Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Mark Stone wrote:
> I know nothing about Classical/Roman period warfare. Cole might
> argue I know nothing about Medieval warfar as well, but here goes:

Hey! Why would I do that, especially when you make such cogent posts
as this? Not that I'm not argumentative (Christian and my friendship
began with a heated argument about knightly physical culture after
all), but I hope you'll believe that I only argue when I have a good
reason to think I'm right :)

That said, I would like to discuss a couple of your points on this
topic ;)

To sum up you say that Medieval hand to hand combat is basically about
density and having a longer pointy stick, or lightly armoured
men "easing" into the enemy line and doing damage up close.

I'd like to argue that you're drawing the line in the wrong place.

The translation and dispersal of medieval and renaissance combat
manuals in the last few years has greatly expanded our knowledge of
how men fought. In particular, Liberi and his pupil Vadi give us a
deep insight into the training and how knights fought in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Liberi was the master of arms of the Marquis of Ferrara, and fought in
several battles during Hawkwood's era in Italy, and the recurring
theme of his manual is to get inside your opponents "reach" and do
terrible (and I mean terrible, the stomach really churns when you read
this stuff) things to your enemies. To this end every weapon, be it a
lance on horse or foot, a pollaxe, a longsword or side sword, a
dagger, a club, your hands, even in some circumstances your hat
becomes a weapon for use in close and personal.

His manual is directed towards armoured combat (he states he will
teach you nothing that will betray you in armour) for the Marquis'
Elmeti. Given this, you have to consider that heavily armoured though
they were, a dismounted Italian Elmeti's training was to insert
himself just like the unarmoured sword and buckler man, get up close
and personal, and do his worst to you.

And the number of ways of achieving insertion, both mounted and on
foot are many and varied. Francesco Gonzaga hurls his lance to drop a
French knight a Fornovo, and then rides into the gap created by the
loss and lays about him with his sword, wreaking great havoc on the
French Knights who are still holding their lances. Liberi describes
this very tactic, saying ""To damage you or your horse I will do this
throw, and then I will visit you with the sword."

There's a lovely little plate of the lance poised to throw at his
hapless victim that goes with the text, and of course, Liberi being
Liberi, he provides a counter to the throw as well :)

One another note, you mention the variance in the length of lances
from the 11th century to the fifteenth century. I'm not so sure that
a linear increase in length is supportable, and if anything the length
of the lance is situational. Jehan de Wavrin (a French participant at
Agincourt) specifically describes the reason the French decided to
shorten their lances before the battle: So that they will be stiffer
when they make contact.

So, food for thought...

Have fun!
Cole