The end of melee

[madd0ct0r]

reading the gun kata thread got me thinking

Why did melee focused troops (ie without a ranged weapon) dominate the field of battle for so many years?
Why didn't we see them die out rapidly after the sling or bow became common?

I'm guessing fighting in the rain may have had something to do with in the UK at least, but there's got to be more to it than damp horsehair.

[Thanas]

Because armor existed which could not be easily defeated with ranged weapons. This only happened since the 16th century but those ranged weapons took so long to reload that they needed melee troops for protection. This is the reason why we only see the end of the 17th century as the time when melee infantry troops disappeared for good. BTW, fighting in the rain actually does not prevent that much of a problem unless you use composite bows. You can keep bowstrings dry if you are a disciplined army with a good logistic train (see: Romans).

Also, you would take a rapier with you into the city or on patrol because it is a better close quarter weapon than something which takes a minute or so to reload.

[krakonfour]

I think it is also the length of specialized training required to draw a bow until it can penetrate armor. The rate of fire on english longbows was impressive, and they could go through contemporary armor.

[Thanas]

I think it is also the length of specialized training required to draw a bow until it can penetrate armor. The rate of fire on english longbows was impressive, and they could go through contemporary armor.

No, they could not. Not a single modern test at battlefield ranges has ever managed to penetrate armor and the padded undercoats worn. This is one of the greatest hollywood myths of all time. (If it were that effective nobody would ever have used armor as it takes way longer to train armored knights than it does to train longbowmen). BTW, training with English longbows is less training than is required to fight with well with a sword so that argument goes out the window as well.

Rate of fire was not as good as the rate of fire of eastern bows. What made the longbow a decent weapon was the combination of range and range of fire.

But it could not penetrate armor.

[Borgholio]

Expanding on what Thanas said, it was actually tested. During the battle of Agincourt, it was long believed that the "superior" English Longbowman was the deciding factor in the French defeat. In truth, it was the French themselves.

The French army was dismounted, wearing heavy full plate armor, slogging through heavy mud. Although easy targets for the English, the longbows actually didn't do shit. Only a handful of the French dead were caused by lucky arrow hits. The real advantage was that the French were so exhausted by the end of their advance, some collapsed and drowned in the mud because they couldn't even move anymore due to the suction of the mud and their own fatigue.

The English longbowman, wearing light armor and who were still fresh, easily swarmed around the weakened French knights and slew them with daggers to the faces and neck-joints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

They actually tested this on the History Channel once. They determined that the arrowhead of a typical English arrow could not penetrate a breastplate. It took a lucky hit to the eyes or a joint.

They also tested the mud thing. They found that it took several times more force to lift your foot out of mud when you were wearing plate greaves, as opposed to the English who wore soft leather or felt shoes.

In that case, melee won the day quite effectively. When the first muskets were developed, that quickly reduced armor from full plate to a helmet and breastplate since a fully armored knight was just a big fucking target. But melee was still often used. When effective repeating firearms were developed in the mid 1800's, infantry charges gave way to cavalry charges, which became obsolete as well soon after. It's not that melee wasn't effective, it's that you can no longer easily get close enough to employ it without being riddled full of holes.

[Thanas]

When the first muskets were developed, that quickly reduced armor from full plate to a helmet and breastplate since a fully armored knight was just a big fucking target.

Not true - heavily armoured cavalry was well up until and during the thirty years war. In fact, it is only in the sixteenth century, long after the development of muskets, that full body cavalry armor finds it final evolution in the gendarmes and Schwarze Reiter.

[Eleas]

AFAIK, melee was the decider of battles for a long time due to poor rate of fire and (as Thanas and Borgholio have already stated) the effectiveness of armor. And it wasn't just knights that could carry sufficient armor -- professional soldiers like Landsknechte and the like would wear at least half-armor and sometimes full.

The deciding factor was the appearance of ranged weaponry that wasn't just fast and accurate but very easily learned by the average soldier. Before the rifle, a longbowman took well over a decade to train, and would still be largely useless against armor. With the breech-loading rifle, training a marksman took perhaps a fifth of that time, and the rifleman would be able to pierce practical armor (unless one wore armor so heavy as to make one a target on the modern battlefield). Also, one no longer had to spend significant time emphasizing melee combat.

[Borgholio]

Not true - heavily armoured cavalry was well up until and during the thirty years war. In fact, it is only in the sixteenth century, long after the development of muskets, that full body cavalry armor finds it final evolution in the gendarmes and Schwarze Reiter.

Sorry, I might have been thinking about simply dismounted knights. I imagine that mounted heavy cavalry would be maneuverable enough to be useful, but I always thought they'd still be fairly easy to shoot out of the saddle?

[Dominus Atheos]

BTW, training with English longbows is less training than is required to fight with well with a sword so that argument goes out the window as well.

Were sword fights actually a thing? I thought that was another hollywood invention, and that if anyone had actually been stupid enough to swing a longsword against anything else metal all it would do is cause a dent and probably break the wrists of the swinger.

[Borgholio]

Were sword fights actually a thing?

Sure they were. But in plate armor, slashing is useless. Combatants would use thrusting and long, thin piercing swords to go after weak spots, rather than the stereotypical broadsword. A common weapon used against plate armor was a halberd, for that exact reason. Had a nice stabby point with which to penetrate plate, but an axe to deal with non-armored foes too.

[xthetenth]

Not true - heavily armoured cavalry was well up until and during the thirty years war. In fact, it is only in the sixteenth century, long after the development of muskets, that full body cavalry armor finds it final evolution in the gendarmes and Schwarze Reiter.

Sorry, I might have been thinking about simply dismounted knights. I imagine that mounted heavy cavalry would be maneuverable enough to be useful, but I always thought they'd still be fairly easy to shoot out of the saddle?

They went to thicker armor that could deal with bullets if not at point blank range. You'll see armor plates with a single dent on them from the bullet proofing, where they got shot at to prove they can resist a bullet.

[Simon_Jester]

Were sword fights actually a thing? I thought that was another hollywood invention, and that if anyone had actually been stupid enough to swing a longsword against anything else metal all it would do is cause a dent and probably break the wrists of the swinger.

I get the feeling that sword-on-sword combat was more common earlier in the Middle Ages, when full plate armor hadn't yet reached maturity. Also played a role in contexts where wearing heavy armor was unsafe (aboard a ship), or inappropriate (people who walked around all day and were not going to do so wearing full armor for reasons of comfort).

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think it is also the length of specialized training required to draw a bow until it can penetrate armor. The rate of fire on english longbows was impressive, and they could go through contemporary armor.

No, they could not. Not a single modern test at battlefield ranges has ever managed to penetrate armor and the padded undercoats worn. This is one of the greatest hollywood myths of all time. (If it were that effective nobody would ever have used armor as it takes way longer to train armored knights than it does to train longbowmen). BTW, training with English longbows is less training than is required to fight with well with a sword so that argument goes out the window as well.

Rate of fire was not as good as the rate of fire of eastern bows. What made the longbow a decent weapon was the combination of range and range of fire.

But it could not penetrate armor.

It depends on who you're shooting at to an extent. A full harness of articulated plate made from tempered steel is invulnerable to a longbow unless a gap in the armor is hit (armpit, parts of the shoulder and neck depending on the armor), or the knight raises their visor to breath/see (which is how Henry IV got hit in the face, and IIRC how Henry Percy died in the same battle. Henry IV got VERY lucky, saved by a few mm. The bodkin stopped short of his brainstem by a few mm, went between the carotid artery and jugular vein). You increase the chances of this happening with high rate of fire, and you can most certainly shoot horses out from under them... and having a horse shot out from under you at a full gallop is going to be... unpleasant

Poorer knights could not afford the REALLY badass armor. The steel was of poorer quality, or they wore less plate armor. Men at arms were often not as well armored either. Wearing combinations of padded jacks, plate, chain etc.

You wont slaughter the flower of 15th century french nobility with longbows (but they did do that in the early to late-middle 14th century when metallurgy was less developed and there was less plate coverage), but they can take out a lot of the mercenaries and non-professionals, so the longbow can still be an effective killing tool. Not the decisive weapon that has passed into folklore, but useful in combined arms. Particularly on muddy ground where hit-squads of archers can dash out of the lines and stab knights in the face with daggers or beat them over the heads with mallets while said knights are in the crush of a crowd-dynamics clusterfuck, or to disrupt armored formations due to the unnerving nature of fighting in the shade of an arrow-storm.

