Shield Wall Fighting - how would you model it?

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That's is probably fairly accurate. The point was a comparative one. Horses will not impale themselves to break a formation. A man will if brave enough. More important, even when horses had brestplates, they did not know what they were for. A man with a heavy shield and breastplate and comrades on either side similarly equipped could crash into an enemy formation.

Are we accounting for full-bodied stallions of lines that are bred especially for ferocity and truculence?

Much of the last experience with wide scale hand-to-hand fighting was from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in which there were weapons but no armor. While there is plenty of reportage from that, it is not quite applicable to eras when there was plentiful armor.

It's also an era in which lines, squares, and columns are effective because of the equipment. In a setting where the pike and musket are not central themes, I don't think lines and squares are going to happen. I don't think, for example, that a great deal of infantry fought shoulder to shoulder for any degree of time, the risk of asphyxiation is just too great.

Be that as it may it is true that a lot of shock was simply psychological.

Oh yes to this.

Mind you, I'm not sure we're necessarily disagreeing alot here, I'm just saying that I think the "line" of battle was much more intermingled, rather than an actual line. I think most battles involved many widespread small scale combats between the bravest of warriors, perhaps less than 10 men involved in total. As one side of another began to gain an advantage in these small conflicts, I think the less brave individuals of either should would rush forward to "help", which may increase the combat's side, but it'd slack off as the men lacking bravery would scatter back to the wings.

If you've ever been to an SCA event, you've seen what looks like a real battle. No, ignore that first part, where the human waves are crashing into each other, wildly flailing their swords around their heads. Instead, wait for the parts where the line has devolved into the knights going head to head, while all around them you see men halfheartedly walking or waving their weapons around, with small pockets of earnest fights, trailing off to guys who huddle in masses.

That, Imho, is probably more like what warfare and battle was like than the heroic, epic scenes of two great lines of men crashing into each other. Just how many people picture modern war as involving alot of shooting and explosions, when it's really alot of walking, riding, talking and waiting, punctuated by sudden bursts of violence. Almost every combat vet I've talked to expresses the same answer, and I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we've been fed so much hollywood about how thigns were in a simpler, "braver" time...

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

If you've ever been to an SCA event, you've seen what looks like a real battle. No, ignore that first part, where the human waves are crashing into each other, wildly flailing their swords around their heads. Instead, wait for the parts where the line has devolved into the knights going head to head, while all around them you see men halfheartedly walking or waving their weapons around, with small pockets of earnest fights, trailing off to guys who huddle in masses.

That first part is probably accurate as well.

Most Saxon fights seem to have consisted of two bodies of men drinking and taunting the other side while trying to work themselves up into a charge. They fervently hoped that a charge* by the whole shield wall would panic the other side and cause flight. If not, the two sides would meet and shove, trying to break the formation of the enemy.

Deaths happened mostly once the formation had broken and irregular cavalry or other hangers on gave pursuit.

*Relatively speaking, I'm sure that the actual Move was only 2 at most.

[Verjigorm]

But the Saxons never developed a shield specialized for othismos like the Greeks. Specifically, the center-grip round shield was fairly popular amongst the various Germanic tribes. I'm not sure that the center-grip round shield is a good shield for this kind of conflict. Not that I don't think it happened, but I just wonder how prolonged and common the occurrence was.

[Flying Toaster]

I think a centre grip round actually works quite well for a shield wall. If it is set up properly, you can have them overlapping a long way, and alternating out-in (i.e. a person will be holding his shield out, and the people on either side will be holding their shields closer in, so his shield is partially covering theirs) to stop people turning the shields (a major weakness of centre grip shields).
Also, with the head being fairly well protected, and hard to hit, and legs being very hard to hit in a shield wall press, a large round shield protects very well.


As for rules-wise, one obvious application is that people in a shield wall would have all front hexes protected by shields, not just front+front-left (for a left-handed shield).

Perhaps applying a major penalty to target the torso without having to punch through the shield, since the shields will largely be covering the torso area?

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Flying Toaster

I think a centre grip round actually works quite well for a shield wall. If it is set up properly, you can have them overlapping a long way, and alternating out-in (i.e. a person will be holding his shield out, and the people on either side will be holding their shields closer in, so his shield is partially covering theirs) to stop people turning the shields (a major weakness of centre grip shields).

And this is quite useful for breaking a charge. Roman legionaires would suppousedly use their pilum to create a very effective wall against charging cavalry. Which is a good idea, because I think a horse could charge into a mass of spears if it's vision was signifigantly obscured during the charges. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the Othismos style of combat as practiced by the Greeks, which is the term for "pushing" I believe, and was a specific mode of combat that took place in the second half of the phalanx actually fighting. The first phase is the doratismos(I think?), the "spear war" and consists of stabbing with spears at the lower legs, groin and throat. The chest was probably a target too if you could stab at a good angle around the shield. But this wasn't the particularly crushing part of the phalanx's power.

The second phase, the Othismos is when the shields pushed together, and the hoplites became belly to back. And here, the spartans excelled for many reasons, not the least of which was their skill in singing, credited even over their individual fighting prowess, which was itself considerable. This is a phase of combat more akin to the terror of a moshing crowd. This is where the aspis came into it's own.

Consider the Aspis and it's design: a wide, heavy rim, deeply dished, and somewhat flatter belly. A man could use the shield to cradle his abdomen and not have his diaphragm crushed by the press of shield. It's interior reinforcement would hold the shield together and prevent buckling.

Many men were killed in this press of bodies, and much like stampeding crowds, they likely died of asphyxiation because the weight crushing into them. Crowds have been know to shove heavy vehicles, bend metal bars and generate alot of havoc when untrained and wild with fear or anger. The Greek Phalanx specifically harnessed this terrifying human construct. And they terrified everyone with it.

The center-grip round shield doesn't have the same design features as the aspis, and is more useful in an open formation, rather than a belly to back pushing war. I do think that the shield wall was commonly formed to break the charge, because it's found in roman tactics against the charge, and in Saxon tactics. The "german" soldier of this time was influenced by the roman and others, and primarly fought as dual-mode infantry, using throwing spears and shock weapons. There were, of course regional varieties, but this gives of a rather large period of history to look at for shield walls.

I don't think the shieldwall would last long, as it's tiring and lethal due to the lack of a nice protective shield design. I think a shieldwall would form to break up the impetus of a charging enemy, then the Romans or Germans would start to break into smaller combats as the shield walls broke apart. A shield wall that surges into infantry who fall back is going to break formation and introduce weaknesses. The very act of giving way to a shield wall will introduce an exploitable weakness in it. With such a brittle nature, I can't imagine german and roman infantry, armed with throwing spears, shields and swords and known for individual combat would try to outshove the shield wall, but instead begin to disperse and feel around the edges of it.

The longer spears of later phalanxs, leading up to the pezeroi of the Macedonians(influenced by the thebans), may have been an attempt to counter-act skill in the pushing, but also to prevent a filtering effect to the flanks from light infantry. Light infantry in the ancient world were very dangerous to heavy infantry in a static formation, provided they could flee and strike with little individual risk and were known for killing alot of hoplites.

But I just see the battle turning into scatter pockets of hard fought challenges and battles, rather than a concentrated pushing and shoving match. Peopel are going to fight, have to collapse from exhaustion, rest, get back up and keep fighting. This is occurring at relatively close quarters, and it's likely to get very congested.

The command and control structures are just not there. When the best shot at communication is a horn or semaphore, you're in a dangerous place. When you have to rely on runners to take your orders? Double so. And you don't have a bird's eye view. At best you might be on top of an elephant in a howdah, which will give you a good view of the field. But it's more likely that you're viewing the land from horseback or foot. And it's hard to see that far, especially if you're fighting in a field of crops or fallow grass.

I also draw the same conclusion from the casualties typically suffered. Most of the casualties are likely to have occurred in the rout, rather than the initial clash.

Also, with the head being fairly well protected, and hard to hit, and legs being very hard to hit in a shield wall press, a large round shield protects very well.

