Hi all,
I just finished helping teach a class with Berkhommer Von Nurnberg on Heavy Fighting and the focus was "Fighting Philosophy." It was designed as a roundtable discussion for fighters to share their ideas on how they approach fighting. He proposed Numerical Superiority as a good fundamental philosophy, while my answer focused more on flanking (though I did have 6 bullet points, one of which was titled "never fight a fair fight," which often means, "don't fight if you're out numbered."
Which is Better?
TLDR - It depends on how well trained your fighters are.
And as you've come to expect, I'll give some background and tell a little story with illustrations.
For starters, let's consider a simple 7v7 single death field battle. The red team forms a single unit of 7 fighters, while the green team forms a main unit of 5 fighters, with a flanking unit of 2 fighters.
Well, you'd be surprised. There's a certain level of experience required to be able to quickly read a field and respond to an exploited flank in swift fashion. Not only does it take hours in your armor swinging sticks, it also requires a certain number of repetitions in exactly this situation, which often isn't even trained. Off the top of my head, I'd argue that it requires maybe fifteen to twenty practices to be a competent flanker. I've personally trained people to fight in this position effectively in less than a year's time, but that required semi weekly melee practices with scenarios designed to give every fighter the opportunity to read the field and react (i.e. they were not just placed on a wall awaiting orders).
Many scadians can fight for ten years or more without ever really getting this kind of experience if they don't make it out to the melee practices, which is why often times units will go with the Red team's "numerical superiority" tactic.
How This Has Played Out - Real Examples
How This Has Played Out - Real Examples
A win for Green:
A little over two decades ago we fought some smaller battles at Pennsic. I don't remember the specific theme, but the battles were single death field battles with maybe 30-40 fighters per side. The opposing unit came at us on the left flank with the Red team tactic, and two of us (myself and Arundoor) played the part of the two Green team flankers. The Red team had no idea how to handle the two of us and we were able to take out three to four fighters before they had even engaged the core unit.
Part of what made this work was that at the time I had almost a decade of solid melee experience, and Arundoor had probably twice that much.
A little over two decades ago we fought some smaller battles at Pennsic. I don't remember the specific theme, but the battles were single death field battles with maybe 30-40 fighters per side. The opposing unit came at us on the left flank with the Red team tactic, and two of us (myself and Arundoor) played the part of the two Green team flankers. The Red team had no idea how to handle the two of us and we were able to take out three to four fighters before they had even engaged the core unit.
Part of what made this work was that at the time I had almost a decade of solid melee experience, and Arundoor had probably twice that much.
A win for Red:
About seven years ago we fought a series of single death field battles against our friends, the Galatians. We were about seven to eight strong per side. It was a weird time for us in Anglesey where we were struggling to get a second veteran shield onto our team, which left us only with Arundoor, who fought on the right flank. Our left flank kept getting chewed up faster than he could get kills on the right flank.
At one point I made a switch in tactics and joined him with my pole on the right flank, hoping that we could employ the Green team flanking tactic pictured above. Despite the fact that the two of us had the experience to fight on a flank, the remaining core unit did not. The Galatians read this, and instead of doing the Red team tactic shown above, they actually ran their entire unit at the two of us, gambling that the other five fighters on our team would be slow to engage. They were correct, and won the fight in swift fashion!
About seven years ago we fought a series of single death field battles against our friends, the Galatians. We were about seven to eight strong per side. It was a weird time for us in Anglesey where we were struggling to get a second veteran shield onto our team, which left us only with Arundoor, who fought on the right flank. Our left flank kept getting chewed up faster than he could get kills on the right flank.
At one point I made a switch in tactics and joined him with my pole on the right flank, hoping that we could employ the Green team flanking tactic pictured above. Despite the fact that the two of us had the experience to fight on a flank, the remaining core unit did not. The Galatians read this, and instead of doing the Red team tactic shown above, they actually ran their entire unit at the two of us, gambling that the other five fighters on our team would be slow to engage. They were correct, and won the fight in swift fashion!
After that engagement I went straight to our most experienced fighter in the core unit and said, "You guys have to respond when they move like that. You can't just stand there and watch the fight!" Despite our failure, it's failures like these that become teachable moments. The solution wasn't to abandon flanking as a tactic, but to learn how to do it more effectively.
