Can you charge with a pavise?

[Erpingham]

On what the Scottish formation might have looked like at Flodden, have a look at pictures of the battle of Wenzenbach in 1504 (there are lots, but many are derivative)





Note the use of pike over pavise.

I'm not sure you could advance like this - you might need to discard the pavises, or the front rank ditch pikes to handle the pavise.

[Nick Harbud]

I note this example of a pavise from the Royal Armouries Old Tower Collection has the following dimensions and weight.

Length	860 mm
Width at base	382 mm
Width at top	432 mm
Weight	5159 g

It is of wood covered with gesso (white paint and binder) and painted, and covered on the inside with coarse canvas soaked in glue and then lined with parchment. It is painted with the arms of Wimpfen, or an eagle displayed sable holding a key in its beak. Inside there are two bars for the grip and a hook and staple for the carrying strap.

Now, according to Wikipedia, the classical Greek hoplon/aspis was approximately 0.9m m diameter, weighed something like 7.3 kg, and had similar arrangements to the pavise for its carriage on the march and into battle. 

Therefore, if you believe that Greek hoplites could charge whilst carrying an aspis, then I think you should also accept that it was possible to charge with this type of pavise.

 

[Erpingham]

Oddly enough, I was researching the Royal Armouries pavises yesterday as part of a blog conversation with Jon (mainly about decoration).  Most of the collection have details of dimensions, including weight.  Note that Nick's example is a large "hand pavise", not one of the big body pavises (which tend to be about 1.2m long and weigh about 7.5-10 kg). See this one from Zwickau.  Quite a few museums have pavises in their collections - there's a nice collection in Philadelpia for example - but write ups often focus on the decoration rather than construction and use.

[DBS]

Going back to the Achaemenids, I will naturally defer to Duncan, but whilst the Persian infantry seem to have stood firm at Marathon and Plataea, thus not inconsistent with the assumptions about sparabara, equally at Thermopylae they were the ones advancing to contact. Now, maybe not a "charge", maybe a slow but steady advance to bow range with the Greeks being the ones who then closed the last few paces rather than just sitting and taking it, but...

The Immortals are certainly portrayed at Persepolis with more conventional shields, so unless just parade items, I have never assumed them to be sparabara, assuming that was a real thing.

EDIT - probably dodgy of me to assume the Persepolis lads are necessarily Immortals - let us just say Guardsmen of an indeterminate nomenclature.

[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.

The battle is covered in Chapter 196 of Johnes Froissart.  You can read it here

The relevant passage is

At this time, however, the French infantry, who could not make such haste as the men at arms, arrived. This infantry were full nine hundred men, and, being armed with lances and large shields†, broke through the line of the archers and flung them in disorder; for their shields were so strong, that the arrows made no impression on them.


These pavise equipped infantry are obviously moving offensively but probably not charging.  Firstly, because medieval heavy infantry were naturally plodding and secondly, they were attacking uphill.

[Duncan Head]

Going back to the Achaemenids, I will naturally defer to Duncan, but whilst the Persian infantry seem to have stood firm at Marathon and Plataea, thus not inconsistent with the assumptions about sparabara, equally at Thermopylae they were the ones advancing to contact. Now, maybe not a "charge", maybe a slow but steady advance to bow range with the Greeks being the ones who then closed the last few paces rather than just sitting and taking it, but...

The Immortals are certainly portrayed at Persepolis with more conventional shields, so unless just parade items, I have never assumed them to be sparabara, assuming that was a real thing.

EDIT - probably dodgy of me to assume the Persepolis lads are necessarily Immortals - let us just say Guardsmen of an indeterminate nomenclature.

Well ... the Medes and the Kissians attacked at Thermopylai before the Immortals did, and they were both contingents equipped as sparabara, so that's no reason for believing the Immortals weren't. And there are guards with spara at Persepolis, the only Achaemenid depictions we have IIRC, and  no reason to believe they're not Immortals, if anyone at Persepolis is. (Always assuming the Immortals actually existed...). And the Persian infantry with a spara-wall at Plataia are probably Immortals, if only because it is not at all clear what other Persian infantry were present.

