In early warfare the weapons available were: foot soldiers with spears (most basic) and possibly shields and swords and armor (if that could be afforded), and bows and arrows or slings (again with shields or armor if it could be afforded), and cavalry and chariots (if it could be afforded, as it was the most expensive, and more expensive still with armor and shields).
The line of battle was a row of foot soldiers, basically. The archers or slingers would initially be in front, firing on the opposing enemy line of battle, and then when the enemy's line got close, they would retreat behind the the line of foot soldiers. If there was cavalry, it was put on the left and right of the line of foot soldiers. The infamous "flanks". You have the left flank, the right flank, and the rear. And that was because foot soldiers who are fighting can do so facing only one direction - forward. When a foot soldier is fighting, he is at a disadvantage when also attacked from the either flank or from the rear.
And thus the number of foot soldiers available determined how long the line of foot soldiers was. If the enemy had enough foot soldiers so that his line of foot soldiers was longer than your line of foot soldiers, it would be possible for his line of foot soldiers to wrap around yours and have the soldiers on your left and right flank face two or three attackers - one in front, another from the flank, and possibly another from the rear. Nasty stuff that. So commanders would notice how long an enemy's line was and then lengthen his line accordingly, as best he could with the numbers he had.
The basic tactic was to have the archers and slingers shoot first as the enemy and friendly lines of battle approached each other. Eventually the archers and slingers would retreat behind the line of foot soldiers. Then battle would become "joined" as the foot soldiers started to battle each other and become entangled with each other. If one side "breaks" and retreats, it will suffer heavier losses from being hit in the back without being able to hit back.
All things being equal, the issue will be decided by the quality and quantity of the foot soldiers. Foot soldiers who are better trained and equipped will inflict more casualties and suffer few casualties then foot soldiers who are less well equipped and trained, and will therefore be less likely to break first.
If the equipment and training are roughly equal, then its a number game. Foot soldiers will kill and be killed and therefore the casualties will be equal. If one side has additional numbers, then those additional numbers will simply be the survivors, who will then pursue the defeated enemy and inflict more casualties. Or - the extra numbers can contribute to an attack on one or both of the enemy's flanks (or even his rear) - which can cause the enemy to break.
If one side has cavalry or chariots and other doesn't, then the cavalry will ride around the line of battle and charge into the left or right flank of the enemy line, or even the rear. If there are archers, the cavalry can run them down too. A cavalry charge to the flanks or rear of a line of foot soldiers will usually be enough to break them. But a cavalry frontal attack on foot soldiers is usually suicidal because the foot soldiers are usually armed with spears that can bring a horse down.
Chariots could make a frontal attack if the number of spears was low and the spears were not particularly long, and that is in fact what heavy chariots were meant for - to break up lines of foots soldiers with chariots that had whirling sword blades attacked to their wheels.
Once the line of foot soldiers breaks and starts running, the cavalry also has the job of running after them and killing them as they flee in order to further reduce the size of the enemy army for the next battle (if there is one.)
If both sides have cavalry, then the cavalry's job to to prevent the enemy cavalry from doing its job.
The only alternative to this basic line of battle is the all-cavalry armies of the steppe dwellers of what will become Russia. While civilized cities found cavalry units to be expensive and thus had their wealthier families create and staff them, the steppe dwellers were nomads who needed horses to migrate quickly from one pasture to another in order to keep from running out of food. Horses were basic to them and everyone had one (or more than one) and so their armies were squadrons of mounted spearmen (lancers) or swordmen or mounted archers (who could also wield a sword.)
Against a regular line of battle, the archers would move up first and pepper the enemy with arrows. If the enemy cavalry moved against them, they would retreat behind their mounted lancers who generally outnumbered their enemy's cavalry and could polish them off in one good charge. With their cavalry gone, the enemy foot soldiers would then be vulnerable to the mounted archers riding around them in circles, firing arrows, while their lancers moved in and made charges on the flanks and rear of the foot soldier line. Once the line broke and started running, the steppe cavalry all ran them down and generally exterminated them all. Of these steppe dwellers would come the later Huns and Mongols. The other all-cavalry army would be that of the later Persians, who heavily armored their cavalry.
An all cavalry army against an all cavalry army was such a complex, mobile mess that a "line of battle" really didn't exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment