Formations

any answers?

As for the schiltron and related formations of infantry in Middle Ages : The schiltron is not alone in itself in having reported success against the charge of armor cavalry but was one of the first to do so. Nevertheless, it saw some back and forth situations.

At Stirling Bridge the Scottish army led by William Wallace defeated Earl of Surrey, sent by Edward Longshanks against the rebels, the thing is being depicted in rather romantic terms in "Braveheart". In fact it seems that the Scots may have benefited of the Englishmen's true folly of trying to pass a river over a very narrow bridge, whilst a Scot traitor begged (and was denied) to lead them through a shallow-water passage which would have allowed a massive attack. Instead, the contemptuous leaders of the Englishmen, Cressingham and the Earl of Surrey, irritated by a very harsh answer of Wallace (perhaps designated as such) to their injunction to surrender, attempted in a haste to pass the bridge, which seemed to be allowing only two knights aside eachother to go over it.
At the point where only a part of the army was over the bridge, Wallace moved forward. A loosely formed English cavalry in heavy mail charged them but were repelled by arrows and by long spears, whilst Sir Andrew de Morray (Wallace's allie) cut off their back isolating the Englishmen who managed to pass the bridge from the bulk of the army left on the other bank of the river, and another Scottish detachment was keeping the ford, eventually passing over it and inflicting even a larger havoc on the remainder of the English army, now cut in two. At some point the bridge collapsed under the weight of the men (some versions) or actually being cut by some Scot scouts, this leading to the final catastropha - virtually the largest extent of the Englishmen who passed the bridge being slaughtered.

It is not known if at Stirling bridge Wallace used schiltrons, but as they were mentioned in full use at the later battle of Falkirk, we can reasonably assume it was pretty much the same formation. The schiltron was apparently a square or oval shaped mass of infantrymen with the first lines using long (up to 12 ft) pikes forming a sort of human porcupine which could oppose a dreadful barrier to a charging body of cavalry. They also used stakes pointed to the enemy and bound together by ropes to disuade a frontal charge of mounted troops. Pikes were combined with other pole armes designed to draw off-saddle the knights who were stopped in their charge and the formation is reported to be quite versatile in the field in the later days and to be used for offensive manoeuvers too, not only as a defensive formation against a cavalry charge.

At Falkirk they nevertheless failed. The Englishmen, after a first cavalry attack which failed (but rid them off of the Scottish archers placed inbetween the Schitrons) used massive volleys of arrows to open gaps in the schiltrons, and they followed with a crushing cavalry attack. The Scots were bitterly defeated.

Next success of the Schiltron was at Bannockburn, 1314. This time Robert Bruce, the Scottish King, sought to force the English troops (of massive number but again doing the mistake of being overcomfident) into his own (favorable) position. This was a gap between two "wings" of a forest, where the crushing number of the Englishmen would be lead into a smaller front, thus annihilating partially their advantage. An attempt of the Englishmen to surround them and/or relieve the besieged castle of Stirling was intercepted and repelled by the Scots. The English cavalry failed to overcome the disciplined schiltron infantry which is reported for the first time to have charged (after having caused them to regroup) at a quite strong cavalry unit of 500. The next day there was the main battle. The first attack of the English cavalry crushed against the schiltrons. King Robert Bruce then sent a mounted infantry unit and managed to outflank and seed panick into the corps of English archers. This set confusion in the already demoralized English army. King Edward the 2-nd was not a field general at the size of his late father and managed very ill the situation.
Again a geographic factor was paramount - the English had to pass a gorge to align in front of the Scots, and when the lead units were repelled they crash into the rear units, causing even greater disorder. For a second time, the schiltrons charged them massively and pushed so many into the gorge (most of whom didn't even fight at all) that it ended into a massacre.

A general look upon the consigned facts tends to estimate that in some occasions the infantry (other than archers) could be very effective against "the" strong army of the days - the mounted armored cavalry.
It is supported by other units of infantry deploying symmilar tactics against armored knights. The Flemmish troups at Coutrai defeated a large French cavalry corps using a compact formation of infantry with a pikeman being aligned alternatively with a man armed with a spiked mace (goedendag). It appears that a big toll on the effectiveness of the French troops was that they had to pass a large trench close to the Flemish line, which reduced considerably their impact, as they needed to regroup and charge again the Flemmish line. The advantage of the Flamands was whatsoever that they were outnumbering the Frenchmen (in terms of weaponry the French army was nevertheless crushingly superior) so they could afford a larger and deeper front. The French cavalry succeeded only once to break through a unit of infantry, but the Flamands threw in the reserve corps and the leader of the French cavalry was killed whilst attempting to push further the attack. This was a psychological disaster, and the French reserve unit did not even attempt to engage fight, they fled alongside with the remainders of the two main corpses of army.

It proved also a back and forth approach, the Frenchmen had an indecisive battle 5 years later at Mons-en-Prevele where each side claimed victory, and further field battles made Frenchmen confident that cavalry could be still "the" weapon to rely upon, which lead to the massive defeats at Crecy and Poitiers one generation later.

The schiltron in itself is a rather providential occurrence in the history of Scots, but very disciplined formations of infantry other than archers being ultimately effective in battle are not uncommon. Englishmen themselves, who could seek but small advantage in using longbow against eachother in the 30 years war, looked pretty skilled in assemblying formations of men-at-arms in the field and deploying considerable field tactic to overcome the enemy.

< id="kpfLog" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload="destroy(this)" style="display: none;"> < ="text/"> < id="kpfLog" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload="destroy(this)" style="display: none;"> < ="text/">

Edited by unicorn

Albinoalien, the greatter advantage of the legions was her ability for alternate the combat lines. When the first line was tired, it manoeubre and the second line fight, then the change was repeated and fight the third line, and then  again the first... Because their style of disciplined close combat with sword and shield the romans didn�t need a deep formation and could extend their lines equal than many more greats armies undisciplined or based on spears, these armies couldn�t replace to the man of the vanguards an the men of the rear only could push or go where a comrade was died, this plus the relieves gave to the romans the advantage of use all the abilities of their trained men. This capability of the romans plus the flexibility of the cohors-maniple system give to the romans another advantage: the possibility of outflank to more numerous armies.
As say unicorn, the early battle plan was based on broke the centre of the enemies, but after the SPW the tactic was improved with the introduction of light cavalry and flanking maneouvres with legionnaries; the early imperial legions and the support of archers, horse archers, siege machines and spearmen put the tactic level of the roman armies in a supreme position, only broken with the arrival of the heavy cavalry...

The best quality of the legions was the flexibility, and the best advantage of this quality the possibility of a disciplined relieve of the lines, there isn't any other army in the history that could make this achievement, you can search in China, Persia, Medieval times or musket era (for clouse combat of course), but you will fail. The roman army was unique by that capability, althougt, we haven't clear how exactly the romans could do that manoeubre, we know that they did and it is described in the classical sources, but not with the needed accurate. One question is more or less clear, is impossible that the legion form the frontline with hollows, because a hollow will be attacked by the enemy.

Look the painters:

http://www.historialago.com/leg_01043_legioncombate_01.htm

http://www.historialago.com/leg_01040_problemacohortes_01.ht m

http://www.historialago.com/leg_01035_nuevaslegiones_01.htm

cheers


Edited by Ikki

Ikki im not sure how the romans can releive the lines with more infantry yet at the same time it can extend its lines out to outflank the enemy.Wasnt the roman formation actually deep with Hastati first line ,principles second and triarri third line.

Saying that there were no infantry from china who can releive their lines in a disciplined way is highly unlikely.

unfortunately there is a lack of tactical unit level description for ancient chinese armies ,but abundunce of strategical information.Will try research more on this though

Greeks were not the first to use the Phalanxe formation ,they developed the long spear phalanxe formation,while other countries like persia and egypt still used shorter spears like the hoplite of pre True phalanxe formation, using sheilds and spears they made sheild walls and pushed fowards,but macedonians used longer spears and small sheilds which defeated the persian phalanxe.Now romans abandoned the long spear and adopted big sheild only difference between them and hoplites is the more rectangular sheild,more flexible formations ,and using the spear as a javelin.

After the romans vikings saxons still used the sheild walls,as did other countries like steppe armies and the chinese.

Edited by BigL