselves to the course. Physically they are almost certainly fitter than any ancient warrior because they have the benefit of being effectively professionals with scientific training methods, special diets, psychologists in attendance etc. At the end of the race the crews are exhausted, I doubt they would be able to go again if reqested.
The record for  the Boat Race is 16 minutes 19 seconds. 
Roy

[Erpingham]

I don't buy the easy assumption that we can say that medieval combat lasted for an hour in which the same men traded blows all the time.

A slight misunderstanding has crept in here.  30-60 mins is being suggested for a time until, without breaking off an resting, bodies of men seem to be able to function in combat.  The exact nature of combat has been left undefined and I for one wouldn't say that combat involved constant trading of blows.  You postulate that individuals fighting may have changed, with men falling back and others taking their place.  It is possible.  What certainly seems true is after the first few minutes, the initial fighters lose their initial speed and aggression as they tire.  The fighting then is probably lower intensity with occassional pushes at various places on the line, a battlecry and a surge, met if possible by some frantic energy, which either breaks through, is pushed back or cut off an liquidated.  Anyone who can bring in fresh men, particularly on the flanks or rear of the enemy, during this lower intensity phase is probably going to win.

[Patrick Waterson]

Short term it is a matter of lactic acid build up, but battle fatigue is far more than that. There is the tiring effect of stress and fear as the price of a mistake is your life, as is the price of failure by others along your line whose failure and rout might subject you to a nasty wound or death.

Consider also the acute psychological stress of disengaging - get this wrong just once, particularly with tired troops, and you have a rout on your hands - and then having to build up psychologically once more to re-commit yourself to this nasty and potentially lethal environment and you will see why just staying and carrying on fighting may be the least stressful and demanding option.

The soldier is also trading blows which is why boxing and rugby are good analogies. Even if the blows land on armour or  shield , or if they miss, they exhaust the giver and the receiver.

Or rather they do not, especially if he is trained for this sort of thing by spending all day giving blows to a post or giving and receiving them while doing armatura.  Boxing and rugby also both involve a lot of moving around and a good deal of activity at a rapid tempo, whereas standing in line with comrades next to you and behind you and watching for a chance to land a blow on an opponent does not.  The real question is whether your blow, when delivered, will land on shield or armour or whether you will get that rare chance when your foe drops his guard and you can draw blood with your stroke.

Whether the soldier is pushing in an othismos or dodging and seeking advantage there is a lot of straight physical effort.

Not as much as one might think, and in any event the key question is how well he can handle the effort involved.  One index of how physically and psychologically stressful troops find a situation is the amount they sweat.  Sweating, I am reliably informed, arises for four reasons: 1) temperature and humidity, 2) hard exercise 3) strong feelings and 4) hot and spicy foods.  We can eliminate 4) from the classical battlefield, leaving us with the first three as an index of how our troops are doing.  Here we have an illustration from Plutarch, taken from the battle of Vercellae (105 BC).  Marius and Catulus are fighting the Cimbri in sunny north Italy.

"The Romans were favoured in the struggle, Sulla says, by the heat, and by the sun, which shone in the faces of the Cimbri. For the Barbarians were well able to endure cold, and had been brought up in shady and chilly regions, as I have said.  They were therefore undone by the heat; they sweated profusely, breathed with difficulty, and were forced to hold their shields before their faces. For the battle was fought after the summer solstice, which falls, by Roman reckoning, three days before the new moon of the month now called August,  but then Sextilis. [5] Moreover, the dust, by hiding the enemy, helped to encourage the Romans. For they could not see from afar the great numbers of the foe, but each one of them fell at a run upon the man just over against him, and fought him hand to hand, without having been terrified by the sight of the rest of the host. And their bodies were so inured to toil and so thoroughly trained that not a Roman was observed to sweat or pant, in spite of the great heat and the run with which they came to the encounter. This is what Catulus himself is said to have written in extolling his soldiers." - Plutarch, Lives, Caius Marius 26.4-5

This tells us that what the Romans were doing was well within their ability to cope with 1) the heat, 2) the effort and 3) the stress (conveniently lessened by the restricted visibility).  The Cimbri were practically prostrated by 1) the heat, and even if 3) was not a factor, adding in 2) would soon render them quite exhausted.