The question that occurs to me is whether they, or any Persian infantry indeed, always fought with the wicker shield-wall, or if they had other gear available (shades of the hypaspist discussion).

[dwkay57]

Oh no! Don't start changing history now
I have 560 little figures fighting for my Persians in the Sparabara style. I don't want to have to replace them.

[Erpingham]

I have never assumed them to be sparabara, assuming that was a real thing.

This remark has made me think.  What do our sources tell us about sparabara fighting?  I remember Plataea with the wall of shields, which had to be broken through.  This seems to be static. What do we have on how this formation operated offensively? 

[Keraunos]

Oh no! Don't start changing history now
I have 560 little figures fighting for my Persians in the Sparabara style. I don't want to have to replace them.

No. The inference is that you need to paint another 560 to represent all the other types! 

In my view, given the incontrovertible fact that Newline Design's Immortals in campaign dress come with those shields with cutouts at the side (Boeotian shields?), that is what they must have had.  Sparabara can go with Medes, Kissians and other hoi poloi.

[Justin Swanton]

Is charging really a thing for infantry? It is for cavalry and chariots since the horse's mass can be very effective at breaking through an infantry line. Infantry though seem to just move forward to contact or not move and let the enemy come to them. Some move faster than others but the final result is the same. There's no actual impact in an infantry charge. Every infantry formation can move so it really depends on what they decide to do, no?

[dwkay57]

Keraunos, within my satrapal Persian armies I have enough of the other "types" to enable Xerxes men to stick with their fencing panels. If each of my 6mm armies is to be unique in some way then the Sparabara style is that for the Persians.

I think "charge" in our wargaming terminology just means "any advance into hand-to-hand melee across a reasonable frontage and formation (to exclude a couple of individuals skirmishing)" Justin. So the speed and manner in which they do it will be dependent on cultures, style and level of enthusiasm.

Based on what's been discussed so far, it does seem that the sparabara drill book was to advance, halt, shoot, and either keep shooting or repeat if the enemy fell back. 

[Erpingham]

I think "charge" in our wargaming terminology just means "any advance into hand-to-hand melee across a reasonable frontage and formation (to exclude a couple of individuals skirmishing)"

This may be a cause of some confusion in the question.  To me, and perhaps others, charging implies greater speed (trot, run) than advancing to contact (walk, shamble).  Doing the latter while impersonating a mobile fence seems more practical than the former.

[Mark G]

The only things which would preclude infantry charging would be the equipment preventing it, or the formation being unable to maintain coherence - which would be a clear no for anyone except a fool.

So if the spear was too long (Swiss suggest that's not a thing), or the shield was too big to run with (can't see that being true if you can fight behind it), then I think you really only need to consider whether they could maintain formation.

[Cantabrigian]

Is charging really a thing for infantry?

Good question!

I'd suggest that running towards your opponents while screaming a war-cry was a pretty common thing, just because it works your guys up, and there's always a chance that the other side will fail their morale test and run away.

I'd guess you're more interested in what happens if that doesn't work...

If you believe in othismos, then obviously you're going to charge into contact, because it gives you an initial advantage in the pushing.

I guess the key determinant may have been how well armoured and shielded you were.  If you have a big, heavy shield then use it to role the opponents over.  If you don't have a shield and armour then you'd probably stop, and engage in some fancy sword play.

Did cataphracted horses know they were wearing armour?  I.e. did their behaviour change because they knew they were safer in it?

[Erpingham]

I think Mark has already flagged the key part - maintaining a coherent formation. You can run like a mass of individuals or walk like a formed body. Which you do depends on your "way of war". 

If you believe in othismos, then obviously you're going to charge into contact, because it gives you an initial advantage in the pushing.

I think Paul Bardunias' findings suggest that, if you are reconstructing an aspis-pushing form of othismos, running is no help. Steady advance followed by steady pressure, rather than a series of shocks, works better.

As to whether othismos existed, its not really the question.  "A phenomenon called othismos is mentioned in our sources.  What was it?" is better but we flogged it to death in the past here, so interested newcomers should search those out to see what we made of it.  Spoiler alert - we ended up divided on the question