|
|
Some Thoughts on Melee Fighting in the SCA
By: Jester of Anglesey
Introduction
The SCA was created by people who wanted to recreate the chivalric ideals of the High Middle Ages and embraced by people who wanted to club each other with sticks. For the former we have the pagentry and spectacle of the tournament, for the latter the mud and confusion of the battlefield. I'm a hit'em-with-sticks person myself and when circumstances prevented me from active participation in the SCA for several years I set out to learn about becoming a better melee fighter. What I discovered was, at first, disheartening. There simply wasn't much information out there for the SCA melee fighter. The secrets of melee fighting, like those of individual fighting, were/are locked in the heads of experienced heavy fighters throughout the known world. It was actually easier to locate good quality treatises on single combat than it is to find treatises of any sort on melee combat. (1)
After I had thought about this a great deal, and done a lot of searching and reading in the meanwhile, I came to understand the reasons why this is so. To begin with, single combat is simpler than a melee. There is no need to communicate your intent to ten different minds, no need to coordinate your actions, no need to have a picture of what's going on more than twenty feet away, and in general fewer options of all sorts. I am not downplaying the skills required to be a good heavy fighter, just trying to point out that single combat is generally less complicated than melee combat. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. Furthermore, many experienced melee fighters do not publish their thoughts and experiences. Some are not interested in this, some feel that they have little to contribute, and others are interested in protecting their arcane and hard-won knowledge. What discourses on SCA melee combat exist are generally of a like nature. The author is introduced, the publication of the piece is justified, the nature of the problem is stated, and solutions are provided in the form of organizational and tactical suggestions organized, more or less, according the views of the author.
I am not qualified to write this article. While this seems, on the face of it, to be an absurd statement to write on the first page of a 30+ page work it is still my honest opinion. I've read a great deal, I've observed and theorized, but I've never led large groups in SCA melees. In fact, my friends have a saying "Don't let Jester make the plan" based on my performances leading small groups. Let there be no doubt as to my lack of qualifications and my complete awareness of this fact. Nor am I a good single combat fighter. I have never made the time to approach SCA fighting with the proper attitude and commitment so I'm as bad now as I was when I started in 1991. This article represents very little original thought on my part, however. 99% of the information contained in this paper has been drawn from a wide range of sources: books, articles, newsgroups, personal conversations, classes, etc…
The organization of the article and the intellectual distinctions that I make are largely based on the doctrines of the United States Army. The opinions I express regarding how melee fighting should be conducted in the SCA are largely based on the doctrines of Anglesey. This is the background I am coming from and, though I constantly strive to be objective, it colors my perceptions. I would like to express my thanks to Baltazar of Anglesey. Baltazar is the person most responsible for introducing me to the SCA and teaching me the joys of melee fighting. The ideas that lead to the research which resulted in this article were given to me by him. Thanks, Bzar.
What I hope to do in this article is provide a starting point for
future discussions on this subject. I will put forth my opinions, theories,
and conceptual organization for all who care to comment and critique. I
hope that genuine knowledge will acrete around this article in much the
same manner that an oyster creates pearls.
Organization
Principles
In the course of my readings on ancient and medieval military history I came to believe that SCA combat can be divided into three levels which closely mirror certain time periods and systems. The first level is single combat. The single combat closely resembles the jousts and tournaments of the High Middle Ages in Western Europe. (2) Single combat is exemplified by Crown Tournaments and the events hosted by the various tournament companies. The second level is small group combat. Small group combats are the melees that take place at countless fighter practices and small tourneys throughout the world. They closely resemble primitive tribal combat from any time and place. The third level is the large group combat. Large group combat takes place only at large events such as Pennsic, Gulf Wars, Estrella, and Lillies. It is fairly rare and closely resembles the battles that took place in Greece prior to the Peleponesian Wars. There are no clearly defined gradients that separate these levels. They exist on a sliding scale where one level transitions gradually into the next.
SCA large group combat (hereafter referred to as 'melees') is an artificial construct. We adhere to rules which compromise the realism of the simulation for the purposes of making it reasonably safe. So, from the very beginning we deviate from reality and there is no going back. This means that while we may attempt to recreate Medieval history, we can never truly achieve this goal in all aspects at all times. Some truths, however, remain unaffected by our deviations.
The most fundamental of these truths is that logistics drives organization. Simply put, you can only create and sustain an army that you can supply. Depending on the time and place and level of development of the art and science of warfare there are various functions that can be lumped together under the broad heading of logistics. The four most common functions are: Supply, Transport, Maintenance, and Services. The ability of a state or organization to meet the needs that these functions represent largely determines the type of military organization they can create and sustain.
The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the feudal states provides an excellent example of this. Consider the Roman military system after the time of Marius. The army was composed of professional soldiers, primarily infantry, who lived and trained in large groups. This was made possible by an economic and political infrastructure capable of marshalling the resources needed to support such an organization (3). Contrast this with the feudal military system that came after the fall of Rome. Medieval monarchs were not ignorant, they knew of the Roman military system (which continued in various forms in Constantinople) but they were unable or unwilling (due to political concerns, how many Barracks Emperors were there?) to support large, standing armies of infantry (4).
To determine what form of organization you wish to use, you must
first look at all the factors which affect your ability to create the army
or unit you want. Frankly, attempting to list all of these factors would
be boring and largely unproductive since the factors can vary from place
to place and time to time. Of the four general factors (supply, transportation,
maintenance, and services) the first three are summarily dumped on the
individual participant. The fourth, services, is largely a function that
is filled on an as-needed basis by volunteers. The one aspect of services
that I am concerned with is training.
| Because this is a game (a point I will reiterate ad naseum throughout this article) we tend to more closely resemble the medieval model than the Roman model of organization and training. This model is based on the patron-client model that prevailed among the Germanic tribes that superceded Rome. (5). Military training models can be thought to exist on a sliding scale. At one extreme lies the warrior model of organization, at the the other the soldier model. The warrior model emphasizes individual training while the soldier method emphasizes group training. Most organizations tend to fall somewhere between the two extremes. In the SCA the typical organization tends to favor the warrior method. There are many good reasons for this. The creation of effective large units requires a substantial logistical commitment. In modern terms we would have to require a commitment of time and effort that many people are unable or unwilling to make. It is much easier to create a set of standard commands and educate individuals. In this way the lone fighter in the Canton of Middle of Nowhere can integrate himself into any unit formed from the fighters of his Kingdom. |  |
Because this is a game, and most of us have busy lives outside our hobby, there is a strong tendency to reduce the amount of work to the absolute minimum. For this reason, foremost among many others, the SCA tends to favor a warrior system organization. I do not. I favor a soldier system organization because I feel that a tight unit will react better than a group of individuals when the plan goes bad, and the plan always goes bad. I believe that my system does not replace the warrior system organization, rather it refines and supplements it by going one step further.
A unit based system does not come without its own set of drawbacks.
It can be more difficult to integrate groups of small units into a single
large unit than it is to integrate the same number of individuals into
that large unit. This is because the small groups inevitably develop their
own techniques, lingo, and customs. This complicates communication and
command and makes it more difficult to achieve a uniform weapons distribution
in the unit because the commander usually ends up breaking up the small
groups. It is exactly because of those same traits that I believe units
are more effective than groups of individuals. I believe that an army composed
of 3 to 8 man (or larger) groups will perform better than an army composed
of individuals for reasons that I will outline below.
| "War is teamwork. It requires learning and can be practiced efficiently only after intensive training, usually accompanied by firm, sometimes savage, discipline." (6) |
Obviously none of the sane people in the SCA are going to voluntarily
undergo 'savage discipline' for the sake of a more realistic recreation
or to satisfy my personal opinion of how melee units should be organized,
but this does highlight the key aspect that separates individual combat
from large group melees: organization. Observe any melee and note that
the successful teams fall into three categories: 1) better organized 2)
better fighters and/or 3) numerically superior. The third category is a
simple expression of the attrition equation (see The
Blue Company Melee Manual). The second category covers 'ringer-teams'
composed of highly skilled individual fighters. In a small to mid-sized
melee they can often prevail by turning the melee into a collection of
one on one battles. Even in large melees, when facing organized fighting
teams, they tend to die hard by virtue of their skill and experience. The
first category covers organized fighting teams.
| "Four brave men who do not know each other will dare not attack a lion. Four less brave, but knowing each other well, sure of their reliability and consequently of mutual aid, will attack resolutely. There is the science of the organization of armies in a nutshell." (7) | |
| "When a soldier is unknown to the men who are around him he has relatively little reason to fear losing the one thing he is likely to value more highly than his life - his reputation as a man among other men." (8) | |
| "... Put men from the same villages together and the sections of ten and the squads of five will mutually protect one another." (9) |
These three quotes reach to the root of organizing fighting teams. Men who fight individually do so for their own reasons and this paper has no desire to explore those reasons. Men who fight well as members of a group do so, in part, because they value the opinion their peers hold of them. There are some problems with this generalization, remember the individual motivators, but as a rule of thumb it holds true. Certain other principles are evident in these quotes. "…knowing each other well…" "…unknown to the men who are around him…" Du Picq, Marshall and Wu are referring to the bonds between men. Close association, shared experience, and time are the only ways to form these bonds. "…sure of their reliability…" Trust is an essential element in any successful relationship. If close association, shared experience, and time reveal to one warrior that another is untrustworthy, then the bond between those men will be weak at best. One will not respect the other and the positive performance motivator is diminished or lost.
Let us consider some historical examples that support this assertion and reveal other principles. We will begin with the Greek military during the Fourth Century, B.C. We will then move on to the example of the Roman army. Finally we will jump ahead to the Swiss Cantons and their pike squares.
There are many studies of Greek Warfare with a great deal of merit, but for factual content and reader accessibility, The Western Way of War by Victor Davis-Hanson is hands down my favorite. In it, Mr. Davis-Hanson discusses the conditions of warfare in ancient Greece, from the preparation to the aftermath. Because the physical conditions in Greece made the supply of armies in the field difficult warfare tended to be comprised of short periods of armed conflict followed by truces that allowed each side to re-arm. Because terrain conveyed such an advantage to the defender, the attacker would refuse battle. The defender, in turn, could not take advantage of their position because they lacked the supplies to maintain it. So battles tended to be fairly evenly matched affairs that took place on relatively level terrain between armies which were similarly equipped and of similar capabilities.
Greek armies were made up of free citizens whose status in civilian life was partly tied to the quality of arms they could provide for themselves in time of war. The wealthy formed the heavy infantry (hoplites) and cavalry (cataphracti) while the poor supplied the light infantry and missile troops (peltasts). Within these branches they were organized by family, clan, and tribe. The performance of each man would be scrutinized and remembered by the people who formed his entire social world. This was a powerful incentive to perform well or, at the very least, not to perform poorly. Further incentive was provided by the personal relationship of each man with the men around him. Though we have no monopoly on dysfunctional families in our age we have to assume that most men cared about the welfare of their relatives to some degree. They would have been motivated to fight well lest their failure doomed their friends and family.
The battle would begin with the armies forming up within sight of each other, but out of range of a quick charge. The peltasts would form in front of the hoplites and on the wings. The cavalry would station themselves on the wings. The hoplites would form up in the center. Mass was the key to the hoplite charge, so generals were reluctant to have less than six ranks and more commonly eight to ten. Another reason for the many ranks was to allow the most experienced men to be in the front, the younger men in the middle, and the oldest men in the rear. There was likely no reserve as the General commanding the army would be down in the front line and in no position to direct them. The battle would begin with skirmishing between the peltasts and cavalry as the hoplites slowly advanced to within charging range. Once this range was reached the peltasts would withdraw from the front of the hoplites to the wings. The hoplites on either side would sing a song, a paen, and then charge. The initial collision must have been fearful as the men in front were pushed through a wall of opposing spearpoints by the mass of the men behind them. We know that spears were broken in this initial charge and the men in front became involved in a pushing contest while the men behind them added their weight to the press, thrust at the enemy with spears, or stabbed fallen foes with butt-spikes as the phalanx advanced. The old men in the rear would act as a stabilizing force, preventing the young men from panicking and fleeing, if necessary by force. In the front pockets would form and allow men to bring their swords into play or to be cut off from their comrades and killed by the enemy. Eventually, one side would lose the will to fight. Perhaps the peltasts and cavalry appeared in the rear or a popular commander was believed to have been slain. Whatever the cause the rout would begin with troops in the rear taking flight and once it began it was almost impossible to stop. Curiously, the actual casualties up to that point would have likely been relatively light (9). The bulk of the casualties occurred during the pursuit of the routed side.
Once routed the soldiers of the defeated army had one thought in mind: survive. Armor, reputation, wealth, all might be restored in time, but only if the soldier survived. The victorious hoplites would pursue the defeated hoplites as they desperately sought to break contact. To break contact they would abandon weapons, armor, and shields to lend speed to their flight. Unfortunately this would make them vulnerable to the peltasts and cavalry who continued the pursuit once the hoplites broke off. If they were fortunate enough to evade the peltasts and cavalry, the defeated soldiers stood a good chance of getting home. Once home they could rearm themselves to face battle another day.
The Romans were well aware of the manner in which self image helped
soldiers to stand firm against the foe. In his Epitoma Rei Militaris
(or
De Re Militari) Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus offers us the following
quotes:
| "For the youth in whose hands is to be placed the defence of provinces, the fortune of battles, ought to be of outstanding breeding if numbers suffice, and morals. Decent birth makes a suitable soldier, while a sense of shame prevents flight and makes him a victor." | |
| "It was a divinely inspired institution of the ancients to deposit 'with the standards' half the donative which the soldiers received, and to save it there for each soldier , so it could not be spent by the troops on extravagance or the acquisition of vain things…..Secondly, the soldier who knows that his spending money is deposited 'with the standards' never thinks of deserting, has greater love for the standards, and fights for them more bravely in battle, since it is human nature to care most about things on which one's living depends." |
Not satisfied with the sense of shame, the Romans made sure to include the financial factor. Those troops who lacked a sense of shame, after all, were all the more likely to have a sense of greed. This was necessary since by the time Vegetius was writing the Roman army was largely composed of barbarians, either inducted into the legions individually or wholesale as members of the foederati.
Whether the Romans recognized it or not, they also took advantage of other bonding measures, most notably the shared experience. Roman recruits all went through the same rigorous training process. The value of this shared experience was almost as great as the training itself, for the hardships they endured together brought them closer together and gave them an experience in common with the rest of the army. The stigma of the army, the tattoo they received upon passing the entrance examinations, was more than a means of identifying deserters, it was another bond shared by the soldiers.
The Romans also recognized the value of success in building morale. Vegetius recommends sending raw troops out with experienced troops to face a small number of foes. The experience, he contends, gave them a sense of accomplishment and had the added value of making warfare familiar. The next time the troops faced a battle they would do so with the knowledge that it was possible to survive a battle, the expectation that they would win, and less fear of the unknown.
In examining the Swiss we find ourselves returning to the Greeks. The number of similarities is astounding. Both groups lived in mountainous terrain that forced them to live in small, self-governing communities. The agricultural conditions were such that it was difficult to support a specialized warrior group or full-time army. This in turn meant that each free man was obligated to defend the community and that an army could not stay in the field for long. Both nations were faced with the presence of a powerful Empire close by them; the Greeks the Persians, the Swiss the Holy Roman Empire.
It should not be surprising, then, that the Swiss created a system much like the Greeks. Unable to have a national standing army, the Swiss created a militia organized along regional lines. Like the Greeks the Swiss were organized by associations, in this case family, village, and canton. Unable to afford cavalry or the heavy armor necessary for close combat, the Swiss adopted the pike. Pikes were well suited for the Swiss organization. It allowed a mass of men to bring enormous power to bear on their foes while those foes were still too distant to respond. The point would impale a horse or rider and the axe would cut through the heavy armor of their noble foes.
Where the Swiss deviated from the Greek model was in their superior articulation. Though in theory the Greeks had multiple maneuver units organized by tribe or by city-state, in practice the heavy infantry formed a single massive unit which could only execute an advance with any degree of control. The Swiss organized their towns or cantons into squares which could maneuver independently of each other. Their ability to defend themselves from any direction freed them, in theory if not always in practice, from the need to maintain strict battle lines and to anchor or defend their flanks. Such a system was only possible with well trained and well disciplined units that were, above all, cohesive.
The Swiss ensured cohesion through their organization, rigid discipline, and their actions. Military service was taken seriously. Failure to report for duty was punishable by death. Fleeing in the face of the enemy was punishable by death. Stopping to loot was punishable by death. Numerous other offenses were punishable by, of course, death. This discipline undoubtedly contributed to the cohesion of the Swiss forces. But it was their isolation from the rest of society that most contributed to their sense of identity. This isolation was the result of actions on the part of the Swiss which transgressed the accepted norms of the societies they were in conflict with.
The Swiss were brutal fighters who rarely took prisoners. When they did take prisoners they generally ignored the conventions of the time and slaughtered them. There were sound reasons for this. The Swiss were outnumbered by militarily powerful foes who could conceivably muster a sufficiently large force and conquer them. The Swiss had to strike terror in the hearts of their foes. Men who faced the Swiss knew there would be no quarter given if they lost. At the time, the practice of ransoming prisoners was widespread and soldiers were apt to grab a prisoner and then leave the battlefield, with prisoner in tow, as quickly as possible. Moreover, the Swiss had to fight aggressively in both the tactical and strategic sense. They couldn't keep an army in the field for long, they needed a clear resolution, quickly. In a tactical sense the Swiss were also forced to be aggressive. Their funds went to procuring weapons, not armor. In order to win a battle the Swiss had to kill their foes through offensive action. They had to strike blows, and do it before the enemy could close with them and bring their weapons to bear.
The actions of the Swiss made them international pariahs. They knew that capture was the same as death, in some cases worse since it might mean a slow death. Victory was their only option. The Swiss, in any case believed that they would win. Convinced of their invincibility they would often attack against horrendous odds. Strangely enough, they sometimes won. But even when they didn't they inflicted severe casualties upon their foes and generally fought to the last man.
The organization of fighting teams can be reduced to four general
principles:
| 1) Use positive peer pressure and take advantage of the human social instinct. | ||
|
||
| 2) Create a sense of group identity. | ||
|
||
| 3) Create an aura of success. | ||
|
||
| 4) Maintain rigid discipline. | ||
|
Specifics
| When creating organized fighting teams most manuals focus on the ratios of weapon styles. They specify so many shields for each spear, so many spears for each pole, and so on down the line. In general these ratios all take on the form of an inverted pyramid, shields at the top, then spears, polearms and great weapons, the odd weapon styles, and archers and other missile troops at the bottom. This inverted pyramid carries over into tactical organization where it manifests itself in the 'two up, one back' formation that occurs down at the most basic team level and on up to the entire army. The problem of creating maneuver units can be expressed in two words: articulation and mass. Mass is what the Greek phalanx had. Mass is what enabled heavy cavalry to break up infantry units and rout them. It is the momentum of sheer power. Articulation is what enabled the Romans to defeat the Greeks. They couldn't break a phalanx by attacking it frontally, so they used part of their force to flank them and attack them from the rear. The smaller Roman units could be maneuvered separately and take advantage of the opportunities this created. |  |
The desire for mass and maneuverability has been a dilemma of army organizers for centuries. The more you have of one, the less you tend to have of the other. Organizers have dealt with this problem by creating small units that can be combined into larger units. The Romans had maniples, cohorts, centuries, and legions. The condottieri had lancie, poste, bandiere, and compagnie, among many other names. Modern armies have teams, squads, platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, brigades, divisions, and armies. The term most frequently used throughout the Middle Ages was the lance. Instead of the teams, triads, or units some manuals propose I will stick with the lance for reasons of verisimilitude, flavor, and simplicity.
The lance was organized around the mounted knight. This was done primarily for logistical reasons. The wide dispersion of forces under what was essentially a militia system meant that it was difficult to bring together large concentrations of weapons types on a regular basis. A village or region might produce two archers, three men-at-arms, a few squires, and the knight who administered the region. These men would serve together and, more importantly, be supplied together. Since each region served under terms that might be subtly different they had to be administered by region. Of course this also meant the men were serving with their friends and family which contributed to their cohesiveness. Once we leave the purview of the militia forces and move into the area of paid professionals we find a more systematic organization of the lance but one which was still organized around the nucleus of the heavily armored, mounted warrior.