One might thus expect them to make some serious provision for disengagement and relief of the almost-zonked, in the best tradition of theories of non-continuous fighting.  Yet what do we find?

"The greatest number and the best fighters of the enemy were cut to pieces on the spot; for to prevent their ranks from being broken, those who fought in front were bound fast to one another with long chains which were passed through their belts." - idem 27.1

It would be hard to envisage a clearer commitment to continuous combat.

[aligern]

I think you will find that the 'chained together' story is a myth. It may be some confusion with the chain sword belts that the Gauls used. Chaining the front ranks together would involve huge lengths of chain which there is no conceivable reason for the Gauls to have around. It would also be counter productive as a few casualties hanging on the chains would render the formation incapablebof movement and make it impossible for wounded Gauls to withdraw and be replaced.

I love the way you move from Romans training with a weighted  sword hitting a post to the Roman doing this 'all day'. Is there any evidence for that?  Or even any evidence that they did not take breaks in this all day exercise.
As to the danger and stress of breaking off combat, we have debated this before. The question was why did opposing forces not rush the Romans when they fell back to exchange lines and the answer is simple, bith sides are exhausted and bith sides can see this. Hence you can back iff in confidence that the oppisition are going to welcome a break in proceedings and not  pursue, but back off themselves.
Roy

[Prufrock]

One point to make about training is that nothing but the real thing prepares you for the real thing. Having done (in times past...) years of pre-season rugby training, you can be as fit and prepared as you like, but the stress and pressure of the real match situation will have you gasping and struggling to do what is required. You jog to line outs, you walk to scrums, you do what you can to conserve energy so that you can get to where you need to be and make the tackle you have to make, etc. Every season it's the same: no matter how good the prep it takes two or three games before you feel able to manage, but after that your base fitness takes over and you are fine.

I wonder if there is a similar acclimatization process for battle.

[aligern]

Good points, that suggests that being a veteran who s an enormous help, though it has been reported that novices are the most aggressive but have the least endurance, whilst veterans can be cagy and cautious, but husband their energy.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

One point to make about training is that nothing but the real thing prepares you for the real thing.

Not sure our sources agree on that one.

"And, indeed, if any one does but attend to the other parts of their military discipline, he will be forced to confess that their obtaining so large a dominion hath been the acquisition of their valor, and not the bare gift of fortune; for they do not begin to use their weapons first in time of war, nor do they then put their hands first into motion, while they avoided so to do in times of peace; but, as if their weapons did always cling to them, they have never any truce from warlike exercises; nor do they stay till times of war admonish them to use them; for their military exercises differ not at all from the real use of their arms, but every soldier is every day exercised, and that with great diligence, as if it were in time of war, which is the reason why they bear the fatigue of battles so easily; for neither can any disorder remove them from their usual regularity, nor can fear affright them out of it, nor can labor tire them; which firmness of conduct makes them always to overcome those that have not the same firmness; nor would he be mistaken that should call those their exercises unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises." - Josephus, Jewish War III.5.1 (Whiston chapters)

There is the 'seeing the elephant' element about going into combat for the first time, but doing so in the company of battle-wise veterans makes it a lot easier.  The impression Josephus gives, however, is that Roman training was sufficiently realistic to prepare one for the real thing.

"Now they so manage their preparatory exercises of their weapons, that not the bodies of the soldiers only, but their souls may also become stronger: they are moreover hardened for war by fear; for their laws inflict capital punishments, not only for soldiers running away from the ranks, but for slothfulness and inactivity, though it be but in a lesser degree; as are their generals more severe than their laws, for they prevent any imputation of cruelty toward those under condemnation, by the great rewards they bestow on the valiant soldiers; and the readiness of obeying their commanders is so great, that it is very ornamental in peace; but when they come to a battle, the whole army is but one body, so well coupled together are their ranks, so sudden are their turnings about, so sharp their hearing as to what orders are given them, so quick their sight of the ensigns, and so nimble are their hands when they set to work; whereby it comes to pass that what they do is done quickly, and what they suffer they bear with the greatest patience." - idem III.5.7

I think you will find that the 'chained together' story is a myth. It may be some confusion with the chain sword belts that the Gauls used. Chaining the front ranks together would involve huge lengths of chain which there is no conceivable reason for the Gauls to have around. It would also be counter productive as a few casualties hanging on the chains would render the formation incapable of movement and make it impossible for wounded Gauls to withdraw and be replaced.

Chain sword belts lent by non-front ranks might provide the required lengths of chain, or maybe the Cimbri just had a chain fetish.  As mentioned in other contexts, our sources give the impression that in battles wounded dropped in place and stayed there until the battle was over.

I love the way you move from Romans training with a weighted  sword hitting a post to the Roman doing this 'all day'. Is there any evidence for that?  Or even any evidence that they did not take breaks in this all day exercise.

See Josephus above.  They are exercised to the extent that neither labour nor the fatigue of battles can tire them, however long that takes, with great diligence as if it were in time of war.  Exercises are bloodless battles.  Battles are sanguinary exercises.  There is no distinction between 'training' and the real thing except for the amount of blood being shed.

As to the danger and stress of breaking off combat, we have debated this before.

And it is still just as dangerous.

The question was why did opposing forces not rush the Romans when they fell back to exchange lines and the answer is simple, bith sides are exhausted and bith sides can see this. Hence you can back iff in confidence that the oppisition are going to welcome a break in proceedings and not  pursue, but back off themselves.

This would end the battle.  An exhausted foe who could still move would take advantage of the opportunity to head back to camp rather than "OK chaps, let's wait here for them to throw a fresh line against us and cut us to pieces."

[aligern]

Unfortunately, Patrick, your cites from Josephus prove nothing about the duration of combat,though they do support the argument that the Romans win because they can outlast opponents. Are we to believe that the legionaries really do exercise at arms every day?  and if they all exercise all day as was suggested earlier that's 4,000 posts to be set up somewhere.

If combat consisted of periods of intense activity interspersed with lulls then the legionaries just have to train to fight for a bit longer than that and to have a generally high level of overall fitness so that their  recovery period is short. No one doubts that, at their best (for there are examples of soft legions) the Romans are fitter and have better endurance than their opponents, but if all combat is in short bursts then endurance is relative.
Whlst we are looking at Plutarch's life of Gaius Marius,nhow about this from his battle against the Teutones:
'21 1 Accordingly, the Romans awaited the enemy's onset, then closed with them and checked their upward rush, and at last, crowding them back little by little, forced them into the plain. Here, while the Barbarians in front were at last forming in line on level ground, there was shouting and commotion in their rear. For Marcellus had watched his opportunity, and when the cries of battle were borne up over the hills he put his men upon the run and p521fell with loud shouts upon the enemy's rear, where he cut down the hindmost of them. 2 Those in the rear forced along those who were in front of them, and quickly plunged the whole army into confusion, and under this double attack they could not hold out long, but broke ranks and fled. The Romans pursued them and either slew or took alive over a hundred thousand of them, besides making themselves masters of the tents, waggons, and property, all of which, with the exception of what was pilfered, was given to Marius by vote of the soldiers. And though the gift that he received was so splendid, it was thought to be wholly unworthy of his services in the campaign, where the danger that threatened had been so great.'
Now Marius' troops are uphill, the Teutones run to attack them and cannot form an effective shieldwall because of the terrain. The Romans force them back down to the flat ground at the base of  the hill where the barbarians 'in front' attempt to form a line.  That suggests strongly that after the action on the hill, there is a lull in which the barbarians attempt to form in an ordered manner. That looks just like combat with a break and separation.

[Patrick Waterson]

Unfortunately, Patrick, your cites from Josephus prove nothing about the duration of combat,though they do support the argument that the Romans win because they can outlast opponents.

Josephus is highly specific (which is why that part was in bold): their military exercises differ not at all from the real use of their arms, but every soldier is every day exercised, and that with great diligence, as if it were in time of war, which is the reason why they bear the fatigue of battles so easily.  The battle lasts as long as it takes to defeat the foe, and as Josephus points out at that time the Romans were not often defeated (except by each other).  Given his insistence on the Romans being methodical rather than dashing, a slow, steady grind seems right up their street.

