# Ask me about Strategy and Tactics



## thedarknessrising (Nov 9, 2012)

I'm a huge tactics and strategy nut. If you have any questions regarding troop positions, let me know. I'll do my best to answer them.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 9, 2012)

Here's one: how much were battles with shieldwalls fought out (as our friend Wikipedia says) really by both groups just pushing shield-against-shield and second-row-shields-supporting-your-front-rank's-backs trying to shove the enemy line over and create openings on the shieldwall? What eras and weaponry were that plan most used with?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Nov 9, 2012)

_This_ thread could come in handy.


----------



## thedarknessrising (Nov 9, 2012)

Just remember I'm only a teen, but I do know SOME things.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 10, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> Here's one: how much were battles with shieldwalls fought out (as our friend Wikipedia says) really by both groups just pushing shield-against-shield and second-row-shields-supporting-your-front-rank's-backs trying to shove the enemy line over and create openings on the shieldwall? What eras and weaponry were that plan most used with?


[I think]
The last people to use this tactic were the Byzantium [Byzantines?]. They were still using a variation of the roman military system in the early middle ages. Large shields and long 2-3m spears.
Up to the 18th century the Pike phalanx was still in use in Europe. There were no shields but spear [called pikes] up to 6m long with 3-4-5 rows overlapping at the front. The formation was great against cavalry but as soon as the musket got popular and common enough it was useless. [The Vatican guard come from this ear and still have pikes for ceremonial purposes...]
There was a roman battle where an army was encircled and the shield-wall was used to crush them in to a tight mass so they couldn't use their swords or defend themselves. They were slaughtered. If my memory serves me 60-70,000 were killed by hand in one day... can't find the reference though...


----------



## Gurkhal (Nov 10, 2012)

What would you say are the basics of chariot warfare? I understand it as there are basically two main uses for chariots, either used as a mobile plattform for range combat or used to charge into the enemy and run over him. Some elaboration from someone in the know would however be helpful.


----------



## Kahle (Dec 4, 2012)

Shield walls were used in numerous cultures, from the Greek/Macedonian phalanx, the Roman tortoise, and the Viking shield wall. Of these, the Vikings were the amateurs, as most of their combat was raid-based, though it was a shoving match if two such forces collided. After that it was ax and spear work, archers if they were lucky-most people couldn't afford a sword. The Romans would use the shield wall with each man's shield touching the man's next to him. The ranks behind would hold their shields above the front ranks to protect against arrows. This was incredibly protective, and their shields were specifically designed to perform this action-Vikings used round shields-but it was slow moving and required discipline. When the Romans met the enemy, they would let their opponents strike the shields, then push forward to bash the enemy in the face or stagger him, then quickly thrust with the gladius before retreating behind the shields once again. If a man went down, he was replaced by the one behind him and so on. If the Romans broke formation however, they were soon slaughtered, as they were much weaker individual fighters one on one.

The Greek phalanx relied more on distance and mobility than shield protection. Most hoplites-the individual warriors-used a large round shield, but larger than the later Viking examples. Their spears on the other hand, were the main weapon, and could reach lengths of 18'. the front rank held out their spears and shields, while the ranks behind them leveled their lances over the front ranks' shoulders, forming a mobile spike wall. The rear ranks would hold their lances straight in the air so as to not hit their comrades.

Chariots were, as stated mainly for ranged combat, though the warrior would have carried a lance for close combat. Each chariot was drawn by 2-4 horses and held 2-3 combatants-a driver, a warrior, and sometimes a shield bearer. The chariot was usually a light frame of wood with minimal armor, and could easily be carried by a young man. The chariots would charge enemies, usually frightening them into routing, while the warriors rained arrows down upon them. Chariots could also be infamously outfitted with spinners, a sort of blade or spike that would extend from the axle and cut out the legs of fleeing infantry. Chariots were incredibly fast, and due to the two man system, more maneuverable and deadly than a lone rider.


----------



## wordwalker (Dec 4, 2012)

At about 600 BC or so we start to see the rise of serious cavalry, usually in Middle Eastern and Asian lands dominated by horse nomads-- and an explosion of vast empires like Persia, the Mongols, and the Han Chinese. (This isn't to say that all their armies were all horsemen --expensive!-- but a well-used calvalry component gave a real edge, and of course you need horsemen just to patrol a far-flung empire. Then again, for the Mongols, each warrior might have _several_ horses.)

Marathon and Thermopylae were both battles of heavier-armored shieldwall Greeks facing large Persian forces built more to overwhelm lighter foes, and catching the Persians in places where their cavalry and numbers didn't work.

I've always thought that the fall of Rome and other order in the West made armies less willing to commit to shieldwalls as fully. And with cavalry turning up more (especially in raids from the East), they had more interest in either fielding their own knights, or drilling soldiers with pikes.


----------



## Devor (Dec 4, 2012)

Gurkhal said:


> What would you say are the basics of chariot warfare? I understand it as there are basically two main uses for chariots, either used as a mobile plattform for range combat or used to charge into the enemy and run over him. Some elaboration from someone in the know would however be helpful.



Chariots usually held two people, a driver and an archer.  The common technique was to approach the enemy in a line that curves into a U ahead of the enemy formation, with archers shooting off their arrows primarily at the base.  The chariot bow was somewhere between the longbows and the short bows of the time.  And chariots were mostly replaced by mounted archery when saddles developed enough to support the needs of an archer.




Kahle said:


> Chariots were incredibly fast, and due to the two man system, more maneuverable and deadly than a lone rider.



Maybe for the time, but as saddles developed, and the recurve bow developed, the chariot disappeared.


----------



## Sia (May 22, 2013)

How do you change shield walls to fit in within that little fact of my world having the majority of people be left-handers?


----------



## skip.knox (May 28, 2013)

Sia said:


> How do you change shield walls to fit in within that little fact of my world having the majority of people be left-handers?



Not a problem, Sia. Not everyone in RealEarth was right-handed, either, but they bloody well were when they joined the army!  The Roman army, at least. You learned to fight the way everyone else fought, because of the way the shields locked together. So you can do the same, just reversed. Nothing sinister about being left-handed.


----------



## skip.knox (May 28, 2013)

Kahle is right about use of shields. I would add the Saxons to that. Harold Godwinson was still using the shield wall, to great effect, in England in 1066.


----------



## skip.knox (May 28, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Here's one: how much were battles with shieldwalls fought out (as our friend Wikipedia says) really by both groups just pushing shield-against-shield and second-row-shields-supporting-your-front-rank's-backs trying to shove the enemy line over and create openings on the shieldwall? What eras and weaponry were that plan most used with?



The sad fact is, we can't really answer this. The descriptions of battles that come down to us from our medieval sources simply were not specific enough to let us make reliable general statements. Oddly enough, the Battle of Hastings is something of an exception, not because the written sources are better but because of the Bayeux Tapestry. Beyond that, though, all we really know is that shields were used and there are scattered references to shield walls (e.g., descriptions of the Battle of Tours / Poitiers, 732 AD) but without specifics.


----------



## Sia (May 29, 2013)

Thank you for the lovely information. But that was an incredibly lame pun.


----------



## Lohengrin (Jun 5, 2013)

But what happened between the Roman-shield-wall and the pikes used in the renaissance? I mean, did the armies just run into each other with their swords and axes and spears without any protection? (not counting the armor) And if they didn't use shields, how did they protect themselves from archers?
It seems a stupid question to me, but for all the research I did, all I always get are troops locations, the weather, how strong the army was and stuff like that.


----------



## Mason (Jun 5, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Here's one: how much were battles with shieldwalls fought out (as our friend Wikipedia says) really by both groups just pushing shield-against-shield and second-row-shields-supporting-your-front-rank's-backs trying to shove the enemy line over and create openings on the shieldwall? What eras and weaponry were that plan most used with?



 Any military era in which short-swords were popular. The romans favored a shorter sword. During the early Warring States period the short sword was popular. (They quickly realized that shield-wall formations were slow and could be countered with a cavalry charge). Imagine a mass of men pushing against each other. You wouldn't want some giant awkward longsword...better to use a shortsword in close quarters for quick-efficient stabs.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 6, 2013)

Lohengrin said:


> But what happened between the Roman-shield-wall and the pikes used in the renaissance? I mean, did the armies just run into each other with their swords and axes and spears without any protection? (not counting the armor) And if they didn't use shields, how did they protect themselves from archers?



They used shields, right through the Middle Ages. Even archers used shields (dinky little things, called bucklers). 

In the early Middle Ages, the round shield was most common, used even by the Vikings. It's a tremendously effective tool because it can be used as a weapon as well as for defense. 

By the 12thc we see the emergence of the so-called kite shield (not called that in the MA). That's the kind that's pointy on the bottom. These were used by mounted knights and not only while mounted but on the ground as well (most medieval knights did most of their fighting on foot anyway). There's a great account of Richard I and his men at Jaffa, sticking the pointy end into the sand in order to make an effective shield against the archers of Saladin.  FYI, a shield wall is pretty much useless against a massed, heavy cavalry charge. You gotta have the pikes.


----------



## Lohengrin (Jun 6, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> They used shields, right through the Middle Ages. Even archers used shields (dinky little things, called bucklers).
> 
> In the early Middle Ages, the round shield was most common, used even by the Vikings. It's a tremendously effective tool because it can be used as a weapon as well as for defense.
> 
> By the 12thc we see the emergence of the so-called kite shield (not called that in the MA). That's the kind that's pointy on the bottom. These were used by mounted knights and not only while mounted but on the ground as well (most medieval knights did most of their fighting on foot anyway). There's a great account of Richard I and his men at Jaffa, sticking the pointy end into the sand in order to make an effective shield against the archers of Saladin.  FYI, a shield wall is pretty much useless against a massed, heavy cavalry charge. You gotta have the pikes.



Hey thank you! That was something that has been bothering me for quite some time now.


----------