I should add a note: what actually made Red successful in this engagement was not only Green's inability to respond to an exposed flank, but Red's ability to mobilize their entire unit so quickly. Red consisted of a single, well trained unit who knew how to work together. Had it been a collection of random fighters, many with limited experience, the mobilization would have been much slower which may have given the core Green unit time to respond.
Either way, both examples above showed effective implementation of these two simple tactics with success largely being determined by which team was better trained.
I should add a note: what actually made Red successful in this engagement was not only Green's inability to respond to an exposed flank, but Red's ability to mobilize their entire unit so quickly. Red consisted of a single, well trained unit who knew how to work together. Had it been a collection of random fighters, many with limited experience, the mobilization would have been much slower which may have given the core Green unit time to respond.
Either way, both examples above showed effective implementation of these two simple tactics with success largely being determined by which team was better trained.
What Happens if You Run This Scenario Over and Over Again?
I asked a question in the title, which tactic is better; numerical superiority, or flanking. The answer is flanking AND avoiding being out numbered. Fighting 5v7 is bad (2v7 is even worse). But if you can make sure that that is a 7v7 WITH a flanking attack involved, you end up with the best results.
Again, the caveat is that you must have enough fighters with the right experience to make that happen.
I asked a question in the title, which tactic is better; numerical superiority, or flanking. The answer is flanking AND avoiding being out numbered. Fighting 5v7 is bad (2v7 is even worse). But if you can make sure that that is a 7v7 WITH a flanking attack involved, you end up with the best results.
Again, the caveat is that you must have enough fighters with the right experience to make that happen.
In my experience, if you run this scenario over and over again, and at least one of the teams figures out how to effectively flank, the other team eventually figures out that the flankers have to be stopped. When this happens, the battle usually splits into two units on each side, neither wanting to expose a flank.
How do I know this will happen? Because I've seen it happen countless times. If one team has effective flankers, the other team either figures out how to neutralize them (shown above) or they just keep losing, all day long.
Final Notes
Though this post was not meant to cover unit formations, I wanted to note that I'm actually not a fan of the traditional shield wall, despite the fact that I have them pictured above. Though it has its place, I find that adding a second rank keeps too many fighters out of the early stages of the fight.
Obviously a certain amount of prowess is required for a pole or spear to be able to fight in the front rank, so don't push poles to the front who aren't ready.
Having said that, you don't need to take my word for it. Just look at this picture of the infamous Atlantian Ten Man Team, consisting of nine dukes and a count. Notice that all three poles are in the front rank.
Though this post was not meant to cover unit formations, I wanted to note that I'm actually not a fan of the traditional shield wall, despite the fact that I have them pictured above. Though it has its place, I find that adding a second rank keeps too many fighters out of the early stages of the fight.
Obviously a certain amount of prowess is required for a pole or spear to be able to fight in the front rank, so don't push poles to the front who aren't ready.
Having said that, you don't need to take my word for it. Just look at this picture of the infamous Atlantian Ten Man Team, consisting of nine dukes and a count. Notice that all three poles are in the front rank.
Thanks for reading!
THL Bari of Anglesey - East Kingdom
I've missed reading these! Like, a lot! As a commander in the AEthelmearc army, I appreciate this latest edition to start thinking about melee again.
ReplyDeleteIf we can limit the focus to starting training again with experienced vs inexperienced, what balance would you want to have when working over ANY scenario as the weather warms up? How effective is having less-experienced fighters observe more experienced fighters fight through a scenario, and how should you focus their attention? Thank you!
Kieran MacRae, BMDL
Hi Kieran, thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteIf you do vets versus newbs, it depends entirely on how good the vets are, and how inexperienced the newbs are. Typically, however, I find that a 3:4 or 3:5 ratio works out pretty well. Ideally you try your best on the first battle, and then make an adjustment if necessary.
If it is balanced well, the newbs lose the first one pretty significantly. By the 2nd or 3rd fight they're competitive, and they end up winning the 4th fight.
As for observing on the sideline, I like to push for maximum participation. I personally think more is gained from helmet time than from observation (I say ironically while writing a blog about fighting).