Well you shouldn't over estimate the power of heavy cavalry either. A charge headlong right at the middle of a line of infantry could be a good idea in certain situations but any general who's doing that as their default plan is a complete idiot.
Medieval generals were very definitely not idiots. They often came up with competent plans that fell apart because they weren't dealing with a professional army-they were dealing with Men-At-Arms who were either money-grabbing mercenaries or glory seeking extreme athletes turned soldiers, supported by town militias who didn't want to get hurt. The generals that could enforce discipline and keep control of their troops, like the better crusader forces or the English, where capable of considerable tactical sophistication.Well... by modern definition most Late Medieval generals were idiots. However you got to remember since almost all victories were based around besieging and capturing a strategic castle, the placebo effect meant that an army taking 6-10% casualties in a battle would qualify as a loss worthy of a shattered retreat. And a well placed cavalry charge even straight into the middle of high morale, well armed and well prepared pikemen/bill men in a hypothetical scenario could incur from 2-5% onto the infantry army. Sure the nobles and Knights will get butchered but even if they're retreat all they need to do is regroup, which Western European armies with heavier cavalry contingents were known to do. I remember there was this once case involving the Duchy of Brabant but I forget which one.
In such a case all they need is to make another charge right in the reforming pikemen where they hit the last time and chances are it will trigger an enemy rout. So was it a wasteful strategy in manpower? Yes. Was it a wasteful strategy in costs? Yes. Was it a wasteful strategy in a long term campaign? Yes. Did it work? HELL YES.
People forget that by the High Middle Ages Knights and Men at arms were so well armoured in full to semi plate that to kill them you needed a fully loaded shot by a pavise crossbow, for a bill to hack at their chaenmail coifes or to get them Tinto their backs and stick a dagger between their visors. The first only worked at a distance and was hard to manoeuvre and aim, the former only worked at a 3+ metre distance from you and that too when you're in a group eg. Schiltrom. The latter required you to get dangerously close and weigh them completely down which was a 3 man effort at best for every man at arms.
Gunpowder is what caused the end of the domination of the mounted warrior class. Refined muskets and pistols were easier to aim even though they misfired, dent mail and wind the rider, kill their horses and could be used both from afar and up close (Albeit harder). If pikes could actually defend against cavalry charges that well they might as well have made a 2-man, 12 metre (around 36 feet) long stick with a pointy bit and handed it to a bunch of peasants!
Medieval generals were very definitely not idiots. They often came up with competent plans that fell apart because they weren't dealing with a professional army-they were dealing with Men-At-Arms who were either money-grabbing mercenaries or glory seeking extreme athletes turned soldiers, supported by town militias who didn't want to get hurt. The generals that could enforce discipline and keep control of their troops, like the better crusader forces or the English, where capable of considerable tactical sophistication.
Men-at-arms would often dismount to avoid getting their vulnerable horses shot up by archers. It wasn't heavy cavalry that dominated the medieval battlefield, it was the heavily armed and armoured man-at-arms who could serve as both cavalry and infantry as the situation demanded.
You are right that pikes couldn't stop a cavalry charge. That's why a pike block would have men with shorter weapons like goedenags or halberds at the centre of the formation, to knock any Men-at-Arms who made it past the pikes down then kill them on the ground.
I think the fight you're thinking about with Brabant is the Battle of Bouvines.
Well... by modern definition most Late Medieval generals were idiots. However you got to remember since almost all victories were based around besieging and capturing a strategic castle, the placebo effect meant that an army taking 6-10% casualties in a battle would qualify as a loss worthy of a shattered retreat. And a well placed cavalry charge even straight into the middle of high morale, well armed and well prepared pikemen/bill men in a hypothetical scenario could incur from 2-5% onto the infantry army. Sure the nobles and Knights will get butchered but even if they're retreat all they need to do is regroup, which Western European armies with heavier cavalry contingents were known to do. I remember there was this once case involving the Duchy of Brabant but I forget which one.
In such a case all they need is to make another charge right in the reforming pikemen where they hit the last time and chances are it will trigger an enemy rout. So was it a wasteful strategy in manpower? Yes. Was it a wasteful strategy in costs? Yes. Was it a wasteful strategy in a long term campaign? Yes. Did it work? HELL YES.
People forget that by the High Middle Ages Knights and Men at arms were so well armoured in full to semi plate that to kill them you needed a fully loaded shot by a pavise crossbow, for a bill to hack at their chaenmail coifes or to get them Tinto their backs and stick a dagger between their visors. The first only worked at a distance and was hard to manoeuvre and aim, the former only worked at a 3+ metre distance from you and that too when you're in a group eg. Schiltrom. The latter required you to get dangerously close and weigh them completely down which was a 3 man effort at best for every man at arms.
Gunpowder is what caused the end of the domination of the mounted warrior class. Refined muskets and pistols were easier to aim even though they misfired, dent mail and wind the rider, kill their horses and could be used both from afar and up close (Albeit harder). If pikes could actually defend against cavalry charges that well they might as well have made a 2-man, 12 metre (around 36 feet) long stick with a pointy bit and handed it to a bunch of peasants!
Didn't say it was always a bad idea just that your default strategy with cavalry really shouldn't be frontal charges against infantry
I can name several occurences for the Early medieval period only : Tours, Hastings, probably the Battle of Trans, maybe (altough it's hard to be in any way definitive) Vouillé,etc.A solid block of soldiers with hand weapons is pretty unlikely.
The engagement itself mostly involved a traditional space between fighters (around three feet) which allowed them to keep enough space to throw missiles and swordfight, including against cavalry.They advance in a fulcum, whenever, as the battle lines are coming close together, both ours and the enemy’s, the archery is about to commence, and those arrayed in the front line are not wearing mail coats or greaves. He [the herald] orders, “ ad fulco. ”
And those arrayed right at the very front mass their shields together until they come shield-boss to shield-boss, completely covering their stomachs almost to their shins. The men standing just behind them, raising their shields and resting them on the shield-bosses of those in front, cover their chests and faces, and in this way they engage
If the enemy [cavalry], coming within a bow shot, attempts to break or dislodge the phalanx, which is hazardous for them, then the infantry close up in the regular manner. And the first, second, and third man in each file are to form themselves into a feolcon , that is, one shield upon another, and having thrust their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them firmly in the ground, so that those who dare to come close to them will readily be impaled.
They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields so that they might easily endure the pressure from those outside. The third man, standing more upright, and the fourth, holding their spears like javelins either stab those coming close or hurl them and draw their swords. And the light infantry with the cavalry [stationed to the rear] shoot arrows
That's a really caricatural description of classical medieval armies, while it could (but far from entierly so) describe a bit more Late medieval armies.Medieval generals were very definitely not idiots. They often came up with competent plans that fell apart because they weren't dealing with a professional army-they were dealing with Men-At-Arms who were either money-grabbing mercenaries or glory seeking extreme athletes turned soldiers, supported by town militias who didn't want to get hurt.
First, you'd have as much trouble fiding occurence of dismounted knights in early Middle Ages as fiding occurences of motorized infantry in WW1. While you certainly had precursor or early primitive appearance, it wasn't a thing.Also didn't dismounting of men at arms and Knights to fight as heavy infantry only begin in the High Middle Ages? I know for sure that it was never practiced in the Early Middle Ages
Only if you ignore equipment found in graves, and several mentions of Frankish tactics (which is, admittedly, scattered and incomplete, requesting to understand it was part of a larger strategical continuum, at the crossroad of mediterranean and North Sea situation)The archetypical example of infantry standing against cavalry (Tours) strongly suggests to me that until that point infantry weren't able to manage it on a large scale even against the charge of light melee cavalry.
Fair point, though I meant more that the Arabian cavalry (Moorish by that point?) certainly seemed very surprised by the whole situation, suggesting that it was hardly something they were used to encountering.Only if you ignore equipment found in graves, and several mentions of Frankish tactics (which is, admittedly, scattered and incomplete, requesting to understand it was part of a larger strategical continuum, at the crossroad of mediterranean and North Sea situation)
We know very little out of the battles opposing Arabo-Berber forces against Gothic armies past the very first encounters : most of what we know of the invasion (tactically wise) could pretty much be fit into one paragraph and it would mention mostly sieges (as for the period between 714 and 720, it's almost unknown).Fair point, though I meant more that the Arabian cavalry (Moorish by that point?) certainly seemed very surprised by the whole situation, suggesting that it was hardly something they were used to encountering.
Basically because the version of the battle I've heard of is probably best described as "the simplified version". It shows up as the battle which prevented Islamic spread up into France, and as a distinct thing.As for "extremely surprised" Arabo-Berbers, I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion : the chronicle of 754 doesn't really mention it, just that Franks managed to hold their formation and that Arabo-Berbers forces leved the battlefield during night with most of the loot (which could point at an actual familiarity, and how useless it was to try again and again for no big asset to gain out of it, but I grant you that's essentiall speculative).
Basically because the version of the battle I've heard of is probably best described as "the simplified version". It shows up as the battle which prevented Islamic spread up into France, and as a distinct thing.
It's less the "simplified version", for what I can tell, than the "proto-nationalist version" (in the sense it appeared early on to create a dynastical narrative at the benefit of Carolingians, and it was inflated and maintained to devellop a national narrative since the XVIth century in France) which disappeared from universitarian or scholarly versions since decades by nowBasically because the version of the battle I've heard of is probably best described as "the simplified version". It shows up as the battle which prevented Islamic spread up into France, and as a distinct thing.
This is one reason why I think the cavalry charge in Return of the King is a great example. Basically you've got a whole ten-thousand-strong force of berserk vikings and horses, and they do not give enough f*cks about the line of orc pikemen to slow down - so the orcs waver, and then as soon as some of them lose concentration and begin to break that's it.
Come to think of it, I think you're right about the Anglo-Saxons preferring to throw their spears. I'd convinced myself Anglo-Saxons mostly used their spears hand to hand from the Bayeux tapestry, which has masses of fighters with spears overarm-but that's also a throwing position. Viking and high medieval Scandinavian sources show lots of use of spear in close combat, but I suppose assuming that the anglo-saxons did the same is a bit like assuming legionaries fought like hoplites because they're both heavy infantry from similar cultures.I can name several occurences for the Early medieval period only : Tours, Hastings, probably the Battle of Trans, maybe (altough it's hard to be in any way definitive) Vouillé,etc.
I'd be tempted, to consider them mostly a throwing position : if you compare the scene of the siege of the castle of Dinan, you'd find some similar gestures along the use of the fustibali.I'd convinced myself Anglo-Saxons mostly used their spears hand to hand from the Bayeux tapestry, which has masses of fighters with spears overarm-but that's also a throwing position.
I'd rather think it was a mix of Northern Germanic tactics (according the Song, Anglii came in number massed on a hill, as was understood by the author as their custom, armed with spears) and continental (trough Frankish influence trough the Xth and XIth centuries)Viking and high medieval Scandinavian sources show lots of use of spear in close combat, but I suppose assuming that the anglo-saxons did the same is a bit like assuming legionaries fought like hoplites because they're both heavy infantry from similar cultures.
It seems that, at least Franks (but I'd be surprised if they were the only ones) usually prepared melee trough spear (or axes*, but that's another matter) before using swords and such. The use of angon, specifically, might interest you as it's a weapon that is supposed to be throwed THEN used in melee, but you might already know it from the Song of the Battle of Maldon.So I can add early medieval western Europe to my list of cultures that threw their spears then used swords. Thanks.