The SCA relies predominantly on a warrior system based on regions. This is particularly true in low population density kingdoms and less true in high population density kingdoms, where independent households, mercenary groups, and other organized units become possible. The lance, therefore, will be comprised of the fighters who typically make up the local fighter practice under the leadership of one of their number.
This makes it impossible to set an exact size for a lance. Each region will contribute according to their means, not according to some artificial standard. I personally favor a unit size of five to eight fighters. Beyond this upper limit it becomes difficult to maintain control of the unit without subordinate leaders. If a region has more than this number then they should form more than one lance and select an experienced fighter to direct the lances. It is important that commanders not break units up if that can be avoided. An exact weapons mix is less useful than a cohesive unit.
I believe that this system provides for greater cohesion and allows for better and more realistic training prior to large battles. It is not perfect, though. The fixed composition teams proposed by several authors have the advantage, when properly implemented, of making fighters think in terms of weapons mixes. If a team suffers attrition it can hope for an individual fighter who recognizes the need to balance the weapons mix to step in. But of course that new member probably has not worked with the team before and the fundamental advantage of a team, coordinated action, is degraded or lost.
While the exact size of a lance cannot be set, there are other actions that can be taken to create a cohesive team. Distinctive attire is, perhaps, the most important. A well practiced and highly skilled team whose members cannot be differentiated from the other schmoes around them will not be effectively utilized. Commanders will attempt to break them up to fill in the gaps in other units and be frustrated when the team members resist. A lance should have tabards which clearly identify them. If a region has more than one lance then those lances should share certain characteristics, generally a color scheme. Lances should always practice as such. The practice of breaking up units to 'make the sides even' should generally be avoided. The region should make efforts to recognize the efforts of their lances and the individuals who compose them. If your lance is new, consider a fighter practice raid. On a specified date, gather the lance and head off to a fighter practice you don't usually attend. Armor your people up and publicly challenge the local fighters to best three out of five melees. If you have trained well and scouted the opposition beforehand, then you should crush them handily. After the melees are over, break down the unit to fight individually and then have a couple of friendship melees at the end with mixed teams. Your lance will now have a winning experience to build upon. Repeat this process several times, each time setting your sights a little higher. Not only will this benefit your lance, the fighters of other regions will take steps to ensure that no one comes into their practice and trounces them again. The whole kingdom benefits.
Types of Melees
Within the regulations of SCA heavy combat there are two types of battles: static front and fluid front. Actions in these types of battles can be further sub-divided into offensive and defensive actions. This is a somewhat artificial division for, in truth, there should be no difference between your offense and defense. Both should be carried out aggressively and ruthlessly with the intent of defeating your foe. A well practiced unit can shift from the defense to the offense and back as often as necessary without the need for verbal commands.
A static front battle is typically one in which terrain allows a commander to secure both of his flanks by using the natural geography of the battlefield. These features must absolutely prevent the foe from traversing the feature and physically engaging your forces in the flank or rear. These features may not prevent the foe from engaging your forces if your forces approach close enough. A river, for example, will not stop your foes from engaging you with missile weapons or spears as you cross a bridge or ford. Static front battles limit the ability of a commander to maneuver and to utilize the articulation of his forces. Mass, therefore, assumes a proportionally greater role in securing victory in these circumstances. The restrictions on maneuver also reduce the number of possible actions and counteractions that may be taken. But this also allows a commander greater scope to utilize pre-planned maneuvers and strategems secure in the knowledge that his forces only have to face a foe in their forward arc. Loss of options translates into more control for the commander and less need for decentralization of command.
A fluid front battle is typically one in which the terrain does
not provide the commander with barriers to movement with which to secure
his flanks. The foe is free to exploit openings in the line or to maneuver
around and bypass the line altogether. No SCA battle is a true fluid front
situation. We are constrained by the pre-determined limits of the designated
battlefield and cannot transgress those boundaries. A fluid front situation
only occurs when a commander lacks sufficient troops to form a battle line
from one boundary to its opposite boundary. In a fluid front battle the
ability to bring mass to bear is limited by the ability of the opposing
forces to simply move out of the way. Maneuver, therefore, assumes a proportionally
greater role in securing victory in these circumstances. The wide range
of possibilities for maneuver also reduces the ability of the overall commander
to execute pre-planned actions, which assume the existence of circumstances
the foe may not provide, and to personally direct the actions of his troops.
The increase in the range of options translates into less control for the
commander and the need for decentralization of command. In these circumstances
it is vitally important that every potential commander, i.e. everybody,
be aware of the assigned mission of their unit and the role they play in
the commander's overall vision of how the foe will be defeated.