Before the rifle, a longbowman took well over a decade to train, and would still be largely useless against armor.

...Eh.... This is a minor semantic issue, but worth mentioning. You can train a guy to lay down arrows on an area in a few days. The issue is how long it takes to build the upper body strength to be able to sustain 10-15 rounds per minute with a 100-150 lb draw weight war bow. You can tell which skeletons on battlefields and in the wreck of the Mary Rose were longbowmen because their shoulders are slightly deformed due to the mechanical stress of their occupation.

Sure they were. But in plate armor, slashing is useless. Combatants would use thrusting and long, thin piercing swords to go after weak spots, rather than the stereotypical broadsword. A common weapon used against plate armor was a halberd, for that exact reason. Had a nice stabby point with which to penetrate plate, but an axe to deal with non-armored foes too.

There is also half-swording, and using the hilt and quillions to concuss your opponent. But yeah, by the time the late 14th century rolled around, most arming swords were double-edged thrusting weapons. Narrow point, the fuller is gone, replaced with a diamond cross section for added stiffness in the thrust. The Halberd was less of a knightly weapon (AFAIK) and more of a common infantry and mercenary weapon... and brutally effective. More important than the stabby point was the hook on the back that could catch the edges of plates and trip people, or rip out the back of someone's knee. Axe heads are also just as effective as a bludgeon as they are for cutting, so a good hit can concuss or break an arm. Knights would use a poleaxe or various other drubbing implements like maces and hammers. The sword increasingly became a backup sidearm in battle as plate armor advanced. At least for fully armored knights.

[Thanas]

Poorer knights could not afford the REALLY badass armor. The steel was of poorer quality, or they wore less plate armor. Men at arms were often not as well armored either. Wearing combinations of padded jacks, plate, chain etc.

You wont slaughter the flower of 15th century french nobility with longbows (but they did do that in the early to late-middle 14th century when metallurgy was less developed and there was less plate coverage), but they can take out a lot of the mercenaries and non-professionals, so the longbow can still be an effective killing tool.

Even in the 14th century the longbow did not do much against armor and plate mail was very much more prevalent in the 15th so that a lot mercenaries wore it as well. But I agree with you that it works fine against non-professionals, problem was that the French were largely that.

Not the decisive weapon that has passed into folklore, but useful in combined arms. Particularly on muddy ground where hit-squads of archers can dash out of the lines and stab knights in the face with daggers or beat them over the heads with mallets while said knights are in the crush of a crowd-dynamics clusterfuck, or to disrupt armored formations due to the unnerving nature of fighting in the shade of an arrow-storm.

True, though I shall note that the perfect storm of circumstances that allowed for agincourt rarely happened. Most of the time the knights got their revenge.

The Halberd was less of a knightly weapon (AFAIK) and more of a common infantry and mercenary weapon... and brutally effective. More important than the stabby point was the hook on the back that could catch the edges of plates and trip people, or rip out the back of someone's knee. Axe heads are also just as effective as a bludgeon as they are for cutting, so a good hit can concuss or break an arm. Knights would use a poleaxe or various other drubbing implements like maces and hammers. The sword increasingly became a backup sidearm in battle as plate armor advanced. At least for fully armored knights.

The pole axe was the preferred weapon to fight on foot. For armored cavalry however this was less practical. Lance and sword there always was the preferred combination.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even in the 14th century the longbow did not do much against armor and plate mail was very much more prevalent in the 15th so that a lot mercenaries wore it as well. But I agree with you that it works fine against non-professionals, problem was that the French were largely that.

Yeah, even mild steel holds up pretty well and you need a close range direct-fire hit penetrating perpendicular to the surface to penetrate a 14th century breastplate, but there was a LOT less coverage until the later part of the century. Large areas of the body covered in chain mail as opposed to plate. Particularly the shoulders and neck, which were vulnerable to a plunging volley. The rate of fire numbers game was MUCH more favorable through most of the 14th century.

As the 15th and 16th centuries progressed, more and more of various armies were composed of mercenaries, but even the wealthy ones... full plate was less common than partial plate in various forms, and there was a lot of variation even within a company. I am trying to find a good contemporary woodcut of like late 15th century landesknecht for demonstration purposes, but I cant find one definitely from the 15th century...

[Irbis]

Sorry, I might have been thinking about simply dismounted knights. I imagine that mounted heavy cavalry would be maneuverable enough to be useful, but I always thought they'd still be fairly easy to shoot out of the saddle?

You know that heavy cavalry was used till late XIX century? Napoleon's heavy cuirassiers weren't armoured worse than knights for most of their existence. I think the practice only stopped after Prussian War of 1870, in fact.

Even massed gunfire in XIX century often proved to be less decisive than melee (bayonet charge). Real game changer was IMHO machine gun, and even these needed to mature (witness first World War, 1917-1920 period on eastern front saw massed cavalry warfare, quite successful at times against anything less than multiple trench lines with dug in machine guns).

Lance and sword there always was the preferred combination.

Or even sword-lance (koncerz)

[Thanas]

Even in the 14th century the longbow did not do much against armor and plate mail was very much more prevalent in the 15th so that a lot mercenaries wore it as well. But I agree with you that it works fine against non-professionals, problem was that the French were largely that.

Yeah, even mild steel holds up pretty well and you need a close range direct-fire hit penetrating perpendicular to the surface to penetrate a 14th century breastplate, but there was a LOT less coverage until the later part of the century. Large areas of the body covered in chain mail as opposed to plate. Particularly the shoulders and neck, which were vulnerable to a plunging volley. The rate of fire numbers game was MUCH more favorable through most of the 14th century.

Yeah, but you still need very close range (100 meters or less) to punch through mail (a good padded undercoat with leather as the last layer reduces that significantly to boot). Then you also need a direct line to target (which is not how most arrows were shot). And basically, when the enemy has a shield (not that uncommon in the 14th century ) then you are screwed anyway.

Which is why the crossbow was always the more dangerous weapon (contrary to what English claim).

As the 15th and 16th centuries progressed, more and more of various armies were composed of mercenaries, but even the wealthy ones... full plate was less common than partial plate in various forms, and there was a lot of variation even within a company. I am trying to find a good contemporary woodcut of like late 15th century landesknecht for demonstration purposes, but I cant find one definitely from the 15th century...

Don't bother, I know what you mean.

Lance and sword there always was the preferred combination.

Or even sword-lance (koncerz)

Man, I love the winged hussars. Greatest looking cavalry ever (aside from the heavy Roman cataphracts).

[krakonfour]

The rate of a crossbow was pretty low... and so was that or a muzzle-loading musket.
Considering that their effective ranges were pretty similar, was is the fighting style so different? Why weren't there cross-bow firing lines and such?

Also, during the era of three-man deep firing formations, bayonets and swords were still used to finish off the enemy in charges. Why didn't this extend the use of armor for a bit.

A final, speculative question:
Would english longbowmen be useful in a musket firing-line? Deployed behind the front line, they could fire much more quickly, at slightly longer range, and penetrate the massed enemy troops and their light clothing.

[Thanas]

The rate of a crossbow was pretty low... and so was that or a muzzle-loading musket.
Considering that their effective ranges were pretty similar, was is the fighting style so different? Why weren't there cross-bow firing lines and such?

Because a crossbow travels in a straight line, meaning the impact will be total and complete when it hits. An arrow however will arch down and thus be easier deflected.

Also, during the era of three-man deep firing formations, bayonets and swords were still used to finish off the enemy in charges. Why didn't this extend the use of armor for a bit.

Because there was no point as no armor could withstand it and the front lines were considered dead meat anyway.

A final, speculative question:
Would english longbowmen be useful in a musket firing-line? Deployed behind the front line, they could fire much more quickly, at slightly longer range, and penetrate the massed enemy troops and their light clothing.

Sure and they were used like that at first (see for example the various Italian condottieri, they all employed longbowmen to some degree). But eventually the longbow was not good enough or worth it vs the musket and the longbow became a luxury item.

[Simon_Jester]

The main problem being, as noted, that it takes exceptional muscle strength to use a heavy longbow. Only very strong men who are well trained for it can put enough arrows downrange to matter. This makes it difficult to build up and sustain an army of such men. They'll demand more wages than a crossbowman or musketeer would be able to claim, too- because they represent a rarer kind of talent. If you're running a mercenary company, that matters.

[Thanas]

Crossbows also demand a lot of muscle strength and specialized equipment, which is why some cities like Genoa made a living on fielding crossbowmen for mercenary purposes.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh. This is true, but my impression is that crossbows were somewhat easier to find men to use, thus explaining why they were more widespread than longbows during the era.

Am I wrong?

[Thanas]

Eh. This is true, but my impression is that crossbows were somewhat easier to find men to use, thus explaining why they were more widespread than longbows during the era.

Am I wrong?

Standard crossbowmen, aka "here, point this and shoot" were plentiful. But so were bad bowmen. But real crossbowmen, who can actually shoot at moving targets, anticipate a ship rolling (very important for the Italian merchant cities) and can fight in combined-arms tactics? Those less so. The Genoese crossbowmen were probably the elite mercenary corps of the high middle ages.

At Crecy, the Genoese lost because their strings got wet and they could not restrung the crossbows in the field of battle (this requires tool which they did not carry with them into the field of battle). This greatly reduced the range and the effectiveness of their weapons. Luck was greatly on the English side that day.

See the french chronicles about this:

There were about fifteen thousand Genoese crossbowmen; but they were quite fatigued, having marched on foot that day six leagues, completely armed, and with their wet crossbows. They told the constable that they were not in a fit condition to do any great things that day in battle.

They also did not have their pavises which would have protected them from the longbows. Nevertheless they attacked and only broke once their commanders died.


The crossbows were more widespread in general due to the ease of use (and that they are better when defending castles as you can aim better and don't have to expose that much over the wall to shoot) and general effectiveness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sure and they were used like that at first (see for example the various Italian condottieri, they all employed longbowmen to some degree). But eventually the longbow was not good enough or worth it vs the musket and the longbow became a luxury item.

If I remember properly, Longbowmen were still used for skirmishing during the English Civil War, but eventually it just was not worth it anymore to have the entire male english population training with longbows from the age of 7...

Standard crossbowmen, aka "here, point this and shoot" were plentiful. But so were bad bowmen. But real crossbowmen, who can actually shoot at moving targets, anticipate a ship rolling (very important for the Italian merchant cities) and can fight in combined-arms tactics? Those less so. The Genoese crossbowmen were probably the elite mercenary corps of the high middle ages.

I look at it like this.

Crossbows, particularly the heavy ones that used steel or composite prods, were expensive to make. However they could be stockpiled and you could train a peasant in basic military crossbow archery in a week. If you wanted speople really good at naval archery, or picking off moving targets with 300 kg draw-weight siege crossbows, you had to train them longer or they needed experience. You could fill out an army with the first group, and hire a number of specialist mercenaries if you needed them, or form such a group from within your pre-existing more experienced men.

But even that is a far cry from training every english man-child to draw a 45-60 kg draw-weight longbow at 10-15 arrows a minute while putting the arrows in the area you want them, from the age of 7. Those are the people the english filled out the ranks of their army with. The rank-and-file, majority of the army. Much more expensive.

The crossbows were more widespread in general due to the ease of use (and that they are better when defending castles as you can aim better and don't have to expose that much over the wall to shoot) and general effectiveness.

Oh god yes. And more. An arrow-loop in a wall or tower is designed to not weaken the surrounding wall, which means there is less space to operate. A longbowman cannot actually draw back his bow and loose an arrow from inside. He would need to on the battlements proper and much more exposed. Additionally, crossbows have one absolutely critical advantage. A crossbowman can wait. Their bow is drawn--either by hand or mechanically--but the string held in place mechanically. So a crossbowman can sit there, waiting for someone's head to poke out from behind the rim of a trench or from behind a pavise. Indefinitely. A longbowman cant do that.

They also did not have their pavises which would have protected them from the longbows. Nevertheless they attacked and only broke once their commanders died.

We can blame that on the french, forcing them ahead...

[lord Martiya]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hadn't the longbows been decisive at Crecy and Poitiers because they killed the horses of the mounted knights, trapping them there for the post-battle mop up with knives?