Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: How did melee fight work?

  1. #1

    Default How did melee fight work?

    After reading a lot and viewing some documentaries, i think the way melee troops engage in videogames and in movies in general, is completely wrong. We often see soldiers charging mindlessly towards each other, when the fight was actually much more coordinated and complex. The two sides kept their ranks as much as possible to avoid savage and disorderly melee fight, in which case the troops couldn't even recognize who was on their side and hear the orders from commanding officers. In reality the two sides would likely engage by marching normally towards each other, keeping the shield wall tight. When close, the two sides likely clashed their shields and fought with over shoulder swings and thrusts with their spears and swords. Much of the fight was likely a push of shields, where the two sides tried to disrupt the enemy formation, by pushing them back and making them lose coordination. The losing side was thus forced to fall back and regroup if possible, to form another ordinated line or flee if they couldn't. Casualties were initally low and the real slaughter happened when one of the two sides lost cohesion and thus they were trumped or hacked down by the advancing winning side.

    Regarding cavalry: i don't really believe that knights and cavalry in general charged at full speed, regardless of their own personal safety, as clashing with a very high momentum on the enemy shield wall would likely send the knights flying off their horses because of the force of the impact. For this reason i think cavarly charges are overrated, both in games and media in general... they were of course devastating but only when employed correctly, avoiding a direct full speed impact with packed formations of infantry and instead charging at disorganized or weakened points in the enemy formation, or attacking the flanks and rear. Only the fully armoured knights or ancient cataphracts would probably dare to charge full on straight in the enemy formation, since having both rider and horse covered in metal would allow them to ignore the enemy spears and pikes and commit themselves fully to the ensuing melee fight after the charge. In the case of light cavalry it is likely they never engaged by charging straight on but rather flank the enemy, pepper them with javelins and arrows, and only after the enemy was mostly beaten they let themselves charge and kill the disorganized enemy formation. They most likely rarely engaged in a melee fight since having both horse and rider unarmoured would mean that they coul take heavy losses and the lighter horses anyway were not suited for a protracted melee fight or worse a full on charge.

    Regarding pikes and phalanxes: i think they are misrepresented in almost all videogames and media, the way a pike phalanx works is probably entirely different from what we see. Things like unbreakable pike walls ( like on R1TW ), or easily broken formations like M2TW most likely are wrong. The soldiers in the front line probably had to engage with their swords at some point because the pikes either broke, were stripprf away from the owner's hands or they were cut by sword blows, but the soldiers in the back would still hit the enemy with their pikes, probably rising them overhead and try to pike the enemy faces and throats. Only if the formation collapsed would pikemen flee or drop their pikes and engage all with their secondary weapons.

    About 2 handed swords/axes/hammers: this is where the depiction is probably right. Their role was to charge in a loose formation at the enemy shield wall and try to break it by hitting the shields with heavy blows, cracking armor and heads with full force. They usally wear armor for a reason, because being unshielded means they take all the hits to the body and the head, thus they need protection. An example are the varangoi, both the emperor's personal guards in the palace and heavy duty axemen in the field. This kind of warfare was probably rightly feared because the men could both inflict gruesome damage and absorb hith with their heavy coats of mail, so i guess they are kinda okay in the way they are portraied.

    What are your opinions about melee fights? Are they well represented in our precious games and mods? :p Are they partially wrong, or completely wrong?
    Last edited by randy_cat; May 11, 2022 at 05:22 AM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: How did melee fight work?

    I read https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60447.Cannae by Adrian Goldsworthy, and he described melee fights the way you described them. He also added that the two sides would often disengage and retreat some distance after bouts of fighting. This would give them time to recuperate, shuffle back the wounded, and yell at each other. When one side routs and the winning side gives chase, the losing wounded would get massacred while the winning wounded stay where they are and miss out on the fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •