Can you charge with a pavise?

[dwkay57]

I nearly put this under "Rule System Discussions" but thought it was better to start with checking the evidence before going on to the mechanics

My current 6mm solo battle involves my Achaemenid Persians with lots of Sparabara type infantry. On the basis that it is difficult to run whilst carrying a small fencing panel, let alone fight and stay in line, and that the Persians apparently had props for the pavises, I decided that troops fighting in this style cannot charge. But then I wondered if there was any evidence for them doing so?

As a spin-off there is then the question of how much - if any - archery support the rear ranks could supply if they too were charging into melee. Simon's latest Tactica2 article with Late Romans reminded me that other armies also apparently had rear rank archers supporting troops that did charge. However, the Persians seemed to focus on massed volley fire to darken the skies with their arrows whilst other supporting troops potentially were sniping through gaps.

[Jim Webster]

One argument would be that if you've got a wall of archers behind you, why would you want to charge into close combat. Let the lads play and whittle the enemy down whilst you're comparatively safe 

But Scots and French infantry seem to have advanced behind pavises or very heavy shields to attack English longbowmen. So obviously it could be done

[Erpingham]

But Scots and French infantry seem to have advanced behind pavises or very heavy shields to attack English longbowmen.

  Italian and Flemish crossbowmen could advance behind their pavises, which were carried by separate shield bearers, but this just made their "fence" mobile, rather than gave it offensive capabilities.

For medieval evidence, perhaps the Bohemians might be a good example to look at. 

I'm not sure anyone could actually charge with a medieval pavise, though. They were bulky and heavy.

[Ian61]

From the non historical examples in my collection I have assumed a bearer carried it with perhaps a spear or other hand weapon at the ready. Illustrations show both this and crossbow men carrying their own. In either case they look too 'clunky' to fight with whilst actively moving and I certainly would not like to try charging anything well armed whilst carrying one.

[Jim Webster]

I think it depends on what you mean by a pavise. The Scots front rank at Flodden carried "huge pavise type shields"

[Mark G]

Didn't the medieval ones have a strap to carry over your back with, hands free and no movement impediment?

But broadly, pavaise equipment seems to preclude charging, but allow steady advance to contact if required.

[stevenneate]

I think it depends on what you mean by a pavise. The Scots front rank at Flodden carried "huge pavise type shields"

And how did that turn out?

[Andreas Johansson]

The DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.

[Jim Webster]

I think it depends on what you mean by a pavise. The Scots front rank at Flodden carried "huge pavise type shields"

And how did that turn out?

Apparently it was reasonable protection against longbows, but damn all use against the rough types with bills

[Imperial Dave]

There's still one or two of those knocking about now Jim 

[Keraunos]

The DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.

My bit of googling gives no mention of pavises in the Wikipedia article on Flodden but has raised a few references to Scots pikes carrying shields (bucklers) while other troops had crude 'targets' made of ends of boards but nothing the size of a pavise.  It is very hard to see how a pikeman with a 5.5 meter pike requiring both hands to use could also carry a pavise at all, let alone charge with it (through a bog).  On the other hand, it seems that the Scots put their best armoured men in the front rank, possibly not armed with pikes (?) and archery was not very effective against them.  Was this because they carried pavises to protect the men behind, or because of their armour?  Again, very hard to see armoured men making their way through a bog with a pavise.

What sources are there for pavises at Flodden?  The only references I have turned up are from battles later in the century when there is some slight attestation for them being used as a protection against English shot.

[dwkay57]

Hmm, not too much about the Persians....

On that basis my Xerxes will probably stick to his normal tactics (a bit like Mark G's) of: advance form a shieldwall, shoot when the enemy comes in range (note they can only fire at short range), bounce the charge with a mix of spear prodding and more archery, then if the enemy starts to back off - advance the wall, reform, shoot etc.

Very occasionally a unit will become over eager and charge enemy in the adjacent hex in which case they don't get much of shooting support bonus.

[Jim Webster]

For original sources I came across this

"Thomas Ruthal, Bishop of Durham, explained in a letter to Thomas Wolsey dated 20 September 1513:
English Heritage Battlefield Report: Flodden 1513
© English Heritage 1995
The said Scots were so surely harnessed with complete harness, German jacks, rivets, splents [forms of body armour], pavises [large wooden shields], and other habilments, that shot of arrows in regard did them no harm; and when it came to hand strokes of bills and halberds, they were so mighty, large, strong, and great men that they would not fall when four or five bills struck on one of them at once. Howbeit our bills quitted them very well, and did more good that day than bows, for they shortly disappointed the Scots of their long spears wherein was their greatest trust; and when they came to hand stroke, though the Scots fought sore and valiantly with their swords, yet they could not resist the bills that lighted so thick and sore upon them7.
In the past Edward Hall's Chronicle, first published in 1548 (though written slightly earlier), has been widely quoted in connection with Flodden. At first sight there might not appear any good reason why it should be regarded as more authoritative than the accounts written c.1570 by Holinshed, or the Scottish chroniclers Buchanan, Pitscottie and Leslie. However, it is known that Hall quoted practically verbatim from a contemporary account of 'the order and behaviour' of the Earl of Surrey against the Scots printed 'in Fletestrete at the sign of the George by Richard Pynson, printer unto the King's noble grace'. The account was compiled by 'one unworthy whom it pleased the said earl to have about him'"

[Swampster]

It also depends what your game considers a charge. A slow press forward may result in contact or in short range bow fire for the bow types. If the defenders are not equipped with missiles, they may be the ones who initiate the actual hand strokes but the overall tactical view would show the pavise holders as the aggressors.

"Didn't the medieval ones have a strap to carry over your back with, hands free and no movement impediment?"

I do wonder how common this was.
There is the oft repeated picture of a crossbowman at a siege doing this, though the crossbowman to his side has his pavise held by a bearer. I can't remember off-hand any others.
In Manuscript miniatures, there are 100 pictures tagged with 'pavise' and I didn't see any where the crossbowman is carrying his own pavise, loads (mostly Italian) with a spearman carrying the pavise - though often with no associated crossbowmen - and quite a few where there is someone with no obvious weapon holding a pavise for a crossbowman. I have a note that Verbruggen and others describe Low Countries the pavise being held by a 'boy' (knaap, iirc).
Nicolle had an essay online in which he said the Genoese at Crecy would have had their pavises carried by bearers but I don't know if there is a contract which details this.

This is a non-historical scene but shows an example https://manuscriptminiatures.com/3932/10781

One of the 1950s Czech films on the Hussite wars shows a bearer and crossbowman partnership really nicely.

[Erpingham]

The DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.

Froissart describes it but in one of the bits missing in the common English translations.  It's in Johnes' translation - I'll see if I can find it.  There are a number of descriptions of English archery failing against pavise-bearing infantry, IIRC.