Are we to believe that the legionaries really do exercise at arms every day?  and if they all exercise all day as was suggested earlier that's 4,000 posts to be set up somewhere.

Josephus says so - he was alive at the time and as a guest of the Flavians he saw it happening; not however at the post.  Vegetius puts recruits through the post exercise, not fully-trained legionaries, who would combine unit drills with armatura.  Recruits tended to come in rather smaller-than-legion-sized contingents.  Whether the Republican Romans dotted the Field of Mars with thousands of practice stakes is a subject which has as far as I know gone unrecorded, but it would be no harder to arrange than, say, crucifying 6,000 slaves along the Appian Way.

"THE POST EXERCISE

We are informed by the writings of the ancients that, among their other exercises, they had that of the post. They gave their recruits round bucklers woven with willows, twice as heavy as those used on real service, and wooden swords double the weight of the common ones. They exercised them with these at the post both morning and afternoon.

This is an invention of the greatest use, not only to soldiers, but also to gladiators. No man of either profession ever distinguished himself in the circus or field of battle, who was not perfect in this kind of exercise. Every soldier, therefore, fixed a post firmly in the ground, about the height of six feet. Against this, as against a real enemy, the recruit was exercised with the above mentioned arms, as it were with the common shield and sword, sometimes aiming At the head or face, sometimes at the sides, at others endeavoring to strike at the thighs or legs. He was instructed in what manner to advance and retire, and in short how to take every advantage of his adversary; but was thus above all particularly cautioned not to lay himself open to his antagonist while aiming his stroke at him." - Vegetius, De Re Militari I.10

If combat consisted of periods of intense activity interspersed with lulls then the legionaries just have to train to fight for a bit longer than that and to have a generally high level of overall fitness so that their  recovery period is short. No one doubts that, at their best (for there are examples of soft legions) the Romans are fitter and have better endurance than their opponents, but if all combat is in short bursts then endurance is relative.

And if not, endurance is still relative.

Whlst we are looking at Plutarch's life of Gaius Marius,nhow about this from his battle against the Teutones:
'21 1 Accordingly, the Romans awaited the enemy's onset, then closed with them and checked their upward rush, and at last, crowding them back little by little, forced them into the plain. Here, while the Barbarians in front were at last forming in line on level ground, there was shouting and commotion in their rear. For Marcellus had watched his opportunity, and when the cries of battle were borne up over the hills he put his men upon the run and p521fell with loud shouts upon the enemy's rear, where he cut down the hindmost of them. 2 Those in the rear forced along those who were in front of them, and quickly plunged the whole army into confusion, and under this double attack they could not hold out long, but broke ranks and fled. The Romans pursued them and either slew or took alive over a hundred thousand of them, besides making themselves masters of the tents, waggons, and property, all of which, with the exception of what was pilfered, was given to Marius by vote of the soldiers. And though the gift that he received was so splendid, it was thought to be wholly unworthy of his services in the campaign, where the danger that threatened had been so great.'
Now Marius' troops are uphill, the Teutones run to attack them and cannot form an effective shieldwall because of the terrain. The Romans force them back down to the flat ground at the base of  the hill where the barbarians 'in front' attempt to form a line.  That suggests strongly that after the action on the hill, there is a lull in which the barbarians attempt to form in an ordered manner. That looks just like combat with a break and separation.

One break and separation, perhaps, although Plutarch does not note it as such; the Romans chivvied the various groups of Teutones off the hill and the barbarians fell back to level ground, where they squidged into a line.  But was either side fatigued?  Nothing in the account suggests this.  What we are told is that the Romans awaited the enemy's onset, closed with them, checked their upward rush and then "at last, crowding them back little by little, forced them into the plain".  This looks entirely continuous; although the Teutones "in front were at last forming in line on level ground," this need not require separation, simply that the various groups falling back were consolidating into a single formation.  Indeed, it is hard to see where the subsequent "double attack" comes from if Marius was taking a break and only Marcellus was attacking at the time.