Individual Roles
There are six varieties of fighters who are allowed to participate in heavy combat. All fighters fit into these six categories. The first category is shieldmen. This category encompasses all fighters who use a shield and any other sort of weapon; mace, hammer, sword, etc… The second category is spearmen. This category encompasses all spear fighters, from 6 foot to 9 foot, except for those who use shields. Generally speaking there are no fighters who use a 6-9 foot spear and a shield because of the problem of controlling the spear with one hand. Fighters who use a shield and spear fall into the fourth category. The third category is great weapons. This category encompasses the large slashing weapons; greatswords, pole-arms, etc… The fourth category is florentines. This category encompasses the two weapon fighters; two swords, sword and dagger, sword and madu, weapon and buckler, etc… I do not include buckler fighters in the first category because they rely heavily on movement to augment their defense and are generally not capable of mounting a static defense. The fifth category is heavy missile troops. This category encompasses every fighter who uses a projectile weapon and wears heavy-combat legal armor. The sixth category is light missile troops. This category encompasses every fighter who uses a projectile weapon but does not wear heavy-combat legal armor. I personally feel that light missile troops should not be allowed to participate in heavy combat for reasons of safety and equity, but many kingdoms currently allow them, so we must discuss them.
Each category of fighter has specific roles to play in each type
of fighting scenario. These roles are guidelines, not rules, and it is
the responsibility of each fighter to learn when to move from one role
to the next. Experience is, ultimately, the only guide.
The role of first category troops in general.
Shields are the foundation of every unit which will physically
engage the enemy. A commander who has shields and no other troop types
can still successfully engage the foe. The area in which a shield fighter
can directly engage the foe is a 5-6 foot radius circle drawn from the
center mass of the fighter. This circle can be extended 2-3 feet with the
use of a forward step which widens the stance. A fighter can influence
the actions of opponents within a 6-10 foot radius circle based on the
ability of the fighter to quickly advance a full stride and strike. This
sphere of influence varies not with the ability of the shieldman, but with
his foes' perception of his ability. The primary job of a shieldman is
to maintain the integrity of the unit by preventing the foe from penetrating
their line and disrupting the unit. This is primarily a defensive action
and can involve a great deal of standing around and staying alive without
much opportunity to hit anyone. In this sort of a situation it is useful
to have a large shield. Large shields are difficult to maneuver on broken
fields or in wooded terrain, but this is a measure of skill on the part
of the individual shieldman. Where a large shield truly becomes a hindrance
is in a chaotic situation where the ability to move quickly is at a premium.
These situations rarely occur in SCA combat because we do not allow our
participants to strike from behind. Because of this a large shield, be
it a kite, round, heater, or scutum, is preferable to a small shield 9
times out of 10.
The roles of first category troops in a static front situation while on the offense.
The exact role a shieldman must play will depend on a wide variety
of factors. In a static front situation the primary role of the shieldmen
is to maintain the line. This does not involve killing anyone. That task
typically falls to the second and third category troops. Shields should
advance in unison while continuing to defend the troops behind them. If
a shieldman wants to be effective on the static front offense then he should
use a weapon with a stabbing tip. The mast majority of the slashing blows
a shieldman uses require movement to set them up whereas the thrusting
tip can be used with an minimum of movement. The thrusting tip of a fairly
short sword can find holes that a cutting blow cannot. On the other hand,
it is much more likely that a cutting blow will be aknowledged in the press
where any but the hardest thrusts might be discounted as jostling. When
it is time for the shieldmen to engage they must be disciplined and aggressive.
Discipline maintains the line, aggression kills foes. Close action of the
type dictated by a charge or a pulse should place a premium on defending
by aggressively attacking. If the attacking line is throwing more blows
than the defenders, then the defenders will spend more time defending themselves
and less time throwing blows. Granted this is circular logic, but the idea
is basically sound. However, at no time during this aggressive defense
should the shieldman forget that his primary mission is to protect the
second and third category troops behind him by staying alive and maintaining
the line.
The roles of first category troops in a static front situation while on the defense.
The shieldman contributes to the overall accomplishment of the mission principally by staying alive and functioning as a human barrier. Should the opportunity arise the shieldman should not ignore the chance to make a clean kill, but he should ignore anything less than a sure thing. This is not to say that the shieldman should not swing his sword. The shieldman can help keep the foe at a respectful distance simply by throwing that sword out at a target every few minutes. The key, when doing this, is to make sure the arm that carries that sword out comes back to the protection of the line in one piece.
The time when shieldmen are most valuable is when the foe charges.
In these instances it is up to the shieldmen to stop the physical advance
of the foe. The second and third category troops will do the actual killing
and reserve troops of the first and fourth category will mop up troops
that do break through the line. The front rank shieldmen must not yield
to the temptation and be drawn into a confused slugfest that leaves the
line open to penetration. Close and re-establish the line as quickly as
possible. For more guidance on breaking a charge see Appendix .
The roles of first category troops in a fluid front situation while on the offense.
There are two types of offense in this situation, the advance and
the penetration. The advance is a measured, general forward motion in which
the primary goal of the shieldmen remains the maintenance of the line.
They continue to provide cover for the second and third category troops
who do the lion's share of the killing. An advance can be at a slow pace
or can be a full charge. Whatever speed it is conducted at it aims at pushing
the foe back along the entire length of your line. The penetration is a
charge aimed at breaking through the entire enemy formation. The primary
troops in this action are the first category troops. But, once again, they
are not trying to kill people. They are trying to disrupt the opposing
formation by pushing through it. They do this by brute force. They do not
stop to kill people. They do, however, push those people to one side or
run over them. A shieldman should be alive when he reaches the far side
of the enemy formation and continues on through. Too many penetration charges
come to a chaotic stop as the first rank, or second and third ranks, stop
to kill foes. This holds up the advance of the ranks behind them and kills
the momentum of the entire charge.
