Specifically, I am commenting on Sandy's discussion of the battle
between French and German knights:
> Another concept. I have read of a battle in the 17th century (during the 30
years war).<
While there may have been such a battle at the time, I believe the specific reference is to another such battle that took place in the 15th century or a little earlier, when plate armor was coming into vogue.
>The Germans wore upper-body armor (breastplates, armplates, gauntlets,
helmets), which was unusual, since armor was vanishing at the time,<
The Germans in the battle I am referencing were wearing the first full Gothic plate, enclosing their entire bodies. The French were in transition armor--chain with plates attached.
And, as a side note, breastplate and morion (helmet) wearing Curaissiers were present into the Napoleonic era--though in lesser and lesser numbers. The armor was still effective against the usual cavalry weapon in the era of single-shot guns, the saber.
> and the French, using rapiers, found the plates impossible to penetrate.<
The Germans were using blunt-tipped heavy slashing swords (probably the predecessors to the Heidelburg rapier), the French had shorter, lighter, pointy-tipped broadswords.
>They (the French) were losing the battle when they found that they could get
through the German's armor by aiming at their armpits.
This tactic was effective enough to win the battle for the French. Though,
since the breastplates could not have been an active handicap for the Germans
even after the weak point was discovered there was presumably some other
factor favoring the French -- maybe the French outnumbered them or
something.<
The combination of fully-encasing plate armor and heavy swords meant that the Germans could, occasionally, kill a French knight without taking any casualties themselves. The only thing keeping the French alive was their enhanced mobility--which was of little use in a slugging match. However, once they figured out they could deal mortal wounds by shifting targets, Germans started falling like flies. The heavy and cumbersome German armor was suddenly a liability. The Germans were not used to the armor and it wasn't at its best, being prototypes. The Germans cut and ran.
Considering how the French won, you can see why I think Sandy got his battle wrong, as opposed to just quoting a similar battle report.
About Spanish Sword-and-Buckler men against Swiss Pikes
As I understand the situation, the Spaniards did just fine against the pikes as long as they had cannon and musketeers to blast holes in the pike formations. Once they didn't have to run into a hedgehog, their shorter and more mobile weapons gave them free play amongst the pikemen. Just swordsmen against pikes meant the swordsmen died.
This may be because the Swiss and Landsknects (sp?) created to fight the Swiss were far more mobile than the Greek hoplites, who wore more armor, used shields, and were unable to keep a formation in rough terrain, which is where the Romans took them apart. By economic necessity, the Swiss had very little armor and more mobility than their Greek predecessors.
The Mongols were outnumbered? I always thought numbers were one of their advantages. But I haven't done any studies of them or their battles. I would wager, however, that the Mongols had far more "professional" soldiers than the medieval armies of knights and conscripted peasants that they faced.
Ah well, the joys of medieval militaries. People should read some version of CWC Oman's _The Art of War In the Middle Ages_ or one of the books based on Oman. Highly recommended.
I now cloak again, probably to disappear until I actually have a Glorantha manuscript to edit for Avalon Hill.
Steve Perrin
Powered by hypermail