SoA Forums

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 09, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
Thanks for this Anthony. Any theories on why pikemen transitioned from undearm to overarm?

Afraid not.  I'm not sure I've read anything on it and I can't think of an obvious reason.  It ought to have to do with the general adoption of pike fighting and the increasingly reflective approach to tactics. More users, new adopters, wider range of tactical scenarios would give a context for development but I don't know what the improvement was.

I suppose an overarm use could help with more concussive blows?

I believe there are renaissance sources who noted that when underam are pushed, the pike slides up, while overarm it slides down, making underarm easier to disarm (as it were), while overarm pushed into the ground are still an impact on the enemy formation.  But overarm needed much more training and fitness.

Or something like that, anyway

Returning to the subject of frontages and depths, I said I had a medieval example.  I was being a little hasty

We have an eyewitness account by John I of castile of the Battle of Aljubarrota in 1385.  We know exactly where the battle was fought - a chapel was built in the centre of the Portugese position shortly afterwards.  John says that the enemy were positioned between two arroyos in a position 300 to 340 lanzas wide.  Although lanza can be translated "spearman" it probably means "man-at-arms" here.  The Castilian first two divisions were made up of men-at-arms.  So all we need do is take a scale plan, measure the width on the ground, divide by 300 or 340 and we have a contemporary estimate of the frontage of a man-at-arms.  This is where the fun starts.

Firstly, is John thinking of mounted men-at-arms or dismounted?  In this battle, his vanguard and main battle rode forward, dismounted and attacked on foot.
Secondly, how wide was the position?  I have two scaled plans which show that the distance between the streams is 750-800 m.  But the battlefield has a central plateau falling steeply away on both sides.  Only about half that width is flat .  Exactly how much is difficult to judge but the Portugese position, which was unflankable, was about 350m wide.  This can be seen in this relief map (which unfortunately doesn't have a scale - my old geography teacher would have gone berserk - but I think this is because its a screen shot from the AV presentation at the battlefield centre)



So, if we assume John is matching his line with the battlefield width as represented by Portugese position, each man-at-arms has approximately 1.0 - 1.2 m. frontage.  John must, therefore, be talking about troops on foot.

On further reflection, I think this must remain moot.  Napoleonic heavy cavalry frontages were apparently around the 40-42 inch (1.0-1.1m) in close order.  So, MAA in close order were probably not much different.

Quote from: Holly on March 09, 2018, 03:14:59 PM
when Shields started going out of 'fashion' at a guess

But even the early, underarm-wielders in Anthony's images are shieldless. (In the first image there's infantrymen with shields, but near as I can tell those particular men aren't wielding likes.)

Using shields with two-handed weapons of any kind seems to have been unusual in the middle ages (because grips where different?), so maybe an increasing popularity of such weapons (pikes, two-handed swords, various polearms) is why shields go out of fashion in the first place?

You do get Bohemian infantry with pikes and pavises around 1500, but the pavises are freestanding, and it seems to've been a dead end tactically.

it could be that the increasing weight of armour meant that the shield wasn't needed and also that you needed a double handed weapon to get through the armour ?

QuoteYou do get Bohemian infantry with pikes and pavises around 1500, but the pavises are freestanding, and it seems to've been a dead end tactically.

Here is an picture of said infantry at the Battle of Schoenberg (aka Wenzenbach) in 1504, image probably dating to around 1515.



Note the use of the high grip with the pavise, demonstrating, as Jim says, that these are freestanding.

On the general subject of shields and two-handed weapons, we might note that the shieldless Flemings date to only a few years after Burgundian ordnances insisted all pikemen carried a buckler.  Scots pikemen were still using shields in 1547. 

In terms of art, it is rare to see an image of someone with a two-handed weapon and a shield in combat.  Yet shields probably were still regularly carried at the turn of the 15th century, if the art is anything to go by.  Figures with swords or short lances carry shields.  The usual explanation of a mutual reinforcement of better armour meaning less reasons for shields and the need for two-handed weapons to deal with better armour does make sense.

We might speculate what men at arms did with their shields when they prepared for dismounted combat.  Perhaps they were passed to the page when the horse was taken to the rear?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 11, 2018, 10:13:25 AM
We might speculate what men at arms did with their shields when they prepared for dismounted combat.  Perhaps they were passed to the page when the horse was taken to the rear?

Erm, the mounted men at arms in the picture appear to lack shields.  Therefore, this may not be an issue.   

Quote from: NickHarbud on March 11, 2018, 02:26:55 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 11, 2018, 10:13:25 AM
We might speculate what men at arms did with their shields when they prepared for dismounted combat.  Perhaps they were passed to the page when the horse was taken to the rear?

Erm, the mounted men at arms in the picture appear to lack shields.  Therefore, this may not be an issue.   

But they date to the early 16th century, not the early 15th.  Shields were on their way out by the time of Agincourt according to most arms and armour books.  But men-at-arms had been dismounting and fighting on foot through most of the 14th century, while shields were apparently still in use.

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 11, 2018, 07:28:58 AM
it could be that the increasing weight of armour meant that the shield wasn't needed and also that you needed a double handed weapon to get through the armour ?

thats what i thought

I think we have exhausted our small stock of "measured" formation densities.  I am in some ways surprised there aren't many of these things we know of in our period.  This partly because expressions implying proximity were used instead of measured distances in many places, I suppose.

Leaving for a moment the Chinese example, we seem to be dealing with frontages of 72 to 14 inches for heavy infantry.  Again, it is hard to know whether all these options were used in combat, as opposed to in manouever.  One is tempted to see the standard distance as 2 cubits/ 3ft, which could close down to about half that frontage in defence.  It is also clear that tightening the formation closed the ranks and files together.  This last seems universal - the Chinese example works on a space per man and that space contracts as the unit closes ranks in a parallel to a Byzantine formation closing from the sides and rear.  It is interesting too how the non-measured distance "shield-to-shield" is used.  In classical times there was synaspismos, Byzantines could by syskouton and similar terms are used are used to describe Vikings at Stamford Bridge and Scots at bannockburn among doubtless many more.  The shield, of course, is a large physical obstacle to cramming close together so it is rather straightforward visualisation to use it to mean tightly together.

I wonder if it is useful to  consider how soldiers would deliver a particular deployment. British infantry drill in the 60s was to form a line on a fixed right marker, then placing  ones fist on the outer part of the next man in line's left shoulder with the left arm hanging down, and shuffle to the left. This did not exactly deliver a one yard gap , but it spread the line so that there was sufficient gap between individuals that when the formation carried out a right or left turn and began to march an arm swung firward to soldier height did not hit the man, formerly to the side and now to the front.
My belief is that ancient systems of engineering ( and this is engineering a formation out of human components) used fail safe procedures for ensuring that elements fitted together in the right way. To deploy thousands of men it is likely that some such human measurement system was used.  It is easy for a formation based on an arms length separation to double  inwards to increase density, by every alternate rank stepping forward and to the right...or left.
It would not be a good idea for men to crush in densely together as people will end up crushed and unable to use their weapons. To create  a wider spacing men could stand holding out both arms and touching hands on both sides.
Roy

I'm not aware of any reference to stretch out arms to get the spacing right, which might be a bit difficult with both hands carrying weapons anyway.  The "shields together" order does allow the use of the shield as a measuring device, I suppose. 

Such human measurements aren't difficult to set up.
If the man on the right stands with his shield held in his left hand, at his left side, then the man to the left of him need merely stretch out his right hand before he draws his sword. If his fingers can just touch the shield, he's near enough.
If they have spears, the man on the left stretches out his spear hand with the spear held vertical and makes sure his knuckles just touch the shield.

It strikes me that this is a far more sensible way of measuring spacing than assuming the sergeant came round with a spear shaft marked in cubits to check on spacing 

I'm sure there was some form of human measurement (like a stuck out arm) and also that there was no precise measurement (like someone going along with a measuring stick - which makes the discussions that sometimes crop up about Attic or some other cubit a bit moot). I imagine (with no evidence) that it was generally done by eye, by what felt about right, and by experience of what was usually done, which means that in practice the intervals would have been quite uneven and imprecise. Of course once having established one interval (which it seems was the widest, 6 feet / 2 metres / 4 cubits) the others would arise naturally if doubling the files (but note this wasn't the only way to close up - it was also possible (tacticians) to close up while retaining depth). Also I suspect a lot of armies didn't have a formal interval at all, but just did what felt about right (based around width of man/shield etc). It seems significant that across the whole of our period the only tactical manuals that exist are the Hellenistic ones.