English Civil War – Weapons

Somewhere to share your tales, anecdotes and memories from past days.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Please remember to respect the copyright of the author. Please do not post content from this section elsewhere without the specific permission of the author.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alberto
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:16 am
Home club or Range: VPRC
Location: Essex

Re: English Civil War – Weapons

#11 Post by Alberto »

JS569 wrote:So we think people went in, had a hack for 15mins and came out?
Nobody is really sure because we just don't have the evidence but modern theories suggest the fighting must have been sporadic for the reasons already highlighted. When the two lines came together one side may run immediately or after a brief clash. If both held their nerve the lines would come apart a short distance and the fighting become protracted. The more aggressive or well led groups within the line would keep pushing forward as much as their strength and courage allowed. Brief violent clashes of variable length might see a few men cut down or one side fall back a short distance. Over time one side or the other would begin collectively to realise they were losing and begin to start thinking about getting away. Counterintuitively this probably usually started at the back. As the losing side's will weakened further a tipping point would eventually be reached and they would start to fall back en mass. A good general might throw in his reserves at this critical point to turn a retreat into a rout. If the attackers surged forward after the retreating enemy the slaughter might really begin, so nobody wanted to be last to run.

With the advent of gunpowder clashes of cold steel became rare but the overall effect is much the same. Even in modern times we see a similar effect. E.g at Omaha beach on D-day. The GIs didn't swarm from the beach en mass, they took the high ground one gun nest or trench at a time. Motivated junior officers or NCOs would collect a few men around them and make an attack. After that they might collect a new group and try again until they were killed or their courage exhausted. Then another group took over. Superiority in this low level leadership is one reason why professional armies have often won against larger armies of amateurs.


Sent from my boing using "An application"
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." - Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
JS569
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:47 pm
Home club or Range: catterick

Re: English Civil War – Weapons

#12 Post by JS569 »

Thanks for the info, really interesting stuff.

Relatively recently there was a documentary on BBC (might have being Dr Sam Willis/ Wallis) and he was saying that during viking and earlier medieval times an army could constitute a band of 30 so men. We've being drilled my media etc over the years that an army needs to take the form of 1,000s of men but in reality in those earlier periods a group of a couple of hundred was considered a very large formation.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests