Introduction of Schiltroms Scottish Pikemen
Jerome Morrow
sure they used it to great effect in Bannockburn but when did they come up
with such units?
I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit in
Scotland.
Cheers!
--
_______________________________________
Communism has only killed 100 million people. Let's give it another chance.
William Black
"Jerome Morrow" <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SVJsa.461$_o4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit in
> Scotland.
Pike armed infantry in formed and disciplined units that turn up before
cannon are effective against mass infantry units tend to be left out of most
wargames rules. On paper they really are unbeatable.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
C A Candy
Jerome Morrow <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>When did the Scots introduce the Schiltrom into the battlefield. I'm pretty
>sure they used it to great effect in Bannockburn but when did they come up
>with such units?
Well, the were using it in Edward I's time, though to much less effect -
Falkirk comes to mind as an example of when such tactics were not to
Scottish advantage.
>I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit in
>Scotland.
I assume that's Medieval: Total War, right? Played it on occasion, though
I turn the historical part of my brain off when doing so. Honestly, the
schiltrom is basically covered by the spear units in the game - it is
identifiable more as a formation you put the fellows with pointy objects
in rather than being startlingly different in equipment or any other
attribute.
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy
Department of History
University of Durham
43 North Bailey
Durham DH1 3EX
United Kingdom
+44 191 374 2005
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
Paul J Gans
>When did the Scots introduce the Schiltrom into the battlefield. I'm pretty
>sure they used it to great effect in Bannockburn but when did they come up
>with such units?
>I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit in
>Scotland.
I don't know what MTW is but I assume it is a computer game.
But to your question, there is very little that is new in
warfare. In the Middle Ages most everyone knew how the
Romans fought and the Greeks before them.
What we know of shiltroms (much is speculation) is that they
seem to be something like squares of men with pikes and shields.
The shields were to defend them against arrow attack and the
pikes were used against horse.
I have no idea when that formation or similar formations were
first used, but I'd not be surprised to find that the Greeks
knew about them.
What was new about them in Scotland was that the normally
fairly untrained Scots foot were disciplined enough to hold
formation under attack. That is the crucial thing about
pikes. Someone thought that it could be done with Scots
foot and was brave enough to try it.
The English were not smart enough to deal properly with it.
The combination was deadly to the English, but, IIRC, only
once.
A standard way of dealing with a shiltrom-only army is to
stand off and use archers. The shiltrom has only three
choices: either to break and run for it, which is sure
death if the enemy has cavalry; to move forward to drive
the archers away, hoping that you do not lose cohesion
and alignment as you go because if you do the enemy foot
and cavalry may eat you for lunch; or, worst of all, to
just stand still and take casualties.
This is why one does not see shiltrom-only armies, even
after Bannockburn, though in special situations all-pike
units can be very useful on their own -- especially when
the other guy doesn't have archers.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Jerome Morrow" <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:SVJsa.461$_o4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit in
>> Scotland.
>Pike armed infantry in formed and disciplined units that turn up before
>cannon are effective against mass infantry units tend to be left out of most
>wargames rules. On paper they really are unbeatable.
I agree, as long as they stand still. Moving was hard for them
to do.
I think the most cruel way to deal with them is to let them
stand in formation in an open field in the hot sun while
my troops lounge around in tents having some fish and chips.
After a few hours, especially with the wind in the right
direction, they'll be asking for a truce and shares.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
Paul J Gans wrote...
> William Black wrote:
>
> >Jerome Morrow wrote...
> >>
> >> I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit
in
> >> Scotland.
>
> >Pike armed infantry in formed and disciplined units that turn up before
> >cannon are effective against mass infantry units tend to be left out of
most
> >wargames rules. On paper they really are unbeatable.
>
> I agree, as long as they stand still. Moving was hard for them
> to do.
>
> I think the most cruel way to deal with them is to let them
> stand in formation in an open field in the hot sun while
> my troops lounge around in tents having some fish and chips.
>
> After a few hours, especially with the wind in the right
> direction, they'll be asking for a truce and shares.
Chips...? In the days of yore (what is a 'yore' BTW?)
I am astonished Paul! Not by your mistake of course, but because none of
your usual persecutors or prosecuters has failed to jump on it with
triumphant glee? It's so *very* quiet at the moment.....
Cheers
Martin
David Read
>When did the Scots introduce the Schiltrom into the battlefield. I'm pretty
>sure they used it to great effect in Bannockburn but when did they come up
>with such units?
>
>I'm playing MTW and I'm pretty sore that they did not include that unit in
>Scotland.
According to Ian Heath, Scottish infantry at the battle of the Standard
(Northallerton) in 1138 were described as carrying 'lances of
extraordinary length.' He doesn't name his source but the most likely
candidate is Aelred, Abbott of Rievaulx, who had been educated at the
Scottish court and who is the primary source for this battle.
This would not mean that such weapons were as long as they were to
become by the 14th century in Scottish hands, but that they were
noticeably longer than those carried by English infantry in the 12th
century. Long spears and pikes are not very handy weapons individually,
but are formidable when used en masse. Descriptions of schiltrons vary,
and, in all likelihood, they did themselves vary, particularly in the
number of ranks deep in which they were formed. The longer the spear or
pike, then the deeper the formation might effectively be. So, anything
from a shield wall three or four ranks deep, to a column of perhaps
twice or more of that depth are all possible.
Unless such a formation has its flanks well protected by supporting
troops, it is very vulnerable to any attacks made upon its flanks should
it be used offensively. That is, it can be very formidable going forward
if well-led, well-trained, well-disciplined and well-supported, but it
is slow to manouevre should it need to change its front. Used
defensively, with secure flanks, it was pretty much invulnerable to
anything except a sustained missile attack, such an attack best
supported by close fighting infantry or cavalry to exploit any resultant
disorder and gaps.
cheers,
--
David Read
Paul J Gans
Ah Martin. You've not read the latest archaeological
journals, particularly the Norse ones. Well-preserved
chips have been found at several places in medieval
Europe. And they've been dated by dendrochronology.
It seems that pre-Columbian potatoes had growth rings.
Took them a long time to mature and they weren't very
tasty.
Which explains why Columbus's voyage was really financed
by a Danish fish frying enterprise. They wanted better
chips.
The rest was just a cover story to keep the competition out.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
Paul J Gans wrote ...
Oh Paul! You know very well we aren't talking mica chips here! Shameful...
Paul J Gans
Of course we aren't. I've posted many many URLs proving that
there were real chips in Europe long before the US was
even dreamed of.
Luckily the Norse invented fish to go with them.
---- Paul J. Gans
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b917ei$p5j$9...@reader1.panix.com...
> I think the most cruel way to deal with them is to let them
> stand in formation in an open field in the hot sun while
> my troops lounge around in tents having some fish and chips.
Fish and chips are a modern introduction, and unknown in the UK until about
a hundred years ago.
Then you get Daily Mail editorials fulminating against this 'foreign
influence' which will 'destroy our native pie and mash sellers'.
They publish a similar editorial every time a new fast food is introduced.
The fried fish sellers were Jewish by the way...
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Gans) wrote:
> I have no idea when that formation or similar formations were
> first used, but I'd not be surprised to find that the Greeks
> knew about them.
Surviving illustrations imply that the Sumerians used that sort of
formation, albeit with long one handed spears.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Jerome Morrow
The Pikemen unit, I realize, being a dense mass of men packed together with
light armor or shields, was highly vulnerable to archers. But I'm more
curious when they came about in Scotland.
Jerome Morrow
> after Bannockburn, though in special situations all-pike
> units can be very useful on their own -- especially when
> the other guy doesn't have archers.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Yes, it was Medieval: Total War - see www.totalwar.com
The Pikemen unit, I realize, being a dense mass of men packed together, was
highly vulnerable to archers. And yes, I'm aware of how the Greeks used it
to great effect in the ancient battles against the Persians at Marathon
etc..
But I'm more curious when they came about in Scotland. I don't think the
Scots were able to operate a shield together with their pike though. The
pike is a very long spear and required both arms to handle. The Greek
phalanx spear is, what?, six to eight feet? and could be held with one hand,
the other hand was to hold their huge shields. And, yes, the Spartan term
for mentor was "lover". :p
So when did the Scottish start using pikemen units? In the 13th century?
Jerome Morrow
news:KvWvNZAj...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
> According to Ian Heath, Scottish infantry at the battle of the Standard
> (Northallerton) in 1138 were described as carrying 'lances of
> extraordinary length.' He doesn't name his source but the most likely
> candidate is Aelred, Abbott of Rievaulx, who had been educated at the
> Scottish court and who is the primary source for this battle.
Great, thanks a lot David. I'm a little surprised they used it that early.
Yes, a pikemen unit can be quite clumsy in battle. Its hard to move around
esp. if the field is not flat - cohesion problems etc.. I wonder why they
drew their inspiration from to create such a mass formation?
Hey, is it ok if I post your message in the Medieval Total War forum ?
Cheers.
Alex
True, but this did not prevent Swiss and their "successors" from acting
offensively, even with a weak support of the flanks. Of course, this was
possible because in too many cases their opponent either could not launch
such a counterattack or was fighting in the similar formations and the
battle was basically a clash of these huge columns.
Breitenfeld and, to a lesser degree, Marigniano are the excellent
demonstrations of your point.
>That is, it can be very formidable going forward
> if well-led, well-trained, well-disciplined and well-supported, but it
> is slow to manouevre should it need to change its front. Used
> defensively, with secure flanks, it was pretty much invulnerable to
> anything except a sustained missile attack, such an attack best
> supported by close fighting infantry or cavalry to exploit any resultant
> disorder and gaps.
IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very successful
and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this battle
Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
Or something else?
Dick Wisan
>
>The Pikemen unit, I realize, being a dense mass of men packed together, was
>highly vulnerable to archers. And yes, I'm aware of how the Greeks used it
>to great effect in the ancient battles against the Persians at Marathon
>etc..
>
>But I'm more curious when they came about in Scotland. I don't think the
>Scots were able to operate a shield together with their pike though. The
>pike is a very long spear and required both arms to handle. The Greek
>phalanx spear is, what?, six to eight feet? and could be held with one hand,
>the other hand was to hold their huge shields.
I don't think the spears of the usual Greek army are called "pikes". When
you speak of ancient pikemen, you'r usually referring to the Macedonian
sarissa, which is enormously longer than the ordinary spear. They're
said to have been introduced by Philip of Macedon. Does anyone know
whether the Macedonian phalanx had shields?
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
David Read
Morrow <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Great, thanks a lot David.
You're welcome.
> I'm a little surprised they used it that early.
>Yes, a pikemen unit can be quite clumsy in battle. Its hard to move around
>esp. if the field is not flat - cohesion problems etc.. I wonder why they
>drew their inspiration from to create such a mass formation?
Classical history? An urgent need for a poor country with a relatively
small population to find a cheap answer to Anglo-Norman/ English
superiority in heavy cavalry ?
>
>Hey, is it ok if I post your message in the Medieval Total War forum ?
Sure.
cheers,
--
David Read
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>True, but this did not prevent Swiss and their "successors" from acting
>offensively, even with a weak support of the flanks. Of course, this was
>possible because in too many cases their opponent either could not launch
>such a counterattack or was fighting in the similar formations and the
>battle was basically a clash of these huge columns.
>Breitenfeld and, to a lesser degree, Marigniano are the excellent
>demonstrations of your point.
Sounds about right to me.
>
>IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very successful
>and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this battle
>Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
>What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
>Or something else?
Hmm. Well, if I were to venture into this bear-trap, I'd probably again
end up being engaged in a pointless debate with people who have axes to
grind and plenty of opinions. What with Kalamazoo weekend coming up and
all... On the other hand, if those with a special interest in the Anglo-
Scottish wars of the 13th/14th centuries, such as Kel Rekuta and Chris
Candy, want a stab at answering your question, I shall watch, learn, and
doubtless have a bit of a laugh at the same time. Hell, they might even
inspire me to join in. Won't that be fun ?
cheers,
--
David Read
David Read
<wis...@catskill.net> writes
>I don't think the spears of the usual Greek army are called "pikes". When
>you speak of ancient pikemen, you'r usually referring to the Macedonian
>sarissa, which is enormously longer than the ordinary spear. They're
>said to have been introduced by Philip of Macedon. Does anyone know
>whether the Macedonian phalanx had shields?
10-12 feet long. I don't know what the provenance of this. A small
shield is carried.
By the 13th century, the Scottish infantry were probably using a spear
of between 12-14 feet long. Shields were still carried. By the late 15th
century, with apparently many being imported from Switzerland, spears
were between 15.5 feet and 18.5 feet. I think shields were no longer
being carried.
When is a spear not a spear ? When it's a pike. Or is that when it's a
sarissa ? Maybe a lance. What about a kontarion ?
Macedonian sarissai of the 4th century BC were anywhere between 15 feet
and 18 feet. Shields were also carried.
cheers,
--
David Read
William Black
> When is a spear not a spear ? When it's a pike. Or is that when it's a
> sarissa ? Maybe a lance. What about a kontarion ?
Once upon a time, many years ago, far far away...
Phil Barker said...
William Black
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
> IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very
successful
> and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this
battle
> Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
> What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
> Or something else?
Fighting people with effective missile weapons didn't help.
The Scots Schiltron cam along just before the English Longbow.
Both were a solution to the problem of dealing with the heavy horsed
chivalry of the time.
However the 'pike' (for want of a better word at this time) needs reasonably
high quality infantry who are both disciplined and reasonably well drilled.
The longbow requires training as well, but the training doesn't need to be
in a military context and can be fitted in on a Sunday morning disguised as
a social activity.
Pike drill (believe me, I've done some) needs a lot of people and a few
trained officers and a level of motivation way above that needed to do some
archery.
A couple of hundred years later the English town militias were able to
produce pike units of reasonable quality, mainly because they had to.
Before that any pike units were regular, and there ain't no regulars in
fourteenth century Scotland...
David Read
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>Once upon a time, many years ago, far far away...
>
>Phil Barker said...
Please God, no. I go all trembly if I have to consult the Oracle...
cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Read
"Today we have naming of parts. Yesterday,
We had daily cleaning. And tomorrow morning,
We shall have what to do after firing. But today,
Today we have naming of parts. Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighboring gardens,
And today we have naming of parts."
_Lessons of War: Naming of Parts_, by Henry Reed (1914-1986)
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com>, Alex
> <am...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >True, but this did not prevent Swiss and their "successors" from acting
> >offensively, even with a weak support of the flanks. Of course, this was
> >possible because in too many cases their opponent either could not launch
> >such a counterattack or was fighting in the similar formations and the
> >battle was basically a clash of these huge columns.
> >Breitenfeld and, to a lesser degree, Marigniano are the excellent
> >demonstrations of your point.
>
> Sounds about right to me.
OK, so on one hand we have the people who "got it right" ("Swiss system"
adopted by the most of the European continental armies and being effective
until either Breitenfeld or Rocrois (sp)).
OTOH, we have the guys who went the same way (started using the long pikes)
but in general did not do well at all.
However, it looks like (from my dilletantish perspective) that, regardless
the continued defeats, Scotts had been very attached to this tactics.
If the successes had been so few and the defeats so frequent, why is this
attachment? How many times one should step on the same pitchfork? Or did
I miss something fundamental in this picture?
> >
> >IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very successful
> >and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this battle
> >Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
> >What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
> >Or something else?
>
> Hmm. Well, if I were to venture into this bear-trap,
A bear trap? Come on! Just a naive question. :-)
>I'd probably again
> end up being engaged in a pointless debate
A beauty of the debate is that it takes at least two to participate.
At the point when you start feeling that it's pointless, you can stop.
>with people who have axes to
> grind and plenty of opinions.
>What with Kalamazoo weekend coming up and
> all...
Personally, I never paid any attention to this K-thing. Why should you?
>On the other hand, if those with a special interest in the Anglo-
> Scottish wars of the 13th/14th centuries,
IIRC, The Scotts had been using the long pikes well into "Tudorish" times
and one of their kings had been killed in the battle involving the long
pikes (have no clue what formation did they use). If true, it looks like a
national obsession. :-)
>such as Kel Rekuta and Chris
> Candy, want a stab at answering your question,
Of course, it's "open" for everybody and the opinions will be welcomed.
Except, perhaps, "Chinese invented it". :-)
>I shall watch, learn, and
> doubtless have a bit of a laugh at the same time. Hell, they might even
> inspire me to join in. Won't that be fun ?
I hope so.
Alex
> In article <Qu9ta.2088$_o4.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Jerome
> Morrow <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Great, thanks a lot David.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > I'm a little surprised they used it that early.
> >Yes, a pikemen unit can be quite clumsy in battle. Its hard to move around
> >esp. if the field is not flat - cohesion problems etc.. I wonder why they
> >drew their inspiration from to create such a mass formation?
>
> Classical history? An urgent need for a poor country with a relatively
> small population to find a cheap answer to Anglo-Norman/ English
> superiority in heavy cavalry ?
IIRC, the raids organized by RtheB were reasonably "cheap" and successful.
IMO, they would be much more useful as an offensive weapon than the
slowly moving masses of the pikemen. To be more precise, the Scottish
pikemen: Swiss found the "magic formula" of a sucess.
Alex
> "David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:KvWvNZAj...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
> > According to Ian Heath, Scottish infantry at the battle of the Standard
> > (Northallerton) in 1138 were described as carrying 'lances of
> > extraordinary length.' He doesn't name his source but the most likely
> > candidate is Aelred, Abbott of Rievaulx, who had been educated at the
> > Scottish court and who is the primary source for this battle.
>
> Great, thanks a lot David. I'm a little surprised they used it that early.
> Yes, a pikemen unit can be quite clumsy in battle.
To their defense, they also can be quite deadly. It would be close to
impossible for the cavalry to break through unless formation is broken.
At Falkirk (which, IMO, was a classic example of how these formations
should NOT be used), it took a lot of shooting and cavalry attacks to
destroy these formations.
And, of course, Swiss demonstrated what these formations could do as the
attacking units even against the enemy having the firearms (except the
cases when they met serious obstacles, like at Bicocca).
>Its hard to move around
> esp. if the field is not flat - cohesion problems etc..
If the field is not reasonably flat, most of their opponents would
have the similar problems. Possibly even to a greater degree. Anyway,
Swiss had been acting in the columns on the different types of terrain.
>I wonder why they
> drew their inspiration from to create such a mass formation?
Why did everybody else? In one form or another, the formations of the
infantry armed with something heavy and, preferably, long could be found
outside Scotland (Netherlands, Swiss).
C A Candy
David Read <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com>, Alex
><am...@hotmail.com> writes
>>IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very successful
>>and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this battle
>>Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
>>What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
>>Or something else?
>
>Hmm. Well, if I were to venture into this bear-trap, I'd probably again
>end up being engaged in a pointless debate with people who have axes to
>grind and plenty of opinions. What with Kalamazoo weekend coming up and
>all... On the other hand, if those with a special interest in the Anglo-
>Scottish wars of the 13th/14th centuries, such as Kel Rekuta and Chris
>Candy, want a stab at answering your question, I shall watch, learn, and
>doubtless have a bit of a laugh at the same time. Hell, they might even
>inspire me to join in. Won't that be fun ?
I've always dreamed of the day I could inspire someone... *beatific grin*
On a more serious note... in my mind, the main reason that the Scots
didn't use heavy pike formations for most of the wars was because it was
inimical to what they found worked.
For the most part, you could depend on the English being able to draw on a
pool of manpower about six times the size of the ones the Scots could, due
to population sizes and monetary resources. While this does not always
translate into such a superiority in numbers on the battlefield, it does
have an effect, both in terms of morale and in terms of the type of troops
that show up. The Scots knew that the English could field larger armies,
and knew that set-piece battles were not likely to go their way because
the English seemed to think in terms of set-piece battles, at least when
it came to Scotland.
As for the English, it makes sense they would. They knew they could field
larger armies. They also tended, by the nature of the military machine
they had, to rely on reasonably good combined arms tactics. Their methods
of recruitment gave them a very large proportion of archers as well as
your usual infantry and cavalry. That the two battles the English are
renowned for losing - Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn - are both ones in
which they were constrained by geography (and bad generalship) to fight on
the best terms possible for the Scots is telling. Most other battles you
hear of the Scots getting crushed. Well, shot full of arrows, then
crushed (literally, as was the case at Dupplin Moor).
The English also liked set-piece battles because it gave them a target.
The wars are a lovely piece of contrasts, with the English trying to
create foci and the Scots trying to disperse them. The English build
castles, keeps, and fortifications to give them strong points, places to
centre their administration. The Scots dismantle most of them, leaving
administration more dispersed amongst magnates, and not locked down to
specific points which have to be defended. The English try to get
set-piece battles, where they could get as many enemies as possible in
front of them and mow them down and overawe them. The Scots rarely saw a
purpose in this, as it rarely benefited them. So they bided their time,
striking here, there, wherever the English weren't, undermining the
foundations so that the strong points would fall from lack of mutual
support, and make the campaigns the English were mounting an exercise in
frustration and emptying the Edwards' purses.
Now, on the whole, pikemen are not good for pursuing this policy. They
move far too slowly, are not good for small-unit actions, and require
tight cohesion rather than the dispersal that characterized the Scottish
methods for handling the English. Their only use is those situations
where a large fight is inevitable, and then only when they are either
well-supported by other types of troops such as cavalry and archers, or
their enemy refuses fight in any way other than to the pikemen's
strengths.
As many people here have said repeatedly, big battles are a risk. If the
Scots could pick and choose and drastically increase the damage their
attacks were doing while losing negligible (in comparison) casualties,
they were going to do so. Picking the battle usually goes to whomever can
move the quickest.
The star of the wars for the Scots isn't the schiltrom, in my mind. It is
another type of fighter, the hobelar. A light horseman, spear-armed, they
were the antithesis of the heavy infantryman such as pikemen. They were
poor at taking on heavy cavalry or heavy infantry formations, but that
wasn't their job. Their job depended entirely on their mobility - the
ability to get in quickly, do the job, and get out. The only real counter
to this is to develop hobelar forces of your own, which the English did.
An even better spin on the concept was mounting your archers, who would
then fight on foot when necessary. Mobility and the ability to fight
set-piece battles, all in one nifty package at only 4d per day (at least,
in the 1330's).
The best argument in favour of this is the composition of the English
garrisons in Scotland under Edward III. Barring watchmen and a few 'armed
men', the garrisons are made up of only two types of soldiers:
men-at-arms, and mounted archers. When you consider that hobelars and
mounted archers were receiving the same pay and almost seem to be referred
to interchangeably, you get a picture of garrisons depending not on heavy
infantry to control territory, but on mobile forces who can move quickly
and engage in like fashion.
Michael Kuettner
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
Raids are an offensive strategy. To sustain the raiders (training, etc)
you have to protect your base (where raiders wouldn't be very effective);
that means, you'd need some heavy troops.
Re. Helvetia : They had(have) geography working for them.
I wouldn't want to plan an invasion; too many mountains, too
little joy ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:b917ei$p5j$9...@reader1.panix.com...
>> I think the most cruel way to deal with them is to let them
>> stand in formation in an open field in the hot sun while
>> my troops lounge around in tents having some fish and chips.
>Fish and chips are a modern introduction, and unknown in the UK until about
>a hundred years ago.
>Then you get Daily Mail editorials fulminating against this 'foreign
>influence' which will 'destroy our native pie and mash sellers'.
>They publish a similar editorial every time a new fast food is introduced.
>The fried fish sellers were Jewish by the way...
You are the second one to point this out. And here
I thought the UK folks had a sense of humor. You've
been talking about fish and chips and lo and behold
I work it into a silly scenario involving pikemen.
I thought it was a noble effort...
:-(
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
What was important about it was what Eds. I and III learned
from them.
By the way, is the game any good? I mean fun to play. I
too suspend all sense of military history when I play them.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KvWvNZAj...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
>> According to Ian Heath, Scottish infantry at the battle of the Standard
>> (Northallerton) in 1138 were described as carrying 'lances of
>> extraordinary length.' He doesn't name his source but the most likely
>> candidate is Aelred, Abbott of Rievaulx, who had been educated at the
>> Scottish court and who is the primary source for this battle.
>Great, thanks a lot David. I'm a little surprised they used it that early.
>Yes, a pikemen unit can be quite clumsy in battle. Its hard to move around
>esp. if the field is not flat - cohesion problems etc.. I wonder why they
>drew their inspiration from to create such a mass formation?
As has been said, folks were aware of what had been done historically.
Don't forget, the average medieval lord of any consequence spent
a great deal of time studying war.
>Hey, is it ok if I post your message in the Medieval Total War forum ?
>Cheers.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
The Swiss seem to have been excellently trained. Large
group maneuvers are not easy.
>>That is, it can be very formidable going forward
>> if well-led, well-trained, well-disciplined and well-supported, but it
>> is slow to manouevre should it need to change its front. Used
>> defensively, with secure flanks, it was pretty much invulnerable to
>> anything except a sustained missile attack, such an attack best
>> supported by close fighting infantry or cavalry to exploit any resultant
>> disorder and gaps.
>IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very successful
>and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this battle
>Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
>What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
>Or something else?
The pike formation doesn't work if the other side has archers
and horse as well as foot. And when you let the other side
chose the ground for a fight you are well and truly speared.
The shiltrom, once set up, is subject to continual archery
fire and can't move without allowing the cavalry a chance
to get at them from the flanks or from behind.
In such a situation a shiltrom only army is doomed. The
English learned this, especially after Bannockburn. They
must have spent many an evening working out tactics to be
used against it.
And, of course, they adopted a major portion of shiltrom
tactics themselves, but were careful never to have a pike-only
army.
--- Paul J. Gans
C A Candy
Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>Raids are an offensive strategy. To sustain the raiders (training, etc)
>you have to protect your base (where raiders wouldn't be very effective);
>that means, you'd need some heavy troops.
>Re. Helvetia : They had(have) geography working for them.
>I wouldn't want to plan an invasion; too many mountains, too
>little joy ;-)
The Scots used raiding to good effect in a 'defensive' fashion, striking
supply lines, weak units of the English, Scots who were supporting the
English, etc., etc., etc. Raiders often don't need that much in terms of
bases or training, especially when the society becomes militarized to the
point where nearly everyone has some experience in warfare. The English
had a devil of a time, even when they had massive superiority, simply
because the raiders would just move somewhere else and there was no way to
permanently eliminate their bases. Edward III's chevauchee into northern
Scotland in July 1336 was considered immensely destructive, yet every
military gain the chevauchee had made was lost by October of the same
year, regardless of how little the north should have been able to support
any enemy troops.
Paul J Gans
>Jerome Morrow jerome_morro...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>The Pikemen unit, I realize, being a dense mass of men packed together, was
>>highly vulnerable to archers. And yes, I'm aware of how the Greeks used it
>>to great effect in the ancient battles against the Persians at Marathon
>>etc..
>>
>>But I'm more curious when they came about in Scotland. I don't think the
>>Scots were able to operate a shield together with their pike though. The
>>pike is a very long spear and required both arms to handle. The Greek
>>phalanx spear is, what?, six to eight feet? and could be held with one hand,
>>the other hand was to hold their huge shields.
>I don't think the spears of the usual Greek army are called "pikes". When
>you speak of ancient pikemen, you'r usually referring to the Macedonian
>sarissa, which is enormously longer than the ordinary spear. They're
>said to have been introduced by Philip of Macedon. Does anyone know
>whether the Macedonian phalanx had shields?
I could be very wrong, but I *think* that men alternated,
shield-bearer, pikeman, shield-bearer, pikeman, etc. And
the shield was used to cover them both when needed.
The length of the pikes meant that pikes from the second and
third ranks (at least) were also presented in front of the
phalanx.
---- Paul J. Gans
C A Candy
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>Jerome Morrow <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The Pikemen unit, I realize, being a dense mass of men packed together with
>>light armor or shields, was highly vulnerable to archers. But I'm more
>>curious when they came about in Scotland.
>
>What was important about it was what Eds. I and III learned
>from them.
Also what Edward II did _not_ learn - he saw what they did to him, so
tried to mandate the counties providing lots more heavily armed infantry
when called upon for troops. Didn't work. Northerners had this figured
out, as Andrew Harcla was demonstrating at Carlisle and his relatively
effective efforts against the Scots.
>By the way, is the game any good? I mean fun to play. I
>too suspend all sense of military history when I play them.
Much as I hate to admit it, it's my sole computer game at the moment, and
I have to ban myself from playing if I want to even remotely get my thesis
done on time. It can be quite addictive. It grossly simplifies things,
but if you take the line that it is 'inspired by', it's fun.
Paul J Gans
I think that several things are mixed up here.
The Scots, while on raid, were on horseback. What you'd
call light cavalry. No pikes. When the English sent
a force after them they just mostly vanished.
The Swiss were successful, but that is a large number of
years later. Folks had a lot of time to assimilate the
Scots use of pikes.
There were times when the Scots knew that they *had* to
fight the English. This was the result, for example, of
the siege of Stirling Castle. The Scots had to relieve
it or lose it and it was *very* important strategically.
Or, at another time, the English had to relieve it for
the same reason.
Light cavalry wouldn't do the job. Pikes seemed like
an answer. Not a good one, except at Bannockburn, but
what other answer was there?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Another point is that the English learned from this experience.
Edward III used this knowlege to excellent effect in France.
There the tables were turned. France had the larger resources
and the interior supply lines. England had the smaller armies.
Edward's armies can be viewed as the result of considering what
the Scots could have done to give the English *real* trouble.
Of course the Scots did not have the men or money. The English
had the men and almost enough money. (Getting the rest is
another story which folks ought to get C. A. Candy to tell.)
And Edward, being a bit of a military genius, pulled it off
very very well, though I don't know if he ever thanked the
Scots for giving him the clues on how to do it.
---- Paul J. Gans
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Wisan) wrote:
> Does anyone know
> whether the Macedonian phalanx had shields?
IIRC a small shield carried by straps on the left forearm. Similar to
the Scots target.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
David Read
<c.a....@durham.ac.uk> writes
>
>I've always dreamed of the day I could inspire someone... *beatific grin*
Why, Chris, you're a constant source of inspiration.
<remainder of excellent post snipped>
cheers,
--
David Read
Jerome Morrow
news:b94f3c$p3f$4...@reader1.panix.com...
> By the way, is the game any good? I mean fun to play. I
> too suspend all sense of military history when I play them.
>
> --- Paul J. Gans
You need a good computer + graphics card etc.. to play MTW. I have a P3 850,
Gforce2 MX graphics card and 500+mb RAM. But the game is still quite
sluggish during heavy battlefield engagements.
I was disappointed with it actually. I thought Total War Shogun was better.
But MTW has to process so many many many more troop types and factions and
weapon capabilities etc..
Some units are made vastly more superior than others. The English longbow
men will slaughter any that come before them. But your spearmen units must
be of higher quality - ie Mercia Billmen - if they are suppose to defend
against the enemy infantry or calvary charge. I'm trying to develop
Switzerland now so that I can produce Swiss pikemen.
Strategy and Diplomacy unfortunately take a back seat in this game. If you
start eliminating your opponents and become too powerful - noone wants to
ally with you or marry into your faction. You cannot threaten smaller enemy
states into submission or unequal mergers. However, the Papacy will
excommunicate you for your aggression. You can get out of this by sending an
army or assassin to eliminate the papacy.
It seems that it is also quite good to modify. People have included new
units like the Knights Hospitalters, and factions, ie Burgonians into the
game. Pardon my spelling errors!!! See the dungeon forum in
http://www.totalwar.org for more details.
The price has come down by half. Its now about US$24 in Electronics
Boutique.
Cheers!
Drechsler Nicolas
a single snippet of evience that tehere ver was something like a structured
training for them. To the contrary, everything seems to indicate, that they
learned the drill in their first battle or on the way to it from the older
veterans. As they averaged a battle per year or more, depending on which
canton they were from, they didn't need no training. At least that's the
consensus among the newest crop of military historians in this country...
regards
NAD
Jerome Morrow
news:b94fns$9...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
> Much as I hate to admit it, it's my sole computer game at the moment, and
> I have to ban myself from playing if I want to even remotely get my thesis
> done on time. It can be quite addictive. It grossly simplifies things,
> but if you take the line that it is 'inspired by', it's fun.
Ha! I know EXACTLY how hou feel. I ruined myself with those games when I was
doings my honors and masters.
You gotta get rid of them! Get rid of your graphics card get a basic
computer that does Word. Lock yourself away and do that thesis!!!!
The desire for distraction will prove too tempting otherwise!
Alex
> In article <Fug8tMA6...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>,
> David Read <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com>, Alex
> ><am...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >>IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very successful
> >>and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this battle
> >>Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
> >>What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
> >>Or something else?
> >
> >Hmm. Well, if I were to venture into this bear-trap, I'd probably again
> >end up being engaged in a pointless debate with people who have axes to
> >grind and plenty of opinions. What with Kalamazoo weekend coming up and
> >all... On the other hand, if those with a special interest in the Anglo-
> >Scottish wars of the 13th/14th centuries, such as Kel Rekuta and Chris
> >Candy, want a stab at answering your question, I shall watch, learn, and
> >doubtless have a bit of a laugh at the same time. Hell, they might even
> >inspire me to join in. Won't that be fun ?
>
> I've always dreamed of the day I could inspire someone... *beatific grin*
>
> On a more serious note... in my mind, the main reason that the Scots
> didn't use heavy pike formations for most of the wars was because it was
> inimical to what they found worked.
>
I'm in a general agreement with what you wrote, however I have some
questions (or remarks).
> For the most part, you could depend on the English being able to draw on a
> pool of manpower about six times the size of the ones the Scots could, due
> to population sizes and monetary resources. While this does not always
> translate into such a superiority in numbers on the battlefield, it does
> have an effect, both in terms of morale and in terms of the type of troops
> that show up.
It would not always work this way. The Swiss cantons were not the most
densely populated area in Europe and they had been rarely united. But these
coalitions/single cantons managed to mobilize a very high percentage of
the available population, which often gave them a numeric advantage on the
field against a much bigger country (e.g., against France or Burgundy).
[in XVIII a tiny Prussia had been fighting for years a coalition of France,
Austria and Russia]
Probably one of the issues was Scottish inability to create a permanent
military organization of the Swiss type: the local feudals had been too
strong.
> The Scots knew that the English could field larger armies,
> and knew that set-piece battles were not likely to go their way because
> the English seemed to think in terms of set-piece battles, at least when
> it came to Scotland.
>
This is definitely true for RtheB but, still, Scots had been fighting the
pitched battles time and again and, the long pikes had been mentioned
(IIRC) even in XVI century (in the battle where James <whatever his number>
was killed/deadly wounded).
> As for the English, it makes sense they would. They knew they could field
> larger armies. They also tended, by the nature of the military machine
> they had, to rely on reasonably good combined arms tactics. Their methods
> of recruitment gave them a very large proportion of archers as well as
> your usual infantry and cavalry. That the two battles the English are
> renowned for losing - Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn - are both ones in
> which they were constrained by geography (and bad generalship) to fight on
> the best terms possible for the Scots is telling. Most other battles you
> hear of the Scots getting crushed. Well, shot full of arrows, then
> crushed (literally, as was the case at Dupplin Moor).
Judging by the fact that it took a whole day of shooting before Falkirk was
won/lost, the efficiency of the archers was not such that it prevented any
attack from being successful. The columns could get through the barrage if
they moved fast enough.
[]
> Now, on the whole, pikemen are not good for pursuing this policy. They
> move far too slowly,
They could march in a fast step and, anyway, they were "fast" enough even
at the times of the firearms, all the way into 30YW.
> are not good for small-unit actions,
This is not necessarioly true. IIRC, Swiss fought a lot of the small-scale
actions, including fighting among themselves. In these cases units of few
hundred pikemen were rather common.
>and require
> tight cohesion
I think that this requirement is somewhat exaggerrated. Swiss demonstrated
their abilities on the various terrains.
> rather than the dispersal that characterized the Scottish
> methods for handling the English.
Could it be that "dispersal" was mostly due to the Scottish lack of
a discipline and general political disunity? Most of the time they had
been at each other's throats so it's rather difficult to expect a nation-wide
mechanism being enforced (Wallace tried, IIRC, but Falkirk doomed this
effort).
> Their only use is those situations
> where a large fight is inevitable, and then only when they are either
> well-supported by other types of troops such as cavalry and archers, or
> their enemy refuses fight in any way other than to the pikemen's
> strengths.
Not true. These formations fought successfully in a wide variety of the
situations. Only on the few ocassions a "combined" forces were able to
defeat them (before 30YW).
>
> As many people here have said repeatedly, big battles are a risk. If the
> Scots could pick and choose and drastically increase the damage their
> attacks were doing while losing negligible (in comparison) casualties,
> they were going to do so. Picking the battle usually goes to whomever can
> move the quickest.
Well, Charles the Bold had an army, which was rather similar to English
in its composition. IIRC, only on one or two ocassions he managed to pick
the field. Not that it did him any good.
>
> The star of the wars for the Scots isn't the schiltrom, in my mind.
Yes, it look like this.
[snip about the raiding, we are in an agreement here]
However, my question was not really about this. It was somewhat two-fold:
(a) why, with all the defeats, Scotts kept using the pikemen formations?
(b) if they used them anyway, what went "wrong"? (with these formations
being dominant on a continent and failing when used by Scots)?
Any considerations?
Alex
AFAIK, in the earlier and later times it was successfully crossed by a
number of enemies so that geography itself hardly was a major deterrent. :-)
> I wouldn't want to plan an invasion; too many mountains, too
> little joy ;-)
It looks like this "joyless" thing worked only while these guys with the
long pikes were a factor. :-)
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >David Read <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<SeZ5xKAd...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <Qu9ta.2088$_o4.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Jerome
> >> Morrow <jerome_morro...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >Great, thanks a lot David.
> >>
> >> You're welcome.
> >>
> >> > I'm a little surprised they used it that early.
> >> >Yes, a pikemen unit can be quite clumsy in battle. Its hard to move around
> >> >esp. if the field is not flat - cohesion problems etc.. I wonder why they
> >> >drew their inspiration from to create such a mass formation?
> >>
> >> Classical history? An urgent need for a poor country with a relatively
> >> small population to find a cheap answer to Anglo-Norman/ English
> >> superiority in heavy cavalry ?
>
>
> >IIRC, the raids organized by RtheB were reasonably "cheap" and successful.
> >IMO, they would be much more useful as an offensive weapon than the
> >slowly moving masses of the pikemen. To be more precise, the Scottish
> >pikemen: Swiss found the "magic formula" of a sucess.
>
> I think that several things are mixed up here.
>
> The Scots, while on raid, were on horseback. What you'd
> call light cavalry. No pikes. When the English sent
> a force after them they just mostly vanished.
>
> The Swiss were successful, but that is a large number of
> years later. Folks had a lot of time to assimilate the
> Scots use of pikes.
I'm not sure that Swiss had been relying on the Scottish
experience, that their 1st uses of the pike formations were
much later, etc.
But the point is that both Scots and Swiss kept using the
long pikes (AFAIK) with quite different results.
[]
> Light cavalry wouldn't do the job. Pikes seemed like
> an answer. Not a good one, except at Bannockburn, but
> what other answer was there?
I'm afraid that you are answering the wrong question.
I know that they had been successfully raiding and that they
had been rather unsuccessful with their pike formations.
The question is why they kept using these formations
(up to Tudors times) and why did THEIR formations usually failed,
while those on the continent usually succeed (excluding the
cases when they had been fighting each other :-) ).
C A Candy
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>c.a....@durham.ac.uk (C A Candy)
wrote in message news:<b94bph$3...@altair.dur.ac.uk>...
>> For the most part, you could depend on the English being able to draw on a
>> pool of manpower about six times the size of the ones the Scots could, due
>> to population sizes and monetary resources. While this does not always
>> translate into such a superiority in numbers on the battlefield, it does
>> have an effect, both in terms of morale and in terms of the type of troops
>> that show up.
>
>It would not always work this way. The Swiss cantons were not the most
>densely populated area in Europe and they had been rarely united. But these
>coalitions/single cantons managed to mobilize a very high percentage of
>the available population, which often gave them a numeric advantage on the
>field against a much bigger country (e.g., against France or Burgundy).
To be honest, the Scots did this too - they could manage very large
numbers of troops for many of the battles. Dupplin Moor, for instance,
saw the Disinherited on the short end of the stick numerically. However,
because of the larger pool back in English that the Disinherited were
pulling their troops from, they were able to gather a good solid force,
while the Scottish forces were levies in the main.
There is never any one facet of medieval warfare you can gaurantee always
occurs. Other than the basics, such as 'if you shoot a man without armour
ten times with arrows, he will be in serious pain' and the like.
>Probably one of the issues was Scottish inability to create a permanent
>military organization of the Swiss type: the local feudals had been too
>strong.
The Scots were good fighters. But they also weren't monolithic. Large
segments of the population at various parts of the wars were supporting
the English - well, supporting leaders supporting the English, but the end
result is similar. The raiding policies we were talking about in another
part of this thread were often used by Moray and Stewart on other Scots
who supported the English. It worked for them - got them money and goods
and often forced a change in heart on other Scots.
I do feel the Swiss example, while laudable, really has to be seen as an
exception to the rule in terms of their military structure. I'd be much
more comfortable with comparisons to the Flemish.
>> The Scots knew that the English could field larger armies,
>> and knew that set-piece battles were not likely to go their way because
>> the English seemed to think in terms of set-piece battles, at least when
>> it came to Scotland.
>>
>
>This is definitely true for RtheB but, still, Scots had been fighting the
>pitched battles time and again and, the long pikes had been mentioned
>(IIRC) even in XVI century (in the battle where James <whatever his number>
>was killed/deadly wounded).
But how many of those did they win? Not many. Much of it has to be
chalked up to the concept of 'this time it will be different'. Nevermind
whether there is reason to think that...
>> As for the English, it makes sense they would. They knew they could field
>> larger armies. They also tended, by the nature of the military machine
>> they had, to rely on reasonably good combined arms tactics. Their methods
>> of recruitment gave them a very large proportion of archers as well as
>> your usual infantry and cavalry. That the two battles the English are
>> renowned for losing - Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn - are both ones in
>> which they were constrained by geography (and bad generalship) to fight on
>> the best terms possible for the Scots is telling. Most other battles you
>> hear of the Scots getting crushed. Well, shot full of arrows, then
>> crushed (literally, as was the case at Dupplin Moor).
>
>Judging by the fact that it took a whole day of shooting before Falkirk was
>won/lost, the efficiency of the archers was not such that it prevented any
>attack from being successful. The columns could get through the barrage if
>they moved fast enough.
I have to disagree, and Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill are two massive
arguments against this. The Disinherited at Dupplin Moor were
outnumbered, in hostile territory, and using lots of bowmen and
dismounting their men-at-arms. The Scots were on foot, armed in their
usual manner. End result? The pressure from the arrow storm forced the
attacking footmen into a compacted mass, held up by the English
men-at-arms at their front and their own fellows on either side. As one
chronicler said of a Scottish witness to the carnage: 'When he saw from a
distance such an enormous heap of dead knights and horses, so massed
together in disorder, and also heard the cries and the groans of the dying
who were covered in their own blood, he raised his eyes to Heaven...'
Similar result at Halidon. One other thing to remember about Falkirk...
only half of Edward's army actually fought. Eleven thousand Welsh, mostly
archers, pretty much sat it out until the day was won. Rather hard for
your archers to be effective when more than half of them aren't fighting
at all.
>[]
>
>> Now, on the whole, pikemen are not good for pursuing this policy. They
>> move far too slowly,
>
>They could march in a fast step and, anyway, they were "fast" enough even
>at the times of the firearms, all the way into 30YW.
Not for most cases of quick raids, especially when trying to move booty
back into Scotland over hundreds of miles. While it can be done, it is
not the usual scenario.
>> are not good for small-unit actions,
>
>This is not necessarioly true. IIRC, Swiss fought a lot of the small-scale
>actions, including fighting among themselves. In these cases units of few
>hundred pikemen were rather common.
'Few hundred' is rather more than you would see for the type of raiding
I'm describing. The Scots in the main for the first half of the
fourteenth century refused to engage any English army of more than five
thousand troops except at Bannockburn, Myton, Dupplin (if there were that
many) Halidon Hill, and Neville's Cross. A standard garrison in Scotland
in the 1330's would be sixty men-at-arms and sixty hobelars/mounted
archers. When I say small-scale, I mean _small_-scale.
>>and require
>> tight cohesion
>
>I think that this requirement is somewhat exaggerrated. Swiss demonstrated
>their abilities on the various terrains.
Scots lost that cohesion at Falkirk, and then got smashed for lack of it.
No one is arguing that the pikes cannot be effective. What I would argue
is that in most cases, they are not effective as a force without any
support from other arms.
>> rather than the dispersal that characterized the Scottish
>> methods for handling the English.
>
>Could it be that "dispersal" was mostly due to the Scottish lack of
>a discipline and general political disunity? Most of the time they had
>been at each other's throats so it's rather difficult to expect a nation-wide
>mechanism being enforced (Wallace tried, IIRC, but Falkirk doomed this
>effort).
Under Edward I there is some of this, but mostly they were perfectly
willing to act as most people do to invading forces - put problems aside
for the moment and smash the outsiders to kindling. Bruce is an unusual
example, as he was acting in self-interest at the various points he
switched sides. But he certainly was able to enforce control over those
on the 'Scottish' (anti-English) side, and there was a recognizable line
of guardians after his death acting in David Bruce's interests.
The dispersal was because it worked - the English couldn't deal with the
hit-and-run type attacks, the feints, the refusal to engage, and found it
not to be worth their while. Again, under Bruce and in the 1330's under
Moray and Stewart, there were recognized, unopposed leaders who were
definitely leading and engaging in this policy deliberately.
>> Their only use is those situations
>> where a large fight is inevitable, and then only when they are either
>> well-supported by other types of troops such as cavalry and archers, or
>> their enemy refuses fight in any way other than to the pikemen's
>> strengths.
>
>Not true. These formations fought successfully in a wide variety of the
>situations. Only on the few ocassions a "combined" forces were able to
>defeat them (before 30YW).
In general, the English were good at beating these formations. Oddly, the
situation I'm most reminded of is the Napoleonic wars, with the French
columns opposed by the British line - shock vs. firepower. In many ways,
those opposing attitudes seem to characterize English vs. French thinking
in terms of fighting for centuries. And the Scots tended to look to
France for military aid and support.
>> As many people here have said repeatedly, big battles are a risk. If the
>> Scots could pick and choose and drastically increase the damage their
>> attacks were doing while losing negligible (in comparison) casualties,
>> they were going to do so. Picking the battle usually goes to whomever can
>> move the quickest.
>
>Well, Charles the Bold had an army, which was rather similar to English
>in its composition. IIRC, only on one or two ocassions he managed to pick
>the field. Not that it did him any good.
Again, I do consider the Swiss to be an unusual situation. Again, I do
think there are always exceptions to the general rules.
>However, my question was not really about this. It was somewhat two-fold:
>(a) why, with all the defeats, Scotts kept using the pikemen formations?
>(b) if they used them anyway, what went "wrong"? (with these formations
>being dominant on a continent and failing when used by Scots)?
>
>Any considerations?
Well, the Scots really were outclassed when it came to fighting the
English. Their country is poorer, they have far less population, they
haven't the industrial resources nor the agricultural surpluses to support
major forces over the long term. In general, they were always likely to
get overwhelmed when fighting the English unless the English were fighting
someone else.
That is the real reason that under Edward II and Edward III, you see
episodes of English adventurism come to an end. Under Edward II, the
English magnates were too busy squaring off against one another to truly
put any effort into taking on the Scottish problem, as there seemed to be
higher stakes at home, except for those who had titles or major claims in
Scotland to protect. Under Edward III, the 'real action' was with France
- once that war starts, the Scottish fight (which precipitated it) is for
all intents and purposes forgotten about. Combine this with the fact that
the gains to be made in Scotland are far outweighed by the costs of
maintaining the military to keep it, and you get a situation where it just
isn't worth it.
As for why the Scots kept using the pikes, a lot of that in my mind comes
down to military tradition. They use it because they've been using it,
the men who could serve as soldiers are familiar with it, and the leaders
know the basic gist of how to weild them as a military force. Introducing
new methods and new weapons can take an incredible amount of time and
effort, if you can manage to do so at all. Even the English had a hard
time maintaining its longbow pool - who hasn't heard of the proclamation
banning football in favour of practice at the archery butts?
William Black
> In article <b93ost$h8l$3...@sparta.btinternet.com>, William Black
> <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >Once upon a time, many years ago, far far away...
> >
> >Phil Barker said...
>
> Please God, no. I go all trembly if I have to consult the Oracle...
I remember it as if it were yesterday.
We were at the Sheffield Triples...
The scary thing is that it must be nearly thirty years ago now and people
are still arguing about the length of a bloody kontos and how the Greek
hoplites slung their shields.
Paul J Gans
In the west most towns had monthly training sessions. Each
guild or occupational group usually had a particular weapon
that they specialized in. (This is a bit of an oversimplification,
but close enough.) As a result raising a company of, say,
pikemen from a town gave you a number of men used to working
with and trusting each other. Add to that a willingness to
obey orders especially when transmitted by their own officer
and not too much training is needed.
So the question is: where did the Swiss pikemen originate?
Did they come from towns or were they recruited from among
the peasantry? And in either case, how was local training
done?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Hey, I still play Civ II....
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
What other choice did they have? Scotland was then not
a rich country. The highlands and the borderlands did not
often get along, and so on.
As to why they so often failed when using pikemen, I think
the answer was obvious. When they raided they did not use
pikemen. They "won" most of the raids in the sense that
they often got away with their loot. When a well-organized
English force went into Scotland against them all they had
were pikemen and a small cavalry contingent. Even supplies
could be a problem.
The English were often supported by sea, had a well-developed
quartermaster's corps, engineers, and certainly a fair supply
of washerwomen. They'd learned that lesson too.
Beyond this I don't know how to answer your question. What
else were the Scots to do?
I can't answer your question about the Swiss. Infantry
was the mainstay of medieval armies at all times. But
unsupported infantry could have serious trouble. The
Swiss pikemen came into their own after the Scots-English
wars spoken of above. And the men seem to have been
frequently recruited from the towns and thus were fairly
well trained. Constant inter-town warfare plus peacetime
training saw to that.
As we all know it is difficult to attack well-formed and
well-trained infantry. As long ago as 1066 William the
Conqueror had enormous trouble with what was mostly a
pick-up Saxon army with only a core of trained fighters.
And he had cavalry and archers with him.
So yes, the Swiss had success, but they were not invincible.
But all that is another story and I'm not the best one
to tell it.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
[...]
>In general, the English were good at beating these formations. Oddly, the
>situation I'm most reminded of is the Napoleonic wars, with the French
>columns opposed by the British line - shock vs. firepower. In many ways,
>those opposing attitudes seem to characterize English vs. French thinking
>in terms of fighting for centuries. And the Scots tended to look to
>France for military aid and support.
[...]
This is as good a one paragraph summary of the military situation
I've yet seen anywhere.
I think it also explains some of the success the Swiss had
against the French.
The notion of the chevalier as the dominant fighter is, I think,
also French. The famous withdrawal of the French foot who were
doing a good job against the Flemings at Courtrai (1302) so
that the knights could have the victory they were entitled to
as nobles is just one case in point.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:NMjeVUA0...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b93ost$h8l$3...@sparta.btinternet.com>, William Black
>> <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> >Once upon a time, many years ago, far far away...
>> >
>> >Phil Barker said...
>>
>> Please God, no. I go all trembly if I have to consult the Oracle...
>I remember it as if it were yesterday.
>We were at the Sheffield Triples...
>The scary thing is that it must be nearly thirty years ago now and people
>are still arguing about the length of a bloody kontos and how the Greek
>hoplites slung their shields.
That's simple. The kontos were a bit longer than that fellow
thinks and a bit shorter than that other guy keeps claiming.
As for the shield, it was slung so that it could be unslung
in a hurry if needed.
:-)
--- Paul J. Gans
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk (David Read) wrote:
> Heath describes the spear of the 12th-century Scots spearman as
> being 10-12 feet long. I don't know what the provenance of this. A
> small shield is carried.
The Byzantines used a 12ft spear one handed.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> Or did I miss something fundamental in this picture?
The availability of other troops. Scottish cavalry suffered from the
absence of anything much bigger than a pony. Scots archery was nothing
to write home about either. Highland troops were usually unavailable,
a lot of Scottish history is about the attempts of a lowland king to
control Highland Chiefs.
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com>,
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >c.a....@durham.ac.uk (C A Candy)
> wrote in message news:<b94bph$3...@altair.dur.ac.uk>...
>
> >> For the most part, you could depend on the English being able to draw on a
> >> pool of manpower about six times the size of the ones the Scots could, due
> >> to population sizes and monetary resources. While this does not always
> >> translate into such a superiority in numbers on the battlefield, it does
> >> have an effect, both in terms of morale and in terms of the type of troops
> >> that show up.
> >
> >It would not always work this way. The Swiss cantons were not the most
> >densely populated area in Europe and they had been rarely united. But these
> >coalitions/single cantons managed to mobilize a very high percentage of
> >the available population, which often gave them a numeric advantage on the
> >field against a much bigger country (e.g., against France or Burgundy).
>
> To be honest, the Scots did this too - they could manage very large
> numbers of troops for many of the battles. Dupplin Moor, for instance,
> saw the Disinherited on the short end of the stick numerically. However,
> because of the larger pool back in English that the Disinherited were
> pulling their troops from, they were able to gather a good solid force,
> while the Scottish forces were levies in the main.
This would not be a problem under the certain conditions: at the time
of the Burgundian Wars, Swiss had been either poor peasants or city
militias and not the professional mercenaries of the Italian Wars.
However, it looks like they managed to get united and organized on at least
cantonal level (with the temporary alliances of the few cantons) and this
usually gave them a healthy numeric advantage over their feudal opponent(s).
It does not look like Scots managed anything close on some regular basis.
Of course, the ad hoc formations you mentioned were nowhere close to the
Swiss organization.
>
> There is never any one facet of medieval warfare you can gaurantee always
> occurs.
Well, you COULD guarantee that the Burgundian army will flee from the
field when facing the Swiss. :-)
> Other than the basics, such as 'if you shoot a man without armour
> ten times with arrows, he will be in serious pain' and the like.
OK, let's consider my example as one of the basics. :-)
>
> >Probably one of the issues was Scottish inability to create a permanent
> >military organization of the Swiss type: the local feudals had been too
> >strong.
>
> The Scots were good fighters.
As it was noticed in an old Soviet joke: "how come that the country with
so many whores is always short of a hard currency?" :-)
> But they also weren't monolithic.
I remember in some book on RtheB, it was also noticed that, with the
few exceptions (like the troops trained by Wallace), they were not "stable":
either too much bravery or too easily paniced.
>Large
> segments of the population at various parts of the wars were supporting
> the English - well, supporting leaders supporting the English,
Indeed. Or, at least, hated each other's guts and would not fight together.
>but the end
> result is similar. The raiding policies we were talking about in another
> part of this thread were often used by Moray and Stewart on other Scots
> who supported the English. It worked for them - got them money and goods
> and often forced a change in heart on other Scots.
>
> I do feel the Swiss example, while laudable, really has to be seen as an
> exception to the rule in terms of their military structure. I'd be much
> more comfortable with comparisons to the Flemish.
The point I was trying to make was that there was a successful example of
the pike formations. There were obvious similarities between the Scots and
Swiss: poor countries with the strong neighbours, reasonably similar
geography. At least at some point, both had similarly looking formations:
schiltrons/columns.And one of them was spectacularly successful, while another
kept using the same weapon only to be consistently beaten.
So I was understandably curious why?
Flemish had been different. Their militias were predominantly city-based
(AFAIK) and not the "national". They had been rather short-lived: after
very few successes they had been defeated and did not rise again. Their
phalanx formations had been faulty for anything but defense in the
carefully choosen position with the covered flanks (with a counterattack
in a last moment).
>
> >> The Scots knew that the English could field larger armies,
> >> and knew that set-piece battles were not likely to go their way because
> >> the English seemed to think in terms of set-piece battles, at least when
> >> it came to Scotland.
> >>
> >
> >This is definitely true for RtheB but, still, Scots had been fighting the
> >pitched battles time and again and, the long pikes had been mentioned
> >(IIRC) even in XVI century (in the battle where James <whatever his number>
> >was killed/deadly wounded).
>
> But how many of those did they win? Not many.
That's the whole point. How many times had you to step on a pitchfork to
learn that the handle will hit you on the head? :-)
> Much of it has to be
> chalked up to the concept of 'this time it will be different'.
Perhaps based on a pure probability theory: if you lost so many times,
there is a chance that this time you are going to win? :-)
Looks like a typical tactical mishandling of a situation.
Swiss usually used 3 columns. One of them would break front somewhere,
esp. with the less numerous opponent.
Another interesting thing is that English managed to hold their front.
IMO, this means that the Scotish attack run out of steam before they
reached the opponent's front or that they actually did not figure out
how to attack in the column formation (did not have enough training and
discipline).
BTW, the quote above tells about the "moral" factor and not about the
real losses of this "arrow storm".
Another thing I noticed is that author writes about "enormous heap of dead
knights and horses" and not the "dead pikemen". Perhaps, the Scotts
actually launched a cavalry attack and not a pikemen one?
> Similar result at Halidon. One other thing to remember about Falkirk...
> only half of Edward's army actually fought. Eleven thousand Welsh, mostly
> archers, pretty much sat it out until the day was won. Rather hard for
> your archers to be effective when more than half of them aren't fighting
> at all.
AFAIK, English had (at least according to some estimates) a big numeric
advantage. If so, there was enough archers deployed to do all this damage.
Personally, I don't believe too much in all these "arrow storms" (not that
I would like to walk under one of them :-) ). With the archers being
arranged rather deep and shooting under a high angle and, presumably too
fast to aim, the fast moving column should be able to get through. After
all, the "killing range" would be something around a hundred meters.
The columns of the Napoleonic Wars or the linear formations of the XVIII
century had been able to move through 300 - 500 meters of a more deadly
fire (including grenades and canister shot), often in a very slow pace.
>
>
> >[]
> >
> >> Now, on the whole, pikemen are not good for pursuing this policy. They
> >> move far too slowly,
> >
> >They could march in a fast step and, anyway, they were "fast" enough even
> >at the times of the firearms, all the way into 30YW.
>
> Not for most cases of quick raids,
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought that you are talking about the
move on a battlefield, not on the march.
>especially when trying to move booty
> back into Scotland over hundreds of miles.
Even the light cavalry could have problems with this, esp if the booty
included prisoners.
> While it can be done, it is
> not the usual scenario.
Agree.
[]
> >>and require
> >> tight cohesion
> >
> >I think that this requirement is somewhat exaggerrated. Swiss demonstrated
> >their abilities on the various terrains.
>
> Scots lost that cohesion at Falkirk,
I know. They just stayed waiting for the opponent running out of arrows
or deciding to take a nap. I can't figure out what was Wallace's plan,
providing he had one beyond "dance if you can".
>and then got smashed for lack of it.
> No one is arguing that the pikes cannot be effective. What I would argue
> is that in most cases, they are not effective as a force without any
> support from other arms.
Indeed. However, on many ocassions Swiss did not have anything that would
ammount for an effective cavalry support and/or "firepower". On many other
ocassions (I'm talking not exclusively about the Swiss, but their "model"),
the cavalry and other troops had been present but did not play a
significant role.
As I understand, the following factors had often been helpful:
(a) Surprise (at Novarra and many other cases), which tells us that these
columns could move fast, often in the mountained area.
(b) Reputation (e.g., during the Burgundian Wars) - the opponent often
panicked (esp the "feudal armies") at the very sight of the attacking
Swiss (IIRC, they had a nasty habit of not taking the prisoners, which
proved to be a valuable psychological weapon).
(c) Strong faith in the "push" of the column.
>
> >> rather than the dispersal that characterized the Scottish
> >> methods for handling the English.
> >
> >Could it be that "dispersal" was mostly due to the Scottish lack of
> >a discipline and general political disunity? Most of the time they had
> >been at each other's throats so it's rather difficult to expect a nation-wide
> >mechanism being enforced (Wallace tried, IIRC, but Falkirk doomed this
> >effort).
>
> Under Edward I there is some of this, but mostly they were perfectly
> willing to act as most people do to invading forces
AFAIK, there is no uniform model of behavior and the invaded people
quite often had been beaten due to the lack of a discipline, skill or
even bravery.
> - put problems aside
> for the moment and smash the outsiders to kindling.
IMO, this is a highly idealized scenario, esp. for the medieval country.
> Bruce is an unusual
> example, as he was acting in self-interest at the various points he
> switched sides.
I'd say that in this he was quite usual and he was defintely not alone.
>But he certainly was able to enforce control over those
> on the 'Scottish' (anti-English) side, and there was a recognizable line
> of guardians after his death acting in David Bruce's interests.
Indeed.
> >> Their only use is those situations
> >> where a large fight is inevitable, and then only when they are either
> >> well-supported by other types of troops such as cavalry and archers, or
> >> their enemy refuses fight in any way other than to the pikemen's
> >> strengths.
> >
> >Not true. These formations fought successfully in a wide variety of the
> >situations. Only on the few ocassions a "combined" forces were able to
> >defeat them (before 30YW).
>
> In general, the English were good at beating these formations.
AFAIK, the only case when some noticeable number of English met Swiss
was at Nancy and you can guess who was slaughtered.
>Oddly, the
> situation I'm most reminded of is the Napoleonic wars, with the French
> columns opposed by the British line - shock vs. firepower.
This is a wrong example. You jumped too far in time. Balance of firepower
and schock was substantially different in XIX.
>In many ways,
> those opposing attitudes seem to characterize English vs. French thinking
> in terms of fighting for centuries.
AFAIK, it does not. French had been fighting in the linear formations
in the XVIII (BTW, IIRC, at Fontenois English were attacking in the
deep formations). The change happened during the Revolution to accomodate
the ill-disciplined recruits. The huge Napoleonic columns were a further
"development" (not necessarily positive) in this direction.
OTOH, if you are saying that in the late XVIII - XIX English had a better
fire discipline, we are in a complete agreement: they usually had a
rather small army, which they could drill to a perfection. The same would
be much more difficult for the much larger continental forces.
> And the Scots tended to look to
> France for military aid and support.
Not sure that this schema is a correct one and they almost definitely did
not look for French example in the pikemen formations in the XIV century
because French did not have any decent infantry even during the Italian
Wars.
>
> >> As many people here have said repeatedly, big battles are a risk. If the
> >> Scots could pick and choose and drastically increase the damage their
> >> attacks were doing while losing negligible (in comparison) casualties,
> >> they were going to do so. Picking the battle usually goes to whomever can
> >> move the quickest.
> >
> >Well, Charles the Bold had an army, which was rather similar to English
> >in its composition. IIRC, only on one or two ocassions he managed to pick
> >the field. Not that it did him any good.
>
> Again, I do consider the Swiss to be an unusual situation. Again, I do
> think there are always exceptions to the general rules.
Well, they had been around for to long to remain "unusual" (esp after they
started to do fighting for salary) and Germans and Spaniards adopted their
model (so did Italians but with a lesser success).
>
> >However, my question was not really about this. It was somewhat two-fold:
> >(a) why, with all the defeats, Scotts kept using the pikemen formations?
> >(b) if they used them anyway, what went "wrong"? (with these formations
> >being dominant on a continent and failing when used by Scots)?
> >
> >Any considerations?
>
> Well, the Scots really were outclassed when it came to fighting the
> English.
Indeed. The question is why?
>Their country is poorer,
So were the Swiss cantons vs Burgundy.
>they have far less population,
AFAIK, ditto for the Swiss vs Burgundy.
>they
> haven't the industrial resources nor the agricultural surpluses to support
> major forces over the long term.
Swiss had been mobilizing up to 10% of their population but for the very
short periods of time. The same things re agricultural surplus and industry.
AFAIK, none of them had a Swiss Army watch at this time. :-)
> In general, they were always likely to
> get overwhelmed when fighting the English unless the English were fighting
> someone else.
This is a result and not an explanation.
[]
>
> As for why the Scots kept using the pikes, a lot of that in my mind comes
> down to military tradition. They use it because they've been using it,
> the men who could serve as soldiers are familiar with it, and the leaders
> know the basic gist of how to weild them as a military force. Introducing
> new methods
Just to form 3 columns and march straight?
>and new weapons
The same pike.
> can take an incredible amount of time and
> effort,
They even adopted the firearms (and got one of the kings killed by a
cannon's explosion) but adopt a rather simple tactics used all over the
Europe, was too much of a change?
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> > IIRC, the Scottish formations, unlike the Swiss ones, were not very
> successful
> > and Bannockburn looks more like an exception than a rule. After this
> battle
> > Robert the Bruce still relied on his old guerilla tactics.
> > What was it? The numeric odds, bad discipline, the "wrong" battlegrounds?
> > Or something else?
>
>
> The Scots Schiltron cam along just before the English Longbow.
>
> Both were a solution to the problem of dealing with the heavy horsed
> chivalry of the time.
>
> However the 'pike' (for want of a better word at this time) needs reasonably
> high quality infantry who are both disciplined and reasonably well drilled.
Not necessarily. By the time of the Burgundian Wars, most of the Swiss
troops were the rural or city militias and not the professionals.
>
> The longbow requires training as well, but the training doesn't need to be
> in a military context and can be fitted in on a Sunday morning disguised as
> a social activity.
>
> Pike drill (believe me, I've done some) needs a lot of people and a few
> trained officers and a level of motivation way above that needed to do some
> archery.
However, the fact remains: Swiss managed to do this on their spare time.
Perhaps their ideas of the social activities were different from yours.
>
> A couple of hundred years later the English town militias were able to
> produce pike units of reasonable quality, mainly because they had to.
I see. Things HAVE to be started in England, otherwise they did not
happen. :-)
> Before that any pike units were regular,
Not true outside BT. Actually, not true even within BT.
C A Candy
>> The Scots were good fighters.
>
>As it was noticed in an old Soviet joke: "how come that the country with
>so many whores is always short of a hard currency?" :-)
Good fighters aren't always good soldiers - think there was a discussion
here recently about that, can't recall.
>> But they also weren't monolithic.
>
>I remember in some book on RtheB, it was also noticed that, with the
>few exceptions (like the troops trained by Wallace), they were not "stable":
>either too much bravery or too easily paniced.
I don't think Wallace had much to do with the creation of any new and
unusual force. His one major victory at Stirling Bridge had more to do
with the absolutely appalling generalship on the English side. Any man
who has the quote 'I brought you to the dance, now hop' attributed to him
on the eve of a batle such as Falkirk does not look all that wondrous in
my eyes.
The Scots can certainly appear flighty, or overconfident, but I think that
has more to do with the situations we see them in than actuality - that
and stereotyping of their national character. Given the proper chronicles
and selected information (which is essentially what we get from chronicles
anyway) I could make the English look just as bad. Take Bannockburn, and
one doesn't need to tweak anything.
>>Large
>> segments of the population at various parts of the wars were supporting
>> the English - well, supporting leaders supporting the English,
>
>Indeed. Or, at least, hated each other's guts and would not fight together.
I was referring to 'the little guy' who made up the bulk of the army,
rather than the fellows squabbling at the top.
>>but the end
>> result is similar. The raiding policies we were talking about in another
>> part of this thread were often used by Moray and Stewart on other Scots
>> who supported the English. It worked for them - got them money and goods
>> and often forced a change in heart on other Scots.
>>
>> I do feel the Swiss example, while laudable, really has to be seen as an
>> exception to the rule in terms of their military structure. I'd be much
>> more comfortable with comparisons to the Flemish.
>
>The point I was trying to make was that there was a successful example of
>the pike formations. There were obvious similarities between the Scots and
>Swiss: poor countries with the strong neighbours, reasonably similar
>geography. At least at some point, both had similarly looking formations:
>schiltrons/columns.And one of them was spectacularly successful, while another
>kept using the same weapon only to be consistently beaten.
>So I was understandably curious why?
There's one big difference, at least from what I recall: Schiltroms don't
tend to move, and are defensive formations. Columns are offensive.
>Flemish had been different. Their militias were predominantly city-based
>(AFAIK) and not the "national". They had been rather short-lived: after
>very few successes they had been defeated and did not rise again. Their
>phalanx formations had been faulty for anything but defense in the
>carefully choosen position with the covered flanks (with a counterattack
>in a last moment).
Which resembles the Scottish usage. I prefer to use that comparison
because the Swiss seem to be the only ones who did not use the pike in a
mainly defensive posture. Everyone else seems to held, and then
counterattacked. Perhaps some other people can weigh in on this one.
>> But how many of those did they win? Not many.
>
>That's the whole point. How many times had you to step on a pitchfork to
>learn that the handle will hit you on the head? :-)
You see that pattern throughout history, though, where lessons have to be
relearned every generation. No reasons the Scots should be different,
especially with the tradition I was talking about elsewhere. If you learn
that 'this is how you fight', it takes something special and an incredible
amount of willpower and energy to force changes.
<snip of Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill description>
>Looks like a typical tactical mishandling of a situation.
I would give the English more credit than that. There were certainly some
dreadful mistakes made by the Scots, but the losses aren't simply due to
sheer stupidity.
>Swiss usually used 3 columns. One of them would break front somewhere,
>esp. with the less numerous opponent.
>Another interesting thing is that English managed to hold their front.
>IMO, this means that the Scotish attack run out of steam before they
>reached the opponent's front or that they actually did not figure out
>how to attack in the column formation (did not have enough training and
>discipline).
The Scots hit it hard, all right. Nearly every chronicle refers to the
English being forced back from the impact of the charge, about twenty or
thirty paces. However, the English were similarly armed, especially at
Dupplin - they had captured several hundred Scottish pikes at Dunfermline
abbey and were using them at the time. The weapons would have been
similar regardless, as the same result ensued at Halidon Hill. After that
initial push back, the English managed to hold the line. Columns aren't
gauranteed to break what they hit, after all.
>BTW, the quote above tells about the "moral" factor and not about the
>real losses of this "arrow storm".
>Another thing I noticed is that author writes about "enormous heap of dead
>knights and horses" and not the "dead pikemen". Perhaps, the Scotts
>actually launched a cavalry attack and not a pikemen one?
I know what the quote says. The losses were pretty severe, both from the
arrow storm and from the crush. The force attacking was definitely
infantry - it is described as resembling a hedgehog in one chronicle, and
the rest of the description is obviously that of an infantry attack 'those
who fell were trampled underfoot by their fellows', etc. etc.. The
initial vanguard was eight hundred men who advanced on foot according to
the chronicler Wyntoun. The lightest casualty figure from chroniclers
(pinch of salt, anyone?) is thirteen thousand from the English, but only
two thousand from Wyntoun.
>> Similar result at Halidon. One other thing to remember about Falkirk...
>> only half of Edward's army actually fought. Eleven thousand Welsh, mostly
>> archers, pretty much sat it out until the day was won. Rather hard for
>> your archers to be effective when more than half of them aren't fighting
>> at all.
>
>AFAIK, English had (at least according to some estimates) a big numeric
>advantage. If so, there was enough archers deployed to do all this damage.
Hrm. Far as I recall they did not have the numeric advantage, and there
is little solid information as to to how large a force really was there on
the Scottish side - we can safely discount the 300,000 that Morris figured
would have resulted from taking some chroniclers such as Rishanger
seriously.
>Personally, I don't believe too much in all these "arrow storms" (not that
>I would like to walk under one of them :-) ). With the archers being
>arranged rather deep and shooting under a high angle and, presumably too
>fast to aim, the fast moving column should be able to get through.
>After
>all, the "killing range" would be something around a hundred meters.
>The columns of the Napoleonic Wars or the linear formations of the XVIII
>century had been able to move through 300 - 500 meters of a more deadly
>fire (including grenades and canister shot), often in a very slow pace.
The proof is in the pudding - the English were winning some remarkable
victories using it. I think the comparison with the Napoleonic era troops
falls apart due to training, drilling, and better knowledge on the part of
the troops being shot as to how to handle it. Now, this does not mean
they are not capable of breaking - but the dynamic amongst the troops is
different. Another aspect to consider for this situation is that the
Scots are not likely to have much in the way of armour except for the very
top echelon of troops, and when it does hit the English lines it will be
hitting dismounted men-at-arms or heavy infantry, not the archers
themselves if the English commander has any brains in his head.
>>especially when trying to move booty
>> back into Scotland over hundreds of miles.
>
>Even the light cavalry could have problems with this, esp if the booty
>included prisoners.
Usually it didn't. What use is it to take someone back to Scotland? If
they are worthy of a decent ransom, you likely will have captured or
stolen a horse to haul them back on.
>> >I think that this requirement is somewhat exaggerrated. Swiss demonstrated
>> >their abilities on the various terrains.
>>
>> Scots lost that cohesion at Falkirk,
>
>I know. They just stayed waiting for the opponent running out of arrows
>or deciding to take a nap. I can't figure out what was Wallace's plan,
>providing he had one beyond "dance if you can".
It mystifies me as well. Had he avoided the fight, serious problems would
have ensued for Edward due to the failure of the campaign.
>Indeed. However, on many ocassions Swiss did not have anything that would
>ammount for an effective cavalry support and/or "firepower". On many other
>ocassions (I'm talking not exclusively about the Swiss, but their "model"),
>the cavalry and other troops had been present but did not play a
>significant role.
>
>As I understand, the following factors had often been helpful:
>(a) Surprise (at Novarra and many other cases), which tells us that these
>columns could move fast, often in the mountained area.
>(b) Reputation (e.g., during the Burgundian Wars) - the opponent often
>panicked (esp the "feudal armies") at the very sight of the attacking
>Swiss (IIRC, they had a nasty habit of not taking the prisoners, which
>proved to be a valuable psychological weapon).
>(c) Strong faith in the "push" of the column.
Sounds like yet another reflection of the morale/discipline equation,
which usually shows up in the casualty list. Things usually stay pretty
even until someone breaks. And then they die - the back makes such an
easy target...
>> >> rather than the dispersal that characterized the Scottish
>> >> methods for handling the English.
>> >
>> >Could it be that "dispersal" was mostly due to the Scottish lack of
>> >a discipline and general political disunity? Most of the time they had
>> >been at each other's throats so it's rather difficult to expect a nation-wide
>> >mechanism being enforced (Wallace tried, IIRC, but Falkirk doomed this
>> >effort).
>>
>> Under Edward I there is some of this, but mostly they were perfectly
>> willing to act as most people do to invading forces
>
>AFAIK, there is no uniform model of behavior and the invaded people
>quite often had been beaten due to the lack of a discipline, skill or
>even bravery.
>
>
>> - put problems aside
>> for the moment and smash the outsiders to kindling.
>
>IMO, this is a highly idealized scenario, esp. for the medieval country.
The difficulty in talking about generalities. However, you see that
scenario in Scotland - for the most part, they would rather hammer on the
English than squabble, albeit with some major exceptions (Galloway).
>> Bruce is an unusual
>> example, as he was acting in self-interest at the various points he
>> switched sides.
>
>I'd say that in this he was quite usual and he was defintely not alone.
No, but plenty of others held the line.
>> In general, the English were good at beating these formations.
>
>AFAIK, the only case when some noticeable number of English met Swiss
>was at Nancy and you can guess who was slaughtered.
There is a large difference between English soldiers being involved and an
English army with full English control of its command structure being
involved. Also, as discussed before, the Swiss do tend to be an
exception to the rule.
>>Oddly, the
>> situation I'm most reminded of is the Napoleonic wars, with the French
>> columns opposed by the British line - shock vs. firepower.
>
>This is a wrong example. You jumped too far in time. Balance of firepower
>and schock was substantially different in XIX.
You take me far too literally and far too much in detail. Of course the
balance of firepower and shock is different, the technologies involved are
(literally) centuries apart. However, the French appear to prefer
heavy-hitting formations that require closing and smashing through the
enemy to achieve victory, while the English, at least by the thirteenth
century, are very fond of using ranged weapons and combined arms to
annihilate their opponents, with much less concern about winning 'the
right way'.
>>In many ways,
>> those opposing attitudes seem to characterize English vs. French thinking
>> in terms of fighting for centuries.
>
>AFAIK, it does not. French had been fighting in the linear formations
>in the XVIII (BTW, IIRC, at Fontenois English were attacking in the
>deep formations). The change happened during the Revolution to accomodate
>the ill-disciplined recruits. The huge Napoleonic columns were a further
>"development" (not necessarily positive) in this direction.
Nature of the technology. However, considering the nature of the men in
the English armies (scum of the earth, eh wot), I personally find it hard
to believe that the French could not have done something similar.
However, the column suited not only the nature of the recruit, but the
nature of the opposition.
I think you are getting caught up too much in the formations, which is not
what I am talking about. It is the attitude regarding how warfare is
approached, and the preferred manner in which to fight it, rather than any
particular formation or one-size-fits-all method of winning.
>OTOH, if you are saying that in the late XVIII - XIX English had a better
>fire discipline, we are in a complete agreement: they usually had a
>rather small army, which they could drill to a perfection. The same would
>be much more difficult for the much larger continental forces.
Firepower always does require the discipline. Goes hand in hand.
>> And the Scots tended to look to
>> France for military aid and support.
>
>Not sure that this schema is a correct one and they almost definitely did
>not look for French example in the pikemen formations in the XIV century
>because French did not have any decent infantry even during the Italian
>Wars.
Treaty of Corbeil. Auld Alliance. Constant diplomatic efforts to get the
French involved. Philip VI willing to scuttle the chance at crusade in
order to support David Bruce, who he put up at Chateau Galliard while
Stewart and Moray fought his war for him in Scotland. French troops
reportedly at the siege of Perth in 1339.
There isn't a single incident of Anglo-Scottish warfare I can think of
that does not have some French maneuvering involved. They often had
French military advisors and French military supplies coming into Scotland
to help. Going the other way, there were certainly a large number of
Scottish mercenaries fighting on the French side in the HYW, from my
recollections.
>> >However, my question was not really about this. It was somewhat two-fold:
>> >(a) why, with all the defeats, Scotts kept using the pikemen formations?
>> >(b) if they used them anyway, what went "wrong"? (with these formations
>> >being dominant on a continent and failing when used by Scots)?
>> >
>> >Any considerations?
>>
>> Well, the Scots really were outclassed when it came to fighting the
>> English.
>
>Indeed. The question is why?
What did you think I was trying to answer below? I thought I had made it
clear that the Scots were certainly willing to fight. They had the same
range in their population of men more or less suitable for fighting. So
you have to look at the other factors involved, as otherwise you have
little enough left to do but shrug your shoulders and chalk it up as a
Great Mystery of Life.
I'm also addressing other points that I think are worth discussing, more
than using one particular tactic or not.
<snip pointing out the obvious re: Swiss poverty similar to Scots>
Acknowledge all of that.
>> In general, they were always likely to
>> get overwhelmed when fighting the English unless the English were fighting
>> someone else.
>
>This is a result and not an explanation.
This is the completion of the concept I was discussing before, and should
not have been separated out and left to dangle on its own.
>> As for why the Scots kept using the pikes, a lot of that in my mind comes
>> down to military tradition. They use it because they've been using it,
>> the men who could serve as soldiers are familiar with it, and the leaders
>> know the basic gist of how to weild them as a military force. Introducing
>> new methods
>
>Just to form 3 columns and march straight?
It seems easy enough to us, with hindsight and a proven example to look
at. To them, without the same and with a knowledge of 'how one does it'
that can make it difficult to innovate? It makes little sense to me
either, but that is one reason that Clifford Rogers and others refer to
the introduction of the English tactics as a revolution.
>>and new weapons
>
>The same pike.
Again, you insist on the specific when I am discussing a general trend.
>> can take an incredible amount of time and
>> effort,
>
>They even adopted the firearms (and got one of the kings killed by a
>cannon's explosion) but adopt a rather simple tactics used all over the
>Europe, was too much of a change?
Scotland is a military backwater, sadly. And firearms have the advantage
of being something obviously different, and obviously experimental. Also,
at the time I'm discussing the Scots, those pike formations were not in
vogue yet.
It mystifies me as well, but wanting them to act in what we think of as a
rational manner doesn't help when they apparently did not.
Jerome Morrow
news:b9641g$ai4$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> Hey, I still play Civ II....
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Oh Lord no. I remember I had an exam or an essay to complete in 24 hours and
I was busily constructing a highway or transport routes for all my cities.
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com>,
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The Scots were good fighters.
> >
> >As it was noticed in an old Soviet joke: "how come that the country with
> >so many whores is always short of a hard currency?" :-)
>
> Good fighters aren't always good soldiers
Indeed. Esp. the good INDIVIDUAL fighters.
> - think there was a discussion
> here recently about that, can't recall.
>
> >> But they also weren't monolithic.
> >
> >I remember in some book on RtheB, it was also noticed that, with the
> >few exceptions (like the troops trained by Wallace), they were not "stable":
> >either too much bravery or too easily paniced.
>
> I don't think Wallace had much to do with the creation of any new and
> unusual force.
Author of the book argued that he developed a discipline which allowed
Scots to stay the whole day under the archers and cavalry attacks.
I don't have any fixed opinion on this subject but a merit of letting
yourself being killed without doing anything to the enemy eludes me.
In my (perhaps cynical) view, these poor guys would do much better if they
... er ... "dispersed" and got together in another time and place to do
enemy some harm.
Of course, things may look different for the Scotish patriot.
> His one major victory at Stirling Bridge had more to do
> with the absolutely appalling generalship on the English side.
And, anyway, this encounter was much closer to his earlier experiecne:
just a big-scale ambush.
>Any man
> who has the quote 'I brought you to the dance, now hop' attributed to him
> on the eve of a batle such as Falkirk does not look all that wondrous in
> my eyes.
Welcome to the club. :-)
IMO, he was a typical case of the capable "guerilla leader" (or "bandit",
depending on which side you are :-) ) who raised above his level of a
competence and simply did not know how to handle the situation on a strategic
or tactical level.
There could be some political excuses for him fighting at Falkirk (we may
assume that his position of a Guardian was vulnerable politically and he
could not afford the scorched earth strategy widely used by RtheB, etc.)
but on the field he choose the most stupid of all options (flee, stay,
attack). With an attack, he would have at least a marginal chance for
success: a heavy feudal cavalry was not successful (on a continent)
against the pike formations and it's an open question if the archers would
keep shooting until the last moment or run.
>
> The Scots can certainly appear flighty, or overconfident, but I think that
> has more to do with the situations we see them in than actuality - that
> and stereotyping of their national character.
Can't comment on this because I don't know author's origin and considerations.
> Given the proper chronicles
> and selected information (which is essentially what we get from chronicles
> anyway) I could make the English look just as bad. Take Bannockburn, and
> one doesn't need to tweak anything.
There would be numerous other cases. I agree with your point.
>
> >>Large
> >> segments of the population at various parts of the wars were supporting
> >> the English - well, supporting leaders supporting the English,
> >
> >Indeed. Or, at least, hated each other's guts and would not fight together.
>
> I was referring to 'the little guy' who made up the bulk of the army,
> rather than the fellows squabbling at the top.
Well, judging by Sir W.Scott, these feelings did not always stay on the
top but often spreaded to the lower levels, esp. in the Highlands. I suspect
that if you are permanently at war with your neighbour, you'll develop at
least some "feelings".
>
> >>but the end
> >> result is similar. The raiding policies we were talking about in another
> >> part of this thread were often used by Moray and Stewart on other Scots
> >> who supported the English. It worked for them - got them money and goods
> >> and often forced a change in heart on other Scots.
> >>
> >> I do feel the Swiss example, while laudable, really has to be seen as an
> >> exception to the rule in terms of their military structure. I'd be much
> >> more comfortable with comparisons to the Flemish.
> >
> >The point I was trying to make was that there was a successful example of
> >the pike formations. There were obvious similarities between the Scots and
> >Swiss: poor countries with the strong neighbours, reasonably similar
> >geography. At least at some point, both had similarly looking formations:
> >schiltrons/columns.And one of them was spectacularly successful, while another
> >kept using the same weapon only to be consistently beaten.
> >So I was understandably curious why?
>
> There's one big difference, at least from what I recall: Schiltroms don't
> tend to move, and are defensive formations. Columns are offensive.
Yes, the circular formations are hardly suitable for the attack. But my
impression was that they eventually had been modified into the columns
(even at Bannockburn) and in that "Tudorish" battle I mentioned the James
<whatever> had been killed during the failed attack of the pike formation.
>
> >Flemish had been different. Their militias were predominantly city-based
> >(AFAIK) and not the "national". They had been rather short-lived: after
> >very few successes they had been defeated and did not rise again. Their
> >phalanx formations had been faulty for anything but defense in the
> >carefully choosen position with the covered flanks (with a counterattack
> >in a last moment).
>
> Which resembles the Scottish usage.
There would be a big difference even between a circular formation and a
phalanx: AFAIK, the circle does not have flanks. :-)
As for the Scotish use of the columns, I simply don't know enough (beyond
the 2nd Battle That Should Not BE Named) to make any conclusions.
> I prefer to use that comparison
> because the Swiss seem to be the only ones who did not use the pike in a
> mainly defensive posture.
I'd say, "the 1st ones". "Everybody" picked up this habit later on.
> Everyone else seems to held, and then
> counterattacked. Perhaps some other people can weigh in on this one.
>
> >> But how many of those did they win? Not many.
> >
> >That's the whole point. How many times had you to step on a pitchfork to
> >learn that the handle will hit you on the head? :-)
>
> You see that pattern throughout history, though, where lessons have to be
> relearned every generation. No reasons the Scots should be different,
> especially with the tradition I was talking about elsewhere. If you learn
> that 'this is how you fight', it takes something special and an incredible
> amount of willpower and energy to force changes.
>
But would it be equally attractive if it is always: 'this is how you fight
and loose'? You should have at least some wins along the way.
> <snip of Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill description>
>
> >Looks like a typical tactical mishandling of a situation.
>
> I would give the English more credit than that. There were certainly some
> dreadful mistakes made by the Scots, but the losses aren't simply due to
> sheer stupidity.
>
> >Swiss usually used 3 columns. One of them would break front somewhere,
> >esp. with the less numerous opponent.
> >Another interesting thing is that English managed to hold their front.
> >IMO, this means that the Scotish attack run out of steam before they
> >reached the opponent's front or that they actually did not figure out
> >how to attack in the column formation (did not have enough training and
> >discipline).
>
> The Scots hit it hard, all right. Nearly every chronicle refers to the
> English being forced back from the impact of the charge, about twenty or
> thirty paces. However, the English were similarly armed,
Aha! So this was a clash of the similar formations, none of them being
able to break another (initially). This explains a lot.
>especially at
> Dupplin - they had captured several hundred Scottish pikes at Dunfermline
> abbey and were using them at the time. The weapons would have been
> similar regardless, as the same result ensued at Halidon Hill. After that
> initial push back, the English managed to hold the line. Columns aren't
> gauranteed to break what they hit, after all.
Indeed. A lot of examples to this during the Italian Wars. But the picture
is different: both sides with the equal weapons (not the short pikes on the
English side). In this situation, the "extras" (cavalry, archers) can easily
play a big role.
[]
> >> Similar result at Halidon. One other thing to remember about Falkirk...
> >> only half of Edward's army actually fought. Eleven thousand Welsh, mostly
> >> archers, pretty much sat it out until the day was won. Rather hard for
> >> your archers to be effective when more than half of them aren't fighting
> >> at all.
> >
> >AFAIK, English had (at least according to some estimates) a big numeric
> >advantage. If so, there was enough archers deployed to do all this damage.
>
> Hrm. Far as I recall they did not have the numeric advantage, and there
> is little solid information as to to how large a force really was there on
> the Scottish side - we can safely discount the 300,000 that Morris figured
> would have resulted from taking some chroniclers such as Rishanger
> seriously.
The Dreadful Obsolete Historian gave English a considerable numeric advantage
(IIRC). Of course, we should not pay any attention to what he wrote. :-)
>
> >Personally, I don't believe too much in all these "arrow storms" (not that
> >I would like to walk under one of them :-) ). With the archers being
> >arranged rather deep and shooting under a high angle and, presumably too
> >fast to aim, the fast moving column should be able to get through.
> >After
> >all, the "killing range" would be something around a hundred meters.
> >The columns of the Napoleonic Wars or the linear formations of the XVIII
> >century had been able to move through 300 - 500 meters of a more deadly
> >fire (including grenades and canister shot), often in a very slow pace.
>
> The proof is in the pudding - the English were winning some remarkable
> victories using it.
In most of the most famous ones, they won just as much due to the good
generalship on their side as due to the absense of any competent command
on the opponent's side.
In at least 2 out of 3 famous victories of 100YW the battle was not won
by the "arrow storm". Even at A<youknowwhat> the archers managed to
scare the horses. The dismounted French knights crawled all the way through
the deep mud and had been defeated by the infantry fighting with the short
range weapons. At Poitiers the issue had been decided by the cavalry
counterattack and "brilliant" French leadership. Archers, again, had been
efficient against a relatively small mounted French advanceguard.
During the Wars of the Roses, in most cases both sides managed to get to
the hand to hand fighting instead of shooting each other to death.
> I think the comparison with the Napoleonic era troops
> falls apart due to training, drilling, and better knowledge on the part of
> the troops being shot as to how to handle it.
The Napoleonic Wars were another time and a diferent story.
> Now, this does not mean
> they are not capable of breaking - but the dynamic amongst the troops is
> different. Another aspect to consider for this situation is that the
> Scots are not likely to have much in the way of armour except for the very
> top echelon of troops, and when it does hit the English lines it will be
> hitting dismounted men-at-arms or heavy infantry, not the archers
> themselves if the English commander has any brains in his head.
AFAIK, Swiss usually did not wear a protective armour and this did not
stop them. OTOH, the Spanish pikemen (and "everybody" else afterwards)
had been wearing it. Probably there are pro- and contras to each way.
[]
> >I know. They just stayed waiting for the opponent running out of arrows
> >or deciding to take a nap. I can't figure out what was Wallace's plan,
> >providing he had one beyond "dance if you can".
>
> It mystifies me as well. Had he avoided the fight, serious problems would
> have ensued for Edward due to the failure of the campaign.
The only explanation I can think of (and,with no deep knowledge of the
subject, it's just a speculation) is that this could be a "political"
battle (like BOrodino in 1812). Wallace could be forced to demonstrate
his readiness to defend Scotland at any cost.
After all, he was not (very dubious but still) a king, just an appointee,
and his freedom of action could be severely limited.
If so, the rest was simply a bad generalship.
>
> >Indeed. However, on many ocassions Swiss did not have anything that would
> >ammount for an effective cavalry support and/or "firepower". On many other
> >ocassions (I'm talking not exclusively about the Swiss, but their "model"),
> >the cavalry and other troops had been present but did not play a
> >significant role.
> >
> >As I understand, the following factors had often been helpful:
> >(a) Surprise (at Novarra and many other cases), which tells us that these
> >columns could move fast, often in the mountained area.
> >(b) Reputation (e.g., during the Burgundian Wars) - the opponent often
> >panicked (esp the "feudal armies") at the very sight of the attacking
> >Swiss (IIRC, they had a nasty habit of not taking the prisoners, which
> >proved to be a valuable psychological weapon).
> >(c) Strong faith in the "push" of the column.
>
> Sounds like yet another reflection of the morale/discipline equation,
> which usually shows up in the casualty list. Things usually stay pretty
> even until someone breaks. And then they die - the back makes such an
> easy target...
Yes.
[]
> >> Bruce is an unusual
> >> example, as he was acting in self-interest at the various points he
> >> switched sides.
> >
> >I'd say that in this he was quite usual and he was defintely not alone.
>
> No, but plenty of others held the line.
IIRC, at some point msot of the nobles made some pacts with Edward I.
Robert probably did it more often than many others.
>
> >> In general, the English were good at beating these formations.
> >
> >AFAIK, the only case when some noticeable number of English met Swiss
> >was at Nancy and you can guess who was slaughtered.
>
> There is a large difference between English soldiers being involved and an
> English army with full English control of its command structure being
> involved.
AFAIK, English were not always so self-assured. When Ed York landed at
Calais with what de Comnin reports as the biggest English army ever (which
is not necessarily correct), he lost all his fighting spirit as soon as
he learned that Charles the Bold is not going to join him.
>Also, as discussed before, the Swiss do tend to be an
> exception to the rule.
Exception that made a rule. :-)
>
> >>Oddly, the
> >> situation I'm most reminded of is the Napoleonic wars, with the French
> >> columns opposed by the British line - shock vs. firepower.
> >
> >This is a wrong example. You jumped too far in time. Balance of firepower
> >and schock was substantially different in XIX.
>
> You take me far too literally and far too much in detail. Of course the
> balance of firepower and shock is different, the technologies involved are
> (literally) centuries apart.
AFAIK, there were very specific reasons for Napoleonic armies using the
deep formations and, anyway, they had been fighting in the linear
formations most of the time. If anything, Nappy was VERY fond of the
firepower, esp. of the artillery.
>However, the French appear to prefer
> heavy-hitting formations that require closing and smashing through the
> enemy to achieve victory,
>while the English, at least by the thirteenth
> century, are very fond of using ranged weapons and combined arms to
> annihilate their opponents, with much less concern about winning 'the
> right way'.
This would be true for the XIII century due to a simple reason: French
practically did not have a class of the free peasants and, as a result,
did not have cadres for a good national infantry of any type. The same
problem persisted into the XVII century when Richelieu started creation
of a national army. OTOH, you may notice that over this time French made
numerous attempts to create the national archers and infantry in general.
So, it was not an issue of "preference" but of a material available.
BTW, they adopted the firearms more eager than English and made a good
use fo them at the last stages of 100YW. As you can see, they did not
have any national aversion to the ranged weapons.
>
> >>In many ways,
> >> those opposing attitudes seem to characterize English vs. French thinking
> >> in terms of fighting for centuries.
> >
> >AFAIK, it does not. French had been fighting in the linear formations
> >in the XVIII (BTW, IIRC, at Fontenois English were attacking in the
> >deep formations). The change happened during the Revolution to accomodate
> >the ill-disciplined recruits. The huge Napoleonic columns were a further
> >"development" (not necessarily positive) in this direction.
>
> Nature of the technology.
It's not technology. It's more "social".
> However, considering the nature of the men in
> the English armies (scum of the earth, eh wot), I personally find it hard
> to believe that the French could not have done something similar.
Look at the numbers and deployment. French had the huge armies and they
had been fighting somebody most of the XVIII - early XIX. They did not have
time and opportunity to drill these big numbers to a high degree of a
perfection. Esp. during the Revolutionary Wars (with discipline being
considerably "relaxed") and the Napoleonic Wars with their huge losses.
English had a small mercenary army and mostly fought the wars of their
choise (and mostly did not have enough numbers to fight on their own).
They had plenty of time and resources to drill their soldiers really well.
BTW, IIRC, it took a lot of effort to make the British troops "modern"
during the Napoleonic Wars.
> However, the column suited not only the nature of the recruit, but the
> nature of the opposition.
The line formations.
>
> I think you are getting caught up too much in the formations, which is not
> what I am talking about. It is the attitude regarding how warfare is
> approached, and the preferred manner in which to fight it, rather than any
> particular formation or one-size-fits-all method of winning.
The French "revolutionary" approach (one of the XVIII century was the
standard european linear tactics) was to be able to deploy the big masses
of the ill-trained and ill-disciplined soldiers. Columns had been combined
with the sharpshooters, acting out of line, and the lines. Napoleon made
this more systematic and the main instruments for the victory were the
fast marches and ability to concentrate power in a critical point. Firepower
was a very important component.
>
> >OTOH, if you are saying that in the late XVIII - XIX English had a better
> >fire discipline, we are in a complete agreement: they usually had a
> >rather small army, which they could drill to a perfection. The same would
> >be much more difficult for the much larger continental forces.
>
> Firepower always does require the discipline. Goes hand in hand.
I was talking about a fir discipline. "Firepower" involved artillery as
well.
[the rest snipped: I got your point]
C A Candy
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>c.a....@durham.ac.uk (C A Candy) wrote in message
news:<b97ac6$c...@altair.dur.ac.uk>...
>> I don't think Wallace had much to do with the creation of any new and
>> unusual force.
>
>Author of the book argued that he developed a discipline which allowed
>Scots to stay the whole day under the archers and cavalry attacks.
>I don't have any fixed opinion on this subject but a merit of letting
>yourself being killed without doing anything to the enemy eludes me.
>In my (perhaps cynical) view, these poor guys would do much better if they
>... er ... "dispersed" and got together in another time and place to do
>enemy some harm.
>Of course, things may look different for the Scotish patriot.
I'm of your view on this one.
>There could be some political excuses for him fighting at Falkirk (we may
>assume that his position of a Guardian was vulnerable politically and he
>could not afford the scorched earth strategy widely used by RtheB, etc.)
>but on the field he choose the most stupid of all options (flee, stay,
>attack). With an attack, he would have at least a marginal chance for
>success: a heavy feudal cavalry was not successful (on a continent)
>against the pike formations and it's an open question if the archers would
>keep shooting until the last moment or run.
It is doubtful he ever even considered it - the formations were placed by
marking out where they were to stand with stakes and rope. Not a means
for placing a force meant to be mobile, far as I can tell!
>> The Scots can certainly appear flighty, or overconfident, but I think that
>> has more to do with the situations we see them in than actuality - that
>> and stereotyping of their national character.
>
>Can't comment on this because I don't know author's origin and considerations.
It's not just that author: it seems to be the standard characterisation.
[regional feelings]
>Well, judging by Sir W.Scott, these feelings did not always stay on the
>top but often spreaded to the lower levels, esp. in the Highlands. I suspect
>that if you are permanently at war with your neighbour, you'll develop at
>least some "feelings".
Have to agree with that, as the Scottish-English antipathy really got set
in stone during this period.
>> There's one big difference, at least from what I recall: Schiltroms don't
>> tend to move, and are defensive formations. Columns are offensive.
>
>Yes, the circular formations are hardly suitable for the attack. But my
>impression was that they eventually had been modified into the columns
>(even at Bannockburn) and in that "Tudorish" battle I mentioned the James
><whatever> had been killed during the failed attack of the pike formation.
Perhaps. My gut feeling though is the one meant to act defensively and
take advantage of circumstances, while the other had every intention of
taking the fight to the opposition.
>There would be a big difference even between a circular formation and a
>phalanx: AFAIK, the circle does not have flanks. :-)
I'll have to agree with you on this one. :)
>> I prefer to use that comparison
>> because the Swiss seem to be the only ones who did not use the pike in a
>> mainly defensive posture.
>
>I'd say, "the 1st ones". "Everybody" picked up this habit later on.
Agreed. The wonders of a good example.
>> You see that pattern throughout history, though, where lessons have to be
>> relearned every generation. No reasons the Scots should be different,
>> especially with the tradition I was talking about elsewhere. If you learn
>> that 'this is how you fight', it takes something special and an incredible
>> amount of willpower and energy to force changes.
>
>But would it be equally attractive if it is always: 'this is how you fight
>and loose'? You should have at least some wins along the way.
Part of it may have been drawing conclusions from erroneous information.
After all, there were just enough examples - Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn,
the Weardale campaign in 1327, Culblean in 1335 - to tell the Scots they
could win. That special circumstances existed at all of them, and that
one (Weardale) wasn't anything more than a raid that managed to avoid
engagement didn't matter. It was the perception of the victories.
[Dupplin Moor]
>> The Scots hit it hard, all right. Nearly every chronicle refers to the
>> English being forced back from the impact of the charge, about twenty or
>> thirty paces. However, the English were similarly armed,
>
>Aha! So this was a clash of the similar formations, none of them being
>able to break another (initially). This explains a lot.
Part of the combined arms bit - English weren't crazy enough to only use
bowmen. The tactics always required a core of heavy infantry or
dismounted men-at-arms, though usually of a far smaller proportion by
preference to that of the Scots or French.
>>especially at
>> Dupplin - they had captured several hundred Scottish pikes at Dunfermline
>> abbey and were using them at the time. The weapons would have been
>> similar regardless, as the same result ensued at Halidon Hill. After that
>> initial push back, the English managed to hold the line. Columns aren't
>> gauranteed to break what they hit, after all.
>
>Indeed. A lot of examples to this during the Italian Wars. But the picture
>is different: both sides with the equal weapons (not the short pikes on the
>English side). In this situation, the "extras" (cavalry, archers) can easily
>play a big role.
No need for 'big'. Without that body to hold the attack, archers get
mauled.
[numbers at Falkirk]
>The Dreadful Obsolete Historian gave English a considerable numeric advantage
>(IIRC). Of course, we should not pay any attention to what he wrote. :-)
Sound advice. :) There really is not the information out there to make
any solid statement on the matter.
>> The proof is in the pudding - the English were winning some remarkable
>> victories using it (arrow storms).
>
>In most of the most famous ones, they won just as much due to the good
>generalship on their side as due to the absense of any competent command
>on the opponent's side.
I'll grant this, though Halidon the bad generalship was more in the
pre-battle maneuverings that allowed the entire English army to be there
and present before the Scots hit them outside of Berwick, and for allowing
a situation where the fight had to be that day.
>In at least 2 out of 3 famous victories of 100YW the battle was not won
>by the "arrow storm". Even at A<youknowwhat> the archers managed to
>scare the horses. The dismounted French knights crawled all the way through
>the deep mud and had been defeated by the infantry fighting with the short
>range weapons. At Poitiers the issue had been decided by the cavalry
>counterattack and "brilliant" French leadership. Archers, again, had been
>efficient against a relatively small mounted French advanceguard.
>
>During the Wars of the Roses, in most cases both sides managed to get to
>the hand to hand fighting instead of shooting each other to death.
No problem with this - archers are nasty, but not without the other parts
of the equation.
>The Napoleonic Wars were another time and a diferent story.
Agreed, in the main.
>AFAIK, Swiss usually did not wear a protective armour and this did not
>stop them. OTOH, the Spanish pikemen (and "everybody" else afterwards)
>had been wearing it. Probably there are pro- and contras to each way.
Fatigue would be a major factor, I'd think.
>IIRC, at some point msot of the nobles made some pacts with Edward I.
>Robert (the Bruce) probably did it more often than many others.
The bigger you are, the more you can get away with it. Another example
are the earls of March. Quickest way to get them to change sides was to
blow in their ear so that they thought the wind had changed direction.
>> >> In general, the English were good at beating these formations.
>> >
>> >AFAIK, the only case when some noticeable number of English met Swiss
>> >was at Nancy and you can guess who was slaughtered.
>>
>> There is a large difference between English soldiers being involved and an
>> English army with full English control of its command structure being
>> involved.
>
>AFAIK, English were not always so self-assured. When Ed York landed at
>Calais with what de Comnin reports as the biggest English army ever (which
>is not necessarily correct), he lost all his fighting spirit as soon as
>he learned that Charles the Bold is not going to join him.
Just because the English were good at hammering the formations did not
mean they were always confident of doing so. :) I just don't feel it is a
fair comparison to look at English contingents in a continental army and
lump it in with 'English battles', as how they were used was likely to be
different than someone coming up through the English military experience.
>>Also, as discussed before, the Swiss do tend to be an
>> exception to the rule.
>
>Exception that made a rule. :-)
But not before 1340. :)
>AFAIK, there were very specific reasons for Napoleonic armies using the
>deep formations and, anyway, they had been fighting in the linear
>formations most of the time. If anything, Nappy was VERY fond of the
>firepower, esp. of the artillery.
Agreed on that. Perhaps my comment should be limited to consideration of
the infantry and cavalry, rather than support units.
>This would be true for the XIII century due to a simple reason: French
>practically did not have a class of the free peasants and, as a result,
>did not have cadres for a good national infantry of any type. The same
>problem persisted into the XVII century when Richelieu started creation
>of a national army. OTOH, you may notice that over this time French made
>numerous attempts to create the national archers and infantry in general.
>So, it was not an issue of "preference" but of a material available.
>BTW, they adopted the firearms more eager than English and made a good
>use fo them at the last stages of 100YW. As you can see, they did not
>have any national aversion to the ranged weapons.
Agreed, in the main - I know the Burgundians (yeah, yeah) tried to
institute longbow use as well. Much of it is a reflection of society, as
you noted. But the materials create the preference, which shapes the
materials, and the next thing you know, our next discussion will involve
one chicken and one egg, etc. :)
[snippage of differences in English and French Napoleonic armies]
Amazing what having a good Navy can do for you. I see the point on the
rest.
>The French "revolutionary" approach (one of the XVIII century was the
>standard european linear tactics) was to be able to deploy the big masses
>of the ill-trained and ill-disciplined soldiers. Columns had been combined
>with the sharpshooters, acting out of line, and the lines. Napoleon made
>this more systematic and the main instruments for the victory were the
>fast marches and ability to concentrate power in a critical point. Firepower
>was a very important component.
Hmm. I think we have two different senses of 'firepower' going on here.
When I used it regarding shock, I had in mind the difference between
tactics that smash and break apart the enemy formations, allowing them
then to be disposed of, and tactics that annihilate the formation by the
infliction of continual casualties, which result in the breakdown of
discipline. Both have to use 'shock' and 'firepower' in the sense you
seem to mean, in terms of the range of the force applied.
That being said, I see how the artillery would be considered 'firepower'
even under my usage, though the use against 'critical points' hints more
towards the 'shock' I mentioned.
>> Firepower always does require the discipline. Goes hand in hand.
>
>I was talking about a fir discipline. "Firepower" involved artillery as
>well.
See above; I'm perfectly willing to admit my comment breaks down when seen
as anything more than the most gross simplication of attitudes requiring a
great deal of further explanation. :)
On the other hand, is anyone else actually making it to the bottom of
these posts other than Alex and I? :) Apologies for the hack and slash on
clipping previous statements - trying to get things a touch shorter if at
all possible.
William Black
> > A couple of hundred years later the English town militias were able to
> > produce pike units of reasonable quality, mainly because they had to.
>
> I see. Things HAVE to be started in England, otherwise they did not
> happen. :-)
Always.
Otherwise we just carry on with what George Orwell called 'The timeless
dream of England'.
Watching an eternal cricket match where the cucumber in the sandwiches is
always crisp and the beer is never flat and we sit in idyllic sunshine
watching for rain that never comes...
Look..
I can dream...
I need to dream...
I live in a place where an inch of rain in a day is considered normal and 60
mph gales are called 'good drying weather'.
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can't answer your question about the Swiss. Infantry
> was the mainstay of medieval armies at all times. But
> unsupported infantry could have serious trouble. The
> Swiss pikemen came into their own after the Scots-English
> wars spoken of above.
Bannockburn - 1314
Mortgraten - 1315
Gordon Johnson
wrote:
** So do I. I prefer it to the later more complicated version.
Gordon.
Gordon Johnson
wrote:
** The above fits my own view. England was a monolithic society,
geared up to the production of knights in heavy armour and foot
archers in support, with plenty of finance to back them up.
Scotland - previously a fairly wealthy country of its time - was
divided among various factions, undermined by most of the leaders also
having English estates and so liable to switch sides.
The only way a Scottish force could fec uop to the English armies was
by unconventional - forcing a battle in a narrow, easily defensible
front - a bridge or a piece of land with bogs on either side, or a
narrow valley, all of which prevent the heavy cavalry from utilising
their strengths.
Raiding is another version of the unconventional warfare which was
open to the poorer-armed and poorer-resourced Scots, and as many of
the leaders of the Scots had also experience fighting in the English
army, they knew that conventional battles were fatal.
Using the pikemen is fine, in a narrow confine, if you can convince
them to stand firm!
Gordon.
Gordon Johnson
wrote:
>In article <f8e58188.0305...@posting.google.com>,
>am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
>
>> Or did I miss something fundamental in this picture?
>
> The availability of other troops. Scottish cavalry suffered from the
>absence of anything much bigger than a pony. Scots archery was nothing
>to write home about either.
Highland troops were usually unavailable,
>a lot of Scottish history is about the attempts of a lowland king to
>control Highland Chiefs.
** AT that period, there were no real Highland chiefs. Most of the
country was divided between feudal lords, or was controlled by
Scandanavians - Caithness, Western Isles, etc.
Gordon
Michael Kuettner
"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b94ff4$9...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
> In article <b94e07$bpd$1...@rex.ip-plus.net>,
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
> >Raids are an offensive strategy. To sustain the raiders (training, etc)
> >you have to protect your base (where raiders wouldn't be very
effective);
> >that means, you'd need some heavy troops.
> >Re. Helvetia : They had(have) geography working for them.
> >little joy ;-)
>
> supply lines, weak units of the English, Scots who were supporting the
> English, etc., etc., etc.
Well, yes; but they lost when the English came after them; ie., destroyed
the basis of the raiders.
<snip good rest of post>
I'm not very well acquainted with Scottish history; so please have some
patience with a BT outsider ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
>
> > I wouldn't want to plan an invasion; too many mountains, too
> > little joy ;-)
>
> It looks like this "joyless" thing worked only while these guys with the
> long pikes were a factor. :-)
Well, of course; that's what I meant. Guys with long pikes as raiders
would be rather pointless - well, let me rephrase that ;-)
The Swiss weren't raiders; they relied on their infantry; and that worked
until about 1555 (well, somewhere between 1550 and 1560).
After that, Swiss expansion stopped ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
C A Candy
Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:b94ff4$9...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
>> The Scots used raiding to good effect in a 'defensive' fashion, striking
>> supply lines, weak units of the English, Scots who were supporting the
>> English, etc., etc., etc.
>
>Well, yes; but they lost when the English came after them; ie., destroyed
>the basis of the raiders.
That is the crux of it, though - they didn't lose. They lost when there
were set-piece battles, yes. However, most of the time, some remnant was
always able to retreat to other areas, or simply move out of the way.
Regardless of how many times Edward I or III burned the north of the
country out of existence, there still were raiders coming out of it the
next year. The English never managed to destroy the raiders, not
completely. Edward I came closest.
><snip good rest of post>
>
>I'm not very well acquainted with Scottish history; so please have some
>patience with a BT outsider ;-)
Hey, we're actually talking about it. That makes me all too willing to be
patient. :)
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com>,
>
> >There could be some political excuses for him fighting at Falkirk (we may
> >assume that his position of a Guardian was vulnerable politically and he
> >could not afford the scorched earth strategy widely used by RtheB, etc.)
> >but on the field he choose the most stupid of all options (flee, stay,
> >attack). With an attack, he would have at least a marginal chance for
> >success: a heavy feudal cavalry was not successful (on a continent)
> >against the pike formations and it's an open question if the archers would
> >keep shooting until the last moment or run.
