# Retreating and Battles



## Xitra_Blud (Nov 11, 2014)

During he 11th century, how did wars typically play out? My war is set up in a fictional kingdom, but I think I want it to be a lot like 11th century England.

 What all do you know about retreating? I have a seen where the my protagonist's soldiers retreat from battle but they return for battle another time. I'm assuming they would come back with more soldiers. How would this play out? How would they acquire more soldiers? Also, how long would it take for them to return for battle? 

 Another question, what would be a great battle ground? And when they return to battle again, would it take place in the same spot?


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 11, 2014)

Is there a reason why you are interested in 11thc England in particular? I'm guessing you are envisioning something.

The 11thc is an especially complicated century for what you are asking, because it's the century of the Norman Conquest. It's also the century of the Danish conquest. So we have three different eras, each with its own military implications. At the beginning of the century, the Saxons ruled, with their own methods of raising an army and fighting a war. Later, the Danes ruled, under Canute. Then came 1066 and all that, and by the late 1000s it's Norman dynamics in place.

So, can you provide some more details?


----------



## Guy (Nov 11, 2014)

Well, if we go by 11th century England, you're looking at a mostly rural region with a relatively low population density (which means relatively small armies) and fighting done mostly on foot. If I had to choose a battle ground when I had to work with a small army composed mostly of people who are not professional warriors and fighting on foot, I think I'd go with a forest, preferably one with a lot of hills, valley, and similar formations. However, if you're writing a fantasy there's no reason why you have to limit yourself to 11th century England.


----------



## psychotick (Nov 11, 2014)

Hi,

That far back in England my guess is that there would have been little in the way of an organised retreat just as there was little in the way of tactics or organise warfare. Combat was largely hand to hand, and the melee was typically confused. So the chances are that would have happened was that when one side gained the upper hand the other would have broken and run, and it would have been disorganised and chaotic and ended up in a chase with the fleeing army in complete disarray. The most common tactic used for winning a battle would have been overwhelming numbers.

The Romans before them by a thousand years, with their shields would have had the tactics of retreat worked out in advance, which would probably have involved forming shield walls and retreating slowly backwards to preselected safe points they could defend. But they probably didn't lose a lot.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 12, 2014)

Retreating can be a pretty complicated maneuver, you have to worry about being harried, demoralization, confusion, desertion, etc; then, unless you're fighting on your own land and the people are behind you, you'd have to hire and/or train more soldiers, inspire people to join you, sue for peace, and this is immediately after a defeat. 

As far as how long it takes to come back, that is entirely subjective. Are you expecting the opposing force to hang out on the battlefield waiting for them to come back? It's not going to be a single day retreat, recruit, return unless that is planned out ahead of time. More likely the opposing force isn't going to be static while your force is trying to grow in strength. 

You could bait the opposing force by pretending to be weak and letting them celebrate beating you, then as they've suffered desertions from people frolicking and their guard is down, attack, but again, this would take some pretty disciplined troops.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 12, 2014)

A big thing about retreat is morale-- something Napoleon called three times as as important as what physically happened in battle.

An army that retreats has just *lost* the battle or at least the moment. It doesn't mean they'll refuse to fight again, but they've got their work cut out for them getting organized again let alone fighting whole-heartedly. Different things go into this; sometimes they'll come out of a loss "grimly determined" to avenge it, but more often it's where you see the value of discipline or a charismatic leader in holding them together. Or maybe they're further dragged down by wounded or having dumped their supplies as they left.

This works both ways: an army that's won has a lot of morale momentum. Which can lead to them overextending their supply lines; look at the Logistics thread or Rommel's pushes through North Africa (again and again he raced almost all the way across, and then his supplies ran out).

One other thing: in open battle, cavalry aren't always easy to use. (They're expensive, and too vulnerable to disciplined troops just sticking spears in their path. They're often used when you have a chance to flank or surprise someone so they can't brace against them properly.) But if the enemy retreats, cavalry can just charge up and lance through their backs, for some really nasty harassing damage. And of course the infantry can't outrun them either...


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 12, 2014)

Two battles from the 11thc are known in at least some detail:  Stamford Bridge and Hastings.

The comments about retreating are spot on. It's a fine line between an army and a mob. Loss of morale can quickly lead to loss of discipline. In literally a matter of a half hour an army of five thousand can become merely five thousand guys in a field. And the other guy's men are still an army (though victory can cause discipline to evaporate as well). 

Anyway, I'm still curious to know why that century and that country.


----------



## Waz (Nov 13, 2014)

First off, in the 11th century, think "Battle" rather than "War."

11th century is the tail end of the Viking era. The main reason the Vikings succeeded is that rulers had little power and small armies. Wars tended to be the result of neighbors with bad blood occasionally getting ambitious enough to take one another's land. Battles between armies of 2,000-3,000 each (or 300 guarding a stronghold) would be normal, at least in England and the nearest parts of mainland Europe.

Others did a good job describing retreat. Coordinated retreats were not normal during that era, and once an army broke in moral, it was every man for himself trying to escape. If enough rallied with their charismatic leader later that day or within a few days, they might try a counter-attack on a split-off part of the enemy's army.

Reserves are typically used in large-scale battles. If it was used in this era, it would be soldiers arriving late or cavalry brought up to cover a flank or catch foot soldiers off-guard.

As for the battleground, open area with solid footing would be preferred unless one army was outmatched and trying to hide or manage a tactical advantage. Only a highly-skilled leader would be able to make full use of terrain as a tactical advantage, however.

One other note: unless you're aiming for something close to historical fiction, don't let our world's real history squash your plans for a fantasy story. Use what you need from history, but let the story ultimately be your own.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 22, 2014)

As a side note to Waz's comment, I've found that one of the biggest misconceptions is the use or lack of use of a reserve force. Having a military reserve is considered a sound tactic, but in my opinion is one that is the easiest for inexperienced commanders to overlook. There is evidence that Rome used military reserves and Alexander the Great did in at least one famous battle, so it's been around for effectively ever but I'm never surprised when it is forgotten. In addition to that, reserve forces have to be disciplined and flexible.

I'm not saying that only inexperienced commanders don't use military reserves or that experienced commanders always do, but it's about as sound of a tactic as you can get and in a worst case can prevent utter annihilation.


----------