The legs being protected part I disagree with. a 3" round shield is going to cover down to about the groin or mid thigh of a fighting man. If one leg is forward and another is back, then your knee and mid thigh are very exposed. If your shield cannot be moved to interpose it between the blade and your leg, you're going to be in for a bad time. Roman legionaires fought with one leg forward and one leg back, in a rough "L" shape, and they even wore greaves on the leading(left) leg. Medieval swordsmen maintained a similar stance. The benefit of this stance is mobility and the ability to evade and block blows through foot movement and the shield. Taking this away by packing together robs the shield of it's strength.

[Flying Toaster]

Good post, especially about the greek phalanx fighting.

One more point about the Macedonian phalanx style (which you hinted at, but it's probably worthwhile to state) is that it allows three (I think, it might be four) spearheads to protrude in front of the formation, meaning that anyone with a shorter weapon (especially axes or swords) has to get past three spears.

Gurps wise, this is fairly easy to represent - a bunch of people with reach-3 spears, all taking wait actions. Then the shieldwall makes simply moving around them harder, as you have to move around the entire shieldwall.

Infantry giving way before a shield wall is largely a micro-scale of what happened at the Battle of Cannae.

Most casualties definitely happened during the rout - which was the major role for cavalry.

A good charge can break up a shield wall (depending on the thickness, but most of the time a Saxon style shield wall went for width, not depth). Using 6 people, you form a wedge. One person is up front, covering up and defending. Two people are just behind him, pushing their shields into his back. Three people are behind them, one using a short polearm across the backs of the two in front, the other two back-rankers using their shields to push. If this hits between two people in a three-deep shield wall, the wedge will almost always punch through (I've done it, lots of fun).


As for the legs being hard to hit - I can see your point, but I was thinking more from the saxon style shield wall, where the dominant weapons are spears and axes, and with two shield walls using round shields fighting. I have done some SCA fighting, and while it only vaguely resembles actual medieval fighting, some comparisons can be drawn. If you are in a tight shield wall, whether your weapon is held low, under the shield, or high, over the shield, is very important, and an axe won't work if held low.

Holding your weapon low means it's harder to defend against, as it's harder to see, but you are largely limited to thrusts to the leg, groin, and lower torso. Additionally, you won't be able to see where you are attacking unless you look under your shield, meaning you lose a lot of visibility, or look over it, which is stupid.
If you hold your weapon high, you can thrust with it, and do some swings. An axe is especially useful here, as you can hook their shield and pull down, creating a gap in their defenses for you, or somebody else, to take advantage of.

[jason taylor]

Don't forget the dust kicked up, the heat from everyone else and the smell. It might freeze you into so limited a perspective, that you might not know whether or not you killed someone until you saw the blood on your spear after the fight. Even then it might be just splatter .

It is notable that the Athenians promised a sacrificial goat for every Persian killed by their army at Marathon, but had no means or desire to count individual kills.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Are we accounting for full-bodied stallions of lines that are bred especially for ferocity and truculence? .

Some horses definitely WILL impale themselves on a line of spears. The question is whether there are enough of them to break the formation. There certainly are examples of cavalry charging an intact line of spearmen/pikemen and breaking through to cause havoc within the lines.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Some horses definitely WILL impale themselves on a line of spears. The question is whether there are enough of them to break the formation. There certainly are examples of cavalry charging an intact line of spearmen/pikemen and breaking through to cause havoc within the lines.

But all of them that I can remember are due to the infantry panicking prior to contact. Except possibly Garcia Hernandez, when the horse is conjectured to have been shot on the last yards and to have fallen into the formation, breaking it.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But all of them that I can remember are due to the infantry panicking prior to contact. Except possibly Garcia Hernandez, when the horse is conjectured to have been shot on the last yards and to have fallen into the formation, breaking it.

Sean posted a list of examples on RAT where the infantry line was intact
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...29405&start=40

Northalerton, 1138: knights in Scottish service break through a line of English spearmen and bowmen which is successfully holding off the Scottish infantry. Courtrai, 1302: French knights charge Flemish militia, almost break through, and are driven back after an extended fight. Marignano, 1515: King Francis enthuses that he's ridden through a Swiss column and taken pike blows to his armour, although a lot of his bodyguard seems to have disappeared. Omdurman, 1898: The 21st lancers charge into a phalanx of spearmen and musketeers (so excited that most of the cavalry forget they have guns!), get caught up in fighting, and either die or cut their way out the back of the enemy formation.