>
> It is doubtful he ever even considered it - the formations were placed by
> marking out where they were to stand with stakes and rope. Not a means
> for placing a force meant to be mobile, far as I can tell!
I was not saying that he considered this possibility and, if he
arranged the circular formations, he definitely did not.
I was saying that such a possibility existed in theory (run, attack, stay).
[]
>
> >> There's one big difference, at least from what I recall: Schiltroms don't
> >> tend to move, and are defensive formations. Columns are offensive.
> >
> >Yes, the circular formations are hardly suitable for the attack. But my
> >impression was that they eventually had been modified into the columns
> >(even at Bannockburn) and in that "Tudorish" battle I mentioned the James
> ><whatever> had been killed during the failed attack of the pike formation.
>
> Perhaps. My gut feeling though is the one meant to act defensively and
> take advantage of circumstances, while the other had every intention of
> taking the fight to the opposition.
Indeed. I was talking about the possibility of an attack.
> >> I prefer to use that comparison
> >> because the Swiss seem to be the only ones who did not use the pike in a
> >> mainly defensive posture.
> >
> >I'd say, "the 1st ones". "Everybody" picked up this habit later on.
>
> Agreed. The wonders of a good example.
And I wondered why the Scots were not very successful students. :-)
>
> >> You see that pattern throughout history, though, where lessons have to be
> >> relearned every generation. No reasons the Scots should be different,
> >> especially with the tradition I was talking about elsewhere. If you learn
> >> that 'this is how you fight', it takes something special and an incredible
> >> amount of willpower and energy to force changes.
> >
> >But would it be equally attractive if it is always: 'this is how you fight
> >and loose'? You should have at least some wins along the way.
>
> Part of it may have been drawing conclusions from erroneous information.
> After all, there were just enough examples - Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn,
> the Weardale campaign in 1327, Culblean in 1335 - to tell the Scots they
> could win. That special circumstances existed at all of them, and that
> one (Weardale) wasn't anything more than a raid that managed to avoid
> engagement didn't matter. It was the perception of the victories.
I see. So it was an "old glory" recicled without the proper analysis.
This is a damgerous disease. Suvorov's "bayonet first" testament was
still influential in Russia in the late XIX and delayed introduction
of the machine guns (not to mention that the whole training before the
Crimea War was based on a bayonet charge; the results are well-known).
>
> [Dupplin Moor]
>
> >> The Scots hit it hard, all right. Nearly every chronicle refers to the
> >> English being forced back from the impact of the charge, about twenty or
> >> thirty paces. However, the English were similarly armed,
> >
> >Aha! So this was a clash of the similar formations, none of them being
> >able to break another (initially). This explains a lot.
>
> Part of the combined arms bit - English weren't crazy enough to only use
> bowmen. The tactics always required a core of heavy infantry or
> dismounted men-at-arms, though usually of a far smaller proportion by
> preference to that of the Scots or French.
I know that. My point was that the dismounted men-at-arms had the same
weapons as the Scots and not the shorter lances (IIRC, sometimes they
had been even cut shorter to be more convenient for the fighting on foot):
both formations had the equal chance during the "clash" and the combination
of the arms gave English side an advantage.
>
> >>especially at
> >> Dupplin - they had captured several hundred Scottish pikes at Dunfermline
> >> abbey and were using them at the time. The weapons would have been
> >> similar regardless, as the same result ensued at Halidon Hill. After that
> >> initial push back, the English managed to hold the line. Columns aren't
> >> gauranteed to break what they hit, after all.
> >
> >Indeed. A lot of examples to this during the Italian Wars. But the picture
> >is different: both sides with the equal weapons (not the short pikes on the
> >English side). In this situation, the "extras" (cavalry, archers) can easily
> >play a big role.
>
> No need for 'big'. Without that body to hold the attack, archers get
> mauled.
Of course. But with the "holding" body they could keep shooting until
the last moment, which made them extremely efficient (this is from the
Dreadful Obsolete Historian).
[snip agreements]
>
> >AFAIK, Swiss usually did not wear a protective armour and this did not
> >stop them. OTOH, the Spanish pikemen (and "everybody" else afterwards)
> >had been wearing it. Probably there are pro- and contras to each way.
>
> Fatigue would be a major factor, I'd think.
A lesser speed also.
>
> >IIRC, at some point msot of the nobles made some pacts with Edward I.
> >Robert (the Bruce) probably did it more often than many others.
>
> The bigger you are, the more you can get away with it. Another example
> are the earls of March. Quickest way to get them to change sides was to
> blow in their ear so that they thought the wind had changed direction.
:-)
> >AFAIK, English were not always so self-assured. When Ed York landed at
> >Calais with what de Comnin reports as the biggest English army ever (which
> >is not necessarily correct), he lost all his fighting spirit as soon as
> >he learned that Charles the Bold is not going to join him.
>
> Just because the English were good at hammering the formations did not
> mean they were always confident of doing so. :)
Well, Ed was an experienced and rather successful general and, at this
particular time French did not have any impressive army.
> I just don't feel it is a
> fair comparison to look at English contingents in a continental army and
> lump it in with 'English battles',
I did not say that this was an English battle. I said that it was, AFAIK,
a single noticeable encounter where both English and Swiss had been
present.
Nobody called Nancy or Grunwald/Tannenberg the "English battles" just
because their archers had been present.
Anyway, as de Comnin put it, to be useful, they had to be present in the
large numbers.
>as how they were used was likely to be
> different than someone coming up through the English military experience.
In both cases I mention, they had been within a defensive perimeter.
>
> >>Also, as discussed before, the Swiss do tend to be an
> >> exception to the rule.
> >
> >Exception that made a rule. :-)
>
> But not before 1340. :)
Yes, but Morgarten happened before and left at least some 'memory'.
I agree that the 'real' reputation had been developed during the Burgundian
Wars (Sempach probably counted as a local experience).
[]
>
> >This would be true for the XIII century due to a simple reason: French
> >practically did not have a class of the free peasants and, as a result,
> >did not have cadres for a good national infantry of any type. The same
> >problem persisted into the XVII century when Richelieu started creation
> >of a national army. OTOH, you may notice that over this time French made
> >numerous attempts to create the national archers and infantry in general.
> >So, it was not an issue of "preference" but of a material available.
> >BTW, they adopted the firearms more eager than English and made a good
> >use fo them at the last stages of 100YW. As you can see, they did not
> >have any national aversion to the ranged weapons.
>
> Agreed, in the main - I know the Burgundians (yeah, yeah) tried to
> institute longbow use as well.
Followed the 'winning model'. Fighting on foot also was very popular because
it was 'how English are fighting'.
>Much of it is a reflection of society, as
> you noted. But the materials create the preference, which shapes the
> materials, and the next thing you know, our next discussion will involve
> one chicken and one egg, etc. :)
>
There is a definite possibility but I think that we'll manage to find
our way around it. :-)
> [snippage of differences in English and French Napoleonic armies]
>
> Amazing what having a good Navy can do for you. I see the point on the
> rest.
>
Being on the island does not hurt either. :-)
> >The French "revolutionary" approach (one of the XVIII century was the
> >standard european linear tactics) was to be able to deploy the big masses
> >of the ill-trained and ill-disciplined soldiers. Columns had been combined
> >with the sharpshooters, acting out of line, and the lines. Napoleon made
> >this more systematic and the main instruments for the victory were the
> >fast marches and ability to concentrate power in a critical point. Firepower
> >was a very important component.
>
> Hmm. I think we have two different senses of 'firepower' going on here.
We can always clarify this.
> When I used it regarding shock, I had in mind the difference between
> tactics that smash and break apart the enemy formations, allowing them
> then to be disposed of, and tactics that annihilate the formation by the
> infliction of continual casualties, which result in the breakdown of
> discipline. Both have to use 'shock' and 'firepower' in the sense you
> seem to mean, in terms of the range of the force applied.
>
> That being said, I see how the artillery would be considered 'firepower'
> even under my usage, though the use against 'critical points' hints more
> towards the 'shock' I mentioned.
Well, your model looks like an 'ideal' linear tactics. AFAIK, most of the
successful generals of the XVII-XVIII combined it with an attack on a
vulnerable point or creating the 'local advantage' by some maneuvering.
Charles XII, Marlborough, Prince Eugene, Friederich II were doing this on
a regular basis.
>
> >> Firepower always does require the discipline. Goes hand in hand.
> >
> >I was talking about a fir discipline. "Firepower" involved artillery as
> >well.
>
> See above; I'm perfectly willing to admit my comment breaks down when seen
> as anything more than the most gross simplication of attitudes requiring a
> great deal of further explanation. :)
>
> On the other hand, is anyone else actually making it to the bottom of
> these posts other than Alex and I? :)
Shhh! Be VERY careful! David can be watching! (at least he promised) :-)
Paul J Gans
Sorry Alex. Bannockburn was the *last* real success.
Mortgraten was the first victory for the Swiss. They
"came into their own" later, once they realized that they
had come onto something at Mortgraten.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Please repeat those dates for Alex. He's under the
impression that 1315 was the high spot of Swiss pikemen.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b9c06h$f0j$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
<snip>
> >Well, of course; that's what I meant. Guys with long pikes as raiders
> >would be rather pointless - well, let me rephrase that ;-)
> >The Swiss weren't raiders; they relied on their infantry; and that
worked
> >until about 1555 (well, somewhere between 1550 and 1560).
> >After that, Swiss expansion stopped ...
>
> Please repeat those dates for Alex. He's under the
> impression that 1315 was the high spot of Swiss pikemen.
>
Paul, what have I done to you that you hate me so much ?
You want to see me get shredded by Alex ?
Could I not just cut my jugular veins; or do you deny me an
easy death ? ;-)
Apart from that, I think you have misunderstood Alex' post.
He just said that the pike formations of the Swiss started to
become a major factor in warfare after the Scottish-English
wars; not that they peeked in 1315.
Kalamazoo-fever ? ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alex
> Using the pikemen is fine, in a narrow confine, if you can convince
> them to stand firm!
The best recepie of getting all of them "heroically" killed, as at
Thermophilae. :-)
Using the pikemen was "fine" when they had been gathered in the big
numbers, formed the deep columns and acted offensively, being ready
to smash any opposition. The "dangerous" things were: another column(s)
of the same type, natural/artificial obstacles (as at Bicocca), a
well-drilled cavalry (which means "usually post-feudal") and a massive
use of the field artillery (combination of the last two factors defeated
them at Breitenfeld and, to a certain degree produced French victory at
Marigniano).
Alex
> >
> > > I wouldn't want to plan an invasion; too many mountains, too
> > > little joy ;-)
> >
> > It looks like this "joyless" thing worked only while these guys with the
> > long pikes were a factor. :-)
>
> Well, of course; that's what I meant.
I thought that you actually meant that at the time under discussion
there was no usual "attractions": Swiss watches, Swiss knives, and Swiss
bank accounts. A person should be REALLY obsessed with cheese (the only
available source of "joy") to attack them. French (and Burgundians) are
the obvious "suspects" but was Archduke Leopold (?) the cheese-lover as
well? :-)
>Guys with long pikes as raiders
> would be rather pointless - well, let me rephrase that ;-)
> The Swiss weren't raiders;
Yes, they had been extortionists, which clearly indicates a higher
degree of the economic development than in the case of Scotland....
>they relied on their infantry;
Of course, with no "attractions" (see above), they could not rely on cheese
as a single source of income. The economy should be divertisified.
>and that worked
> until about 1555 (well, somewhere between 1550 and 1560).
> After that, Swiss expansion stopped ...
... they invented Swiss knives.... :-)
David
news:<3eb70350...@news.ifb.co.uk>...
>
> > Using the pikemen is fine, in a narrow confine, if you can convince
> > them to stand firm!
>
> The best recepie of getting all of them "heroically" killed, as at
> Thermophilae. :-)
>
> Using the pikemen was "fine" when they had been gathered in the big
> numbers, formed the deep columns and acted offensively,
As in lifting up their shirts and waggling their bums at the opposition? (a-la Mel Gibson
in Braveheart)
Alex
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:b9c06h$f0j$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> > Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > >Well, of course; that's what I meant. Guys with long pikes as raiders
> > >would be rather pointless - well, let me rephrase that ;-)
> > >The Swiss weren't raiders; they relied on their infantry; and that
> worked
> > >until about 1555 (well, somewhere between 1550 and 1560).
> > >After that, Swiss expansion stopped ...
> >
> > Please repeat those dates for Alex. He's under the
> > impression that 1315 was the high spot of Swiss pikemen.
> >
> Paul, what have I done to you that you hate me so much ?
Perhaps he mistook you for a horse? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not
trying to criticize Paul's hobbies)
> You want to see me get shredded by Alex ?
Why would I do such a nasty thing? Herr Professor suffers from a fit
of an excessive imagination. I did not say a word about a high spot,
just brought two dates to show that his theory about a cultural
exchange and Scottish roots of the Swiss infantry does not really work:
Mortgarten and Bannockburn are spaced by a year (of course, there is a
chance that at M Swiss had been using the halberds but it does not matter
tactics-wise).
The only feasible logic to support Paul's theory looks (IMO) as following.
In XIV neither Scots not Swiss had enough money to hire the foreign
specialist so the idea about the folks doing some service abroad is not
very convincing. However, EVERYBODY knows that the Bannockburn is
remembered as the place where the MacWasherwomen made their 1st appearence.
As you understand, Scotland of the time simply did not posess enough
resources (and perhaps atractive males) to keep the MacWasherwomen inside
her borders (one of the reasons why they kept loosing afterwards).
They migrated 1st to England (see the thread about the misbehaving females)
and then on a continent. In few decades they made it into the Switzerland
and passed the Scottish experience to the locals. It took few decades and
by the time of Sempach Swiss had the victorious formula (and the
MacWasherwomen). The Austrians did not have a chance against this combination.
> Could I not just cut my jugular veins; or do you deny me an
> easy death ? ;-)
If he REALLY mistook you for the horse, your death would be slow and
painful. I'd recommend a nice, fast (comparing to the laternative)
impaling.
>
> Apart from that, I think you have misunderstood Alex' post.
> He just said that the pike formations of the Swiss started to
> become a major factor in warfare after the Scottish-English
> wars;
Actually, during them: Bannockburn was not the end of these wars.
Mortgarten did not make Swiss the European military factor but it
indicates that the tactics already was in place.
> not that they peeked in 1315.
> Kalamazoo-fever ? ;-)
Or too many "political" posts? :-)
Brett K. Heath
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
>> Using the pikemen was "fine" when they had been gathered
>> in the big numbers, formed the deep columns and acted
>> offensively,
> As in lifting up their shirts and waggling their bums at
> the opposition? (a-la Mel Gibson in Braveheart)
While formed in deep columns?
Talk about "friendly" fire ...
Brett K. (yes Chris, some of us are reading) Heath
Jerome Morrow
> numbers, formed the deep columns and acted offensively, being ready
> to smash any opposition. The "dangerous" things were: another column(s)
> of the same type, natural/artificial obstacles (as at Bicocca), a
> well-drilled cavalry (which means "usually post-feudal") and a massive
> use of the field artillery (combination of the last two factors defeated
> them at Breitenfeld and, to a certain degree produced French victory at
> Marigniano).
I don't think anyone is saying that the pikemen were a wonder weapon in
Medieval times. Combined arms usually carried the day in any battle. You
might as well begin a thread about how field artillery is absolutely flawed
because, if used alone, will get easily swept off the field by light
calvery.
Alex
This (without lifting the shirts) works reasonably well for the baboons
but, AFAIK, they don't form any columns. Neither did Mel's guys.
:-)
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<b9658t$b38$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
> >> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> I can't answer your question about the Swiss. Infantry
> >> was the mainstay of medieval armies at all times. But
> >> unsupported infantry could have serious trouble. The
> >> Swiss pikemen came into their own after the Scots-English
> >> wars spoken of above.
>
>
> >Bannockburn - 1314
> >Mortgraten - 1315
>
> Sorry Alex. Bannockburn was the *last* real success.
Bannockburn was the 1st success of the deep pike formations.
Mortgarten being fought the next year, you can't seriously claim
that the Swiss borrowed from the Scottish experience. BTW, according
to The Dreadful One, Mortgarten was the 1st noticeable success but
not the 1st time the formations had been used.
> Mortgraten was the first victory for the Swiss. They
> "came into their own" later, once they realized that they
> had come onto something at Mortgraten.
The point is that the "cultural exchange" was not a noticeable factor.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > A couple of hundred years later the English town militias were able to
> > > produce pike units of reasonable quality, mainly because they had to.
> >
> > I see. Things HAVE to be started in England, otherwise they did not
> > happen. :-)
>
> Always.
>
> Otherwise we just carry on with what George Orwell called 'The timeless
> dream of England'.
I must dissapoint you. It had been proved that EVERYTHING had been
invented in Russia, including the (pink?) elephants and evergreen tomatoes.
C A Candy
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<b9bvvo$f0j$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<b9658t$b38$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>>
>> >> I can't answer your question about the Swiss. Infantry
>> >> was the mainstay of medieval armies at all times. But
>> >> unsupported infantry could have serious trouble. The
>> >> Swiss pikemen came into their own after the Scots-English
>> >> wars spoken of above.
>>
>>
>> >Bannockburn - 1314
>> >Mortgraten - 1315
>>
>> Sorry Alex. Bannockburn was the *last* real success.
>
>Bannockburn was the 1st success of the deep pike formations.
>Mortgarten being fought the next year, you can't seriously claim
>that the Swiss borrowed from the Scottish experience. BTW, according
>to The Dreadful One, Mortgarten was the 1st noticeable success but
>not the 1st time the formations had been used.
I think Paul means here that the Scots had essentially had their 'window
of opportunity' for the Anglo-Scottish wars already passed by the time the
Swiss began their victories using similar weaponry. Other than a victory
at Myton against a hastily-raised levy force, the Scots would not win any
major set-piece battle against the English (I consider Culblean important
only for its propoganda value) until well after that particular phase of
the Anglo-Scottish wars was well and truly passed.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
> > Using the pikemen was "fine" when they had been gathered in the big
> > numbers, formed the deep columns and acted offensively, being ready
> > to smash any opposition. The "dangerous" things were: another column(s)
> > of the same type, natural/artificial obstacles (as at Bicocca), a
> > well-drilled cavalry (which means "usually post-feudal") and a massive
> > use of the field artillery (combination of the last two factors defeated
> > them at Breitenfeld and, to a certain degree produced French victory at
> > Marigniano).
>
> I don't think anyone is saying that the pikemen were a wonder weapon in
> Medieval times.
How this is related to my listing the advantages/disadvantages of the
pike formations?
>Combined arms usually carried the day in any battle.
Which is, supossedly, means that Burgundians won at Granson, Murten and
Nancy, French won at Courtrai and Novara, Austrians at Morgarten and
Sempach. :-)
>You
> might as well begin a thread about how field artillery is absolutely flawed
> because, if used alone, will get easily swept off the field by light
> calvery.
This would be rather stupid thing to do because, unlike the pikemen formations,
the field artillery was not routinely used on its own. What was your point,
if any?
Michael Kuettner
news:<b9c1v2$dap$1...@rex.ip-plus.net>...
> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:b9c06h$f0j$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> > > Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > >Well, of course; that's what I meant. Guys with long pikes as
raiders
> > > >would be rather pointless - well, let me rephrase that ;-)
> > > >The Swiss weren't raiders; they relied on their infantry; and that
> > worked
> > > >until about 1555 (well, somewhere between 1550 and 1560).
> > > >After that, Swiss expansion stopped ...
> > >
> > > Please repeat those dates for Alex. He's under the
> > > impression that 1315 was the high spot of Swiss pikemen.
> > >
> > Paul, what have I done to you that you hate me so much ?
>
> Perhaps he mistook you for a horse? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not
> trying to criticize Paul's hobbies)
>
> > You want to see me get shredded by Alex ?
>
> Why would I do such a nasty thing?
Because you dream of wearing small furry caps and riding a pony ?
(Obscure Doug Adams reference)
> Herr Professor suffers from a fit
> of an excessive imagination. I did not say a word about a high spot,
> just brought two dates to show that his theory about a cultural
> exchange and Scottish roots of the Swiss infantry does not really work:
> Mortgarten and Bannockburn are spaced by a year (of course, there is a
> chance that at M Swiss had been using the halberds but it does not matter
> tactics-wise).
Indeed.
> The only feasible logic to support Paul's theory looks (IMO) as
following.
> In XIV neither Scots not Swiss had enough money to hire the foreign
> specialist so the idea about the folks doing some service abroad is not
> very convincing. However, EVERYBODY knows that the Bannockburn is
> remembered as the place where the MacWasherwomen made their 1st
appearence.
I know.
They killed the last of the templars there.
> As you understand, Scotland of the time simply did not posess enough
> resources (and perhaps atractive males) to keep the MacWasherwomen inside
> her borders (one of the reasons why they kept loosing afterwards).
> They migrated 1st to England (see the thread about the misbehaving
females)
> and then on a continent. In few decades they made it into the Switzerland
> and passed the Scottish experience to the locals. It took few decades and
> by the time of Sempach Swiss had the victorious formula (and the
> MacWasherwomen). The Austrians did not have a chance against this
combination.
>
Oh, we Austrians adapted to the MacWasherwomen.
We knew we couldn't beat them in battle; thusly we invented our marriage
politics.
"Bellum gerunt alli, tu felix Austria ...." ;-)
>
>
>
> > Could I not just cut my jugular veins; or do you deny me an
> > easy death ? ;-)
>
> If he REALLY mistook you for the horse, your death would be slow and
> painful. I'd recommend a nice, fast (comparing to the laternative)
> impaling.
>
You _definitely_ dream of small furry hats ;-)
> >
> > Apart from that, I think you have misunderstood Alex' post.
> > He just said that the pike formations of the Swiss started to
> > become a major factor in warfare after the Scottish-English
> > wars;
>
> Actually, during them: Bannockburn was not the end of these wars.
> Mortgarten did not make Swiss the European military factor but it
> indicates that the tactics already was in place.
>
During them or parallel to them ?
> > not that they peeked in 1315.
> > Kalamazoo-fever ? ;-)
>
> Or too many "political" posts? :-)
If that's the case we can hope that Kalamazoo gets him on
the right track again ... ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
> In article <b99fba$264$3...@rex.ip-plus.net>,
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> >
> >"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:b94ff4$9...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
>
> >> The Scots used raiding to good effect in a 'defensive' fashion,
striking
> >> supply lines, weak units of the English, Scots who were supporting the
> >> English, etc., etc., etc.
> >
> >Well, yes; but they lost when the English came after them; ie.,
destroyed
> >the basis of the raiders.
>
> That is the crux of it, though - they didn't lose.
> They lost when there
> were set-piece battles, yes. However, most of the time, some remnant was
> always able to retreat to other areas, or simply move out of the way.
> Regardless of how many times Edward I or III burned the north of the
> country out of existence, there still were raiders coming out of it the
> next year. The English never managed to destroy the raiders, not
> completely. Edward I came closest.
>
Well, they lost in the long run, I guess.
You can't conquer new lands with raids; and the effort bled
them white.
The Scots hit some supply columns - the English burn down another village.
The Scots hindered the English conquest; but they couldn't project
power into the English homelands.
> ><snip good rest of post>
> >
> >I'm not very well acquainted with Scottish history; so please have some
> >patience with a BT outsider ;-)
>
> Hey, we're actually talking about it. That makes me all too willing to
be
> patient. :)
>
Ah, very well !
Then let me ask a question many a furriner wants to have an answer to :
When was "haggis" mentioned for the first time ?
And was it developed for warfare or consumption ;-) ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
C A Candy
Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> That is the crux of it, though - they didn't lose.
>> They lost when there
>> were set-piece battles, yes. However, most of the time, some remnant was
>> always able to retreat to other areas, or simply move out of the way.
>> Regardless of how many times Edward I or III burned the north of the
>> country out of existence, there still were raiders coming out of it the
>> next year. The English never managed to destroy the raiders, not
>> completely. Edward I came closest.
>>
>Well, they lost in the long run, I guess.
>You can't conquer new lands with raids; and the effort bled
>them white.
>The Scots hit some supply columns - the English burn down another village.
>The Scots hindered the English conquest; but they couldn't project
>power into the English homelands.
Well, they certainly did at various times, though usually during periods
of weakness in the English realm. Also, I'm not quite sure how you mean
'lost', unless you refer to having to share their ruling family with
England. :) After all, the beginning of the Stuarts, or rather Stewarts,
were as those Stewards that I referred to as fighting Edward III and
Edward Balliol - seeing how David Bruce had no sons.
Also, don't misunderstand when I say they did not go for set-piece
battles. They were certainly willing to engage in sieges, and had quite a
good success rate at knocking off English castles when not interfered with
(i.e., the usual way of it. They simply knew better than to fight on
anything other than their terms except in certain, usually lamentable
circumstances.
>> Hey, we're actually talking about it. That makes me all too willing to
>> be patient. :)
>>
>Ah, very well !
>Then let me ask a question many a furriner wants to have an answer to :
>When was "haggis" mentioned for the first time ?
>And was it developed for warfare or consumption ;-) ?
I, alas, live in England and study the wars from a relatively English
perspective, so am not allowed to respond for fear of being beaten down by
Scottish nationalists. Not that I would have a response, as haggis is
something to only try once. And I did (in Wales, oddly enough). No more
comment will be forthcoming. :)
(pssst - I'm betting that's what they found in that mobile lab!)
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In article <b9ei92$nkr$4...@rex.ip-plus.net>,
>Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
[...]
>>Then let me ask a question many a furriner wants to have an answer to :
>>When was "haggis" mentioned for the first time ?
Early 15th century.
>>And was it developed for warfare or consumption ;-) ?
Though now considered distinctively Scottish, it was a popular
dish in England down to about the 18th century.
>I, alas, live in England and study the wars from a relatively English
>perspective, so am not allowed to respond for fear of being beaten down by
>Scottish nationalists. Not that I would have a response, as haggis is
>something to only try once.
Fiddlesticks. Haggis is a very tasty dish, though I've noticed
that those poor, benighted folks who don't like liver tend also
not to like haggis.
[...]
Brian
Jerome Morrow
news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
> This would be rather stupid thing to do because, unlike the pikemen
formations,
> the field artillery was not routinely used on its own. What was your
point,
> if any?
I mentioned it at the start. Drank too much coffee today Alex?
Gordon Johnson
** I saw part of that film for the first time, on TV last night, and
was amazed at how much the director ignored basic rules of battle -
e.g. the Scots in the film had a hill behind them, yet their front
line was at the bottom of the hill instead of up near the top!
Must have been to make the army seem larger!
Gordon.
David C Pugh
news:3ebb32e5...@enews.newsguy.com...
What Brian said.
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
David
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
> "David" <dro...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:<3eb9b6cb$0$73633$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net>...
> > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f8e58188.03050...@posting.google.com...
> > > gor...@kinhelp.co.uk (Gordon Johnson) wrote in message
> > news:<3eb70350...@news.ifb.co.uk>...
> > >
> > > > Using the pikemen is fine, in a narrow confine, if you can convince
> > > > them to stand firm!
> > >
> > > The best recepie of getting all of them "heroically" killed, as at
> > > Thermophilae. :-)
> > >
> > > Using the pikemen was "fine" when they had been gathered in the big
> > > numbers, formed the deep columns and acted offensively,
> >
> > As in lifting up their shirts and waggling their bums at the opposition? (a-la Mel
Gibson
> > in Braveheart)
>
> This (without lifting the shirts) works reasonably well for the baboons
> but, AFAIK, they don't form any columns. Neither did Mel's guys.
> :-)
They didn't form Schiltroms either.
As I remember the movie, they formed a line and simply charged ahead screaming. Don't
remember that many pikes either, most seemed to be armed with swords, axes etc.
One of my favorite bits was when Edward turned his Irish loose. They ran screaming towards
the Scots, who in turn ran screaming at the Irish (several switches of camera angle
showing screaming men running and brandishing weapons) then both sides stopped and began
shaking hands. Mel says "Glad to see you!"
At some point, probably before the charge begins, Edward makes a comment about arrows
costing 3p each while the Irish were worthless.
Then there were the scenes where the English archers loose and the Scots stand in place
trying to take cover behind those ridiculously small targs, or someone bigger than
themselves.
I remember something about Mel wanting the battle scenes to be a realistic as possible.
Apparently he thought that meant showing as much blood as possible. One quick scene
involved a young boy reaching for a sword, on the ground, only to have his arm cut off by
an axe!
It would be much fun to go through the movie and pick it apart scene by scene pointing out
all the impossibilities and mistakes, but that would require a complete website all by
itself.
One final comment, I thought in the end Mel wimped out. He did not show the actual drawing
out of Braveheart's bowels, leaving most viewers wondering what happened to Braveheart at
the end!
Alex
I have no disagreement with this, just with a theory of a "cultural exchange"
Alex
> > Why would I do such a nasty thing?
>
> Because you dream of wearing small furry caps and riding a pony ?
> (Obscure Doug Adams reference)
Are you saying that wearing a fur hat (why small?), riding a pony and
killing big numbers of people is somehow indicative of the habit of doing
the nasty things? It's a culturalprofiling and absolutely un-PC.
>
> > The only feasible logic to support Paul's theory looks (IMO) as
> following.
> > In XIV neither Scots not Swiss had enough money to hire the foreign
> > specialist so the idea about the folks doing some service abroad is not
> > very convincing. However, EVERYBODY knows that the Bannockburn is
> > remembered as the place where the MacWasherwomen made their 1st
> appearence.
>
> I know.
> They killed the last of the templars there.
S----d them to death, AFAIK (they were on the same side but the Fried
Templars were not up to their task).
>
> > As you understand, Scotland of the time simply did not posess enough
> > resources (and perhaps atractive males) to keep the MacWasherwomen inside
> > her borders (one of the reasons why they kept loosing afterwards).
> > They migrated 1st to England (see the thread about the misbehaving
> females)
> > and then on a continent. In few decades they made it into the Switzerland
> > and passed the Scottish experience to the locals. It took few decades and
> > by the time of Sempach Swiss had the victorious formula (and the
> > MacWasherwomen). The Austrians did not have a chance against this
> combination.
> >
> Oh, we Austrians adapted to the MacWasherwomen.
Starting with Maria-Theresia? :-)
> We knew we couldn't beat them in battle; thusly we invented our marriage
> politics.
> "Bellum gerunt alli, tu felix Austria ...." ;-)
>
Translation, please!
> >
> >
> >
> > > Could I not just cut my jugular veins; or do you deny me an
> > > easy death ? ;-)
> >
> > If he REALLY mistook you for the horse, your death would be slow and
> > painful. I'd recommend a nice, fast (comparing to the laternative)
> > impaling.
> >
> You _definitely_ dream of small furry hats ;-)
AFAIK, these hats were rather big but I simply don't know what you are
talking about. :-)
> > >
> > > Apart from that, I think you have misunderstood Alex' post.
> > > He just said that the pike formations of the Swiss started to
> > > become a major factor in warfare after the Scottish-English
> > > wars;
> >
> > Actually, during them: Bannockburn was not the end of these wars.
> > Mortgarten did not make Swiss the European military factor but it
> > indicates that the tactics already was in place.
> >
> During them or parallel to them ?
Parallel, of course.
>
> > > not that they peeked in 1315.
> > > Kalamazoo-fever ? ;-)
> >
> > Or too many "political" posts? :-)
>
> If that's the case we can hope that Kalamazoo gets him on
> the right track again ... ;-)
I hope so.
William Black
> I remember something about Mel wanting the battle scenes to be a realistic
as possible.
He can't have done, that's got to be PR spin.
Wee Georgie and his lads, who did most of the combat training for the movie,
and the complicated fights, do better than that at most events.
It was ghastly beyond belief.
For a start (and I'm only prepared to give one or I'll be here all night)
the idea that a slashing cut across the body will routinely go through mail
is daft. If armour was that useless people wouldn't have bothered with it
at all, the stuff certainly won't stop an arrow...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b9ejtf$g...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
> I, alas, live in England and study the wars from a relatively English
> perspective, so am not allowed to respond for fear of being beaten down by
> Scottish nationalists. Not that I would have a response, as haggis is
> something to only try once. And I did (in Wales, oddly enough). No more
> comment will be forthcoming. :)
Well the Scots Nats just got trashed by Labour in the assembly elections,
and so don't actually count anymore.
Every major supermarket chain in the UK, (except possibly Safeways) carry
haggis in their stores all over England and Wales.
C A Candy
William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well the Scots Nats just got trashed by Labour in the assembly elections,
>and so don't actually count anymore.
Woohoo! :) It was more tongue-in-cheek my response, obviously - my
recollection of haggis has it similar to an extraordinarily spiced
sausage, with a more crumbly texture. Whether it was good haggis is
another question...
>Every major supermarket chain in the UK, (except possibly Safeways) carry
>haggis in their stores all over England and Wales.
Safeways is by no means safe, considering the quality I've seen at the
local one here in Durham. Dire.
Michael Kuettner
"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:tTKua.10851$b71.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:3ebb32e5...@enews.newsguy.com...
> > On 8 May 2003 22:58:07 +0100, c.a....@durham.ac.uk (C A Candy)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <b9ei92$nkr$4...@rex.ip-plus.net>,
> > >Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >>Then let me ask a question many a furriner wants to have an answer to
:
> > >>When was "haggis" mentioned for the first time ?
> >
> > Early 15th century.
> >
> > >>And was it developed for warfare or consumption ;-) ?
> >
> > Though now considered distinctively Scottish, it was a popular
> > dish in England down to about the 18th century.
> >
> > >I, alas, live in England and study the wars from a relatively English
> > >perspective, so am not allowed to respond for fear of being beaten
down
> by
> > >Scottish nationalists. Not that I would have a response, as haggis is
> > >something to only try once.
> >
> > Fiddlesticks. Haggis is a very tasty dish, though I've noticed
> > that those poor, benighted folks who don't like liver tend also
> > not to like haggis.
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
> What Brian said.
>
Why did haggis become the Scottish national dish ?
Especially, a dish invented by the perfidious English ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
news:<b9ei8r$nkr$3...@rex.ip-plus.net>...
>
> > > Why would I do such a nasty thing?
> >
> > Because you dream of wearing small furry caps and riding a pony ?
> > (Obscure Doug Adams reference)
>
> Are you saying that wearing a fur hat (why small?), riding a pony and
> killing big numbers of people is somehow indicative of the habit of doing
> the nasty things? It's a culturalprofiling and absolutely un-PC.
>
That was a nice one ;-)
No; the reference is from "Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" from
Doug Adams.
There's the chief of the local city planning council, who is a direct
descendant
from Genghis Khan; he doesn't know that; he just has dreams of
riding ponies and wearing small furry caps ... ;-)
<snip>
> > I know.
> > They killed the last of the templars there.
>
> S----d them to death, AFAIK (they were on the same side but the Fried
> Templars were not up to their task).
>
S----d them to death ?
While the dove is the bird of love, the swallow is the bird of passion ;-)
<snip>
> > Oh, we Austrians adapted to the MacWasherwomen.
>
> Starting with Maria-Theresia? :-)
>
Much, MUCH earlier.
> > We knew we couldn't beat them in battle; thusly we invented our
marriage
> > politics.
> > "Bellum gerunt alli, tu felix Austria ...." ;-)
> >
>
> Translation, please!
>
While other countries wage war, you, lucky Austria, marry.
Many (most) of the Austrian territorial gains came through marriage,
not war.
<snip>
> > >
> > You _definitely_ dream of small furry hats ;-)
>
> AFAIK, these hats were rather big but I simply don't know what you are
> talking about. :-)
>
I know. See above ;-)
<snip>
> > During them or parallel to them ?
>
> Parallel, of course.
>
Well, I know that. But don't forget that Paul is on the war path ;-)
> >
> > > > not that they peeked in 1315.
> > > > Kalamazoo-fever ? ;-)
> > >
> > > Or too many "political" posts? :-)
> >
> > If that's the case we can hope that Kalamazoo gets him on
> > the right track again ... ;-)
>
> I hope so.
Me too.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Brian M. Scott
<mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
[...]
>Err, one question to the three of you :
>Why did haggis become the Scottish national dish ?
>Especially, a dish invented by the perfidious English ?
WE have better taste, of course! (Actually, I doubt that one can
point to a specific source: it's a pretty natural thing to do if
you have the ingredients and can't afford to waste anything
edible.)
Brian
Gordon Johnson
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:b9ejtf$g...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
>
>> I, alas, live in England and study the wars from a relatively English
>> perspective, so am not allowed to respond for fear of being beaten down by
>> Scottish nationalists. Not that I would have a response, as haggis is
>> something to only try once. And I did (in Wales, oddly enough). No more
>> comment will be forthcoming. :)
>
>Well the Scots Nats just got trashed by Labour in the assembly elections,
>and so don't actually count anymore.
** Not true. Both the Nats and Labour lost heavily, the Lib-Dems
stayed steady, and the Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party
got around half a dozen seats each, plus some Independents got seats
(including one who had been forced out of the SNP).
The election being conducted by PR, with List candidates, the results
fairly reflect votes cast, unlike the Westminster elections which are
still first-past-the-post.
Gordon.