The roles of first category troops in a fluid front situation while on the defense.
There are no defensive situations in a fluid front melee. There
are times when you are temporarily unable to pursue your offensive strategy.
These are times when you have lost the initiative. You must retake the
initiative and begin to conduct offensive actions. The end result of attempting
to defend in a fluid front situation is encirclement and destruction. The
nature of SCA combat creates an exception to this rule. It is possible
to anchor a flank against the field boundary and hold a line. If it is
possible to anchor both flanks and to hold a line across the entire field
then you are in a static front situation, not a fluid front. Any holding
action on your anchored flank will be temporary at best. By definition
the foe will be able to find an opening and bypass your blocking force.
If you are forced to fight defensively in this situation, keep the line
tight, stay alive, break out if you can, and die hard if you can't. A good
commander on the flank will attempt to push the foe against the boundary.
This will inhibit their ability to move and use the foe's mass against
them. By dropping a few of the front rank you create a living wall composed
of foes. This wall restricts the ability of the foe to make a concerted
attack and is a truly elegant way to defend a flank.
| The role of second category troops in general.
"Spearmen are the teeth of a unit." (10) The primary responsibility of second category troops is killing the foe. Remember the example of the Swiss pikemen? A spear is an excellent offensive weapon and a poor defensive weapon; spearmen must attack. In particular, spears must work in conjunction with each other and the first category troops in order to be effective. The goal is for all the spears to kill all of the foe, not for every spearman to kill a large number of foes. A spearman who does nothing but assist other spearmen in killing foes is just as valuable as the spearmen who do the actual killing. Spears should be of the maximum allowable length and should have a sturdy protrusion for hooking shields. Shieldmen should talk to each other and work in ad- hoc teams. One man hooks a shield, another takes advantage of the opening to get the kill. It is very difficult to kill a foe from within his tunnel arc. The tunnel arc is an arc of approximately 15 degrees to either side of the foe which represents the area the foe is concentrating on. This tunnel vision gives the foe an extremely focused view of the threats immediately before him. The spearman must attack from outside this tunnel arc in order to maximize his chances of a successful kill. This is known as attacking on the oblique.(11) The downside to fighting on the oblique is the loss of range this entails. The maximum range of a spear is about 9 feet plus the length of the spearman's arm, approximately 2 feet more (12). This 11 foot engagement range is decreased when the spear is thrust at any angle off the perpendicular to the opposing line. Spearmen fighting on the oblique can find themselves easy prey to spearmen fighting straight ahead. To prevent this they should, again, work together. While brushing aside spears intended to strike their comrades will save lives, communication will save more lives still. |
|
The roles of second category troops in a static front situation while on the offense.
Second category troops, for the most part, make up the second rank
in these situations. This allows them to make maximum use of their offensive
range while offering them the protection of the shield wall. In some rare
situations the second category troops will be able to move forward into
the front rank, temporarily. This can only happen in situations where the
foe is prevented from charging. When the line advances the second category
troops allow the third category troops to pass through their line. The
third category troops then become the second rank, and the second category
troops become the third rank. In this way we are able to bring the maximum
numbers of weapons to bear on the foe by using the different weapon ranges.
In many situations the first and third category troops will fill the available
space and the second category troops will not be able to bring their weapons
to bear. During these times the second category troops can still contribute
to the offense by defending the first two ranks from overhead blows. Do
this by forming an umbrella of weapon shafts above the first two ranks,
deflecting, and catching overhead swings from the foe.
The roles of second category troops in a static front situation while on the defense.
Second category troops traditionally make up the second rank. Their
job while the line does not advance is to kill people. Second category
troops actually get to do more killing on the defense than the offense.
The roles of second category troops in a fluid front situation while on the offense.
In fluid front situations second category troops are still in the
second rank but they may find individual members floating into the first
rank from time to time and will almost certainly find that third category
troops are now members of the second rank. Second category troops must
continue to strike offensively. They will do the bulk of the killing from
within the protective base provided by the first category troops.
The roles of second category troops in a fluid front situation while on the defense.
Again, there are only transient moments when you are not attacking
in a fluid front situation. Second category troops should continue to strike
aggressively and kill as many of the foe as possible. Once sufficient numbers
have been killed it will be possible to resume the attack.
The roles of third category troops in general.
More so than any other weapons style, the troops of the third category
must be aggressive, ruthless, and fast. Like the second category troops
the strength of third category troops lies in the offense. When they are
called into action third category troops go from a medium range situation
to a close range situation very quickly. In a crowded melee their movement
will be restricted and movement is their primary defense. They must kill
the foe before the foe uses this fact to their advantage. In a sense third
category troops are shock troops. They strike hard and fast, let others
clean up the mess they leave, regroup behind a protective screen of first
and second category troops and then do it all again.
The roles of third category troops in a static front situation while on the offense.
Third category troops traditionally make up the third rank. When
the line advances they must move up and become the second rank. They will
be responsible for doing the bulk of the killing. Their shorter shafts
(in comparison to the second category troops) allow them greater mobility
in attacking the foe and their slashing attacks can rain down from above
with crushing strength. Once the line has stabilized third category troops
must be savvy enough to let the second category troops back up into the
second rank.
The roles of third category troops in a static front situation while on the defense.
Third category troops have even less fun than first category troops
while on the defense. They are taking actions which are mostly defensive,
but from behind two ranks of troops. They don't even get to snarl at the
foe, they generally get to look at the backs of helms for an hour or so.
They also get to deflect overhead attacks and make the occasional foray
into the second rank to replace a downed second category trooper until
a replacement can be found. But when the foe charges, the third category
troops must fling themselves in the fray with aggressive abandon. They
are responsible for killing the foe while the first two ranks physically
contain them. The third category troops must also act to quickly staunch
any breakthroughs. When a charge comes, the third rank assumes the responsibility
for holding the line. The first and second ranks will probably be broken
and the third rank must hold their line, kill the foe, break the charge,
and let the first two ranks be re-established.
The roles of third category troops in a fluid front situation while on the offense.
In this situation the third category troops will find that they
are called upon to join in the formation of the first and second ranks.
Their role is to attack aggressively from within the protective line of
the first category troops. This line is less fixed, however, and third
category troops will often find themselves darting out to take advantage
of opportunities to attack. In this situation the third category troops
should make every effort to enlist the aid of other troop categories to
create opportunities to slay the foe. Third category troops can be usefully
employed on the flanks where they will find greater opportunity to maneuver
and act aggressively.
The roles of third category troops in a fluid front situation while on the defense.
When the front is not attacking, the role of the third category
troops is the same as in a static defensive situation. As soon as the attack
resumes they must again move up from the third rank to the second and first
ranks.
The roles of fourth category troops general.
The strength of fourth category troops lies in the offense and
mobility. Because a large portion of their defensive ability is constituted
by movement, these troops tend to be used as skirmishers and light infantry.
Their mobility and offensive abilities in close makes them invaluable in
broken and wooded terrain. They are frequently used as flanking forces
to turn the foe or deny the flank. They also see a great deal of use as
'mop-up' troops, following behind the first three categories to finish
off the wounded. Finally, they are frequently used as reaction/reserve
forces to be committed against units that break through the line.
The roles of fourth category troops in a static front situation while on the offense.
This is a boring situation for fourth category troops as they must
sit around and wait for the line to make significant advances. During this
time they must be close enough to the front ranks to kill any wounded the
front ranks pass over yet they must remain aware of the need for a constant
flow of first, second, and third category troops through their ranks. If
a breakthrough charge is called for, the fourth category troops will find
themselves dealing with large numbers of foes who have been bypassed by
the front ranks. The fourth category troops must take advantage of the
confused state of these foes to aggressively and ruthlessly finish them
off lest the become a solid nucleus of resistance and collapse the integrity
of the entire formation.
The roles of fourth category troops in a static front situation while on the defense.
Fourth category troops, in conjunction with some first and third
category troops held in the rear, form the ready reserve. When the foe
charges they act to staunch any breakthroughs by hurling themselves upon
the foe in overwhelming numbers. Attack, attack, attack.
The roles of fourth category troops in a fluid front situation while on the offense.
Fourth category troops really enjoy these situations. The float
around the back and flanks and get to do a great deal of fighting. They
reinforce the front ranks when they attack strong points. They mop up wounded
survivors. They harry the foes flanks and herd them into an unorganized
mass to be slaughtered. They plug holes in the line. Fourth category troops
should take care, in these situations, not to separate themselves from
a source of support. The timely intervention of a first, second, or third
category trooper can often mean the difference between success or failure.
The roles of fourth category troops in a fluid front situation while on the defense.
For most other troops this situation is unpleasant, but fourth
category troops generally get to enjoy some good fighting. They prevent
the foe from attacking the flanks of the main body. They act to plug holes
in the line. They staunch breakthroughs. They are in constant motion and
always acting aggressively.
The roles of fifth and sixth category troops in general.
Sir Jon Fitz-Rauf has already written a substantial paper on the
role of missile troops in SCA combat. It is included as an appendix
to this paper and deserves your attention. I will not attempt to make any
new observations and will confine myself to summarizing his key points.
Missile troops are generally used in three roles: individual snipers, small
teams, and massed units. Individual snipers rely on surprise and accuracy
to sneak up on targets and engage them. Small teams work cooperatively
with other troop categories and embody the '20 Yard Pike' concept. By thinking
of them as spearmen with enormous range you can get commanders to effectively
utilize them. Massed units have seen limited use and less success in the
SCA. War conventions that limit the number of arrows an archer may use,
small numbers of available archers and rules that prevent archers from
engaging troops from behind take most of the sting out of massed volleys
of arrows. Fifth category troops have an advantage over sixth category
troops in that they can draw closer to the actual fighting and be more
effective.
Tactics
The actual tactics that can be used by a commander are infinite due to variations in terrain, weapons, numbers, etc... But all tactical movements have some basic roots in common. These common movements are illustrated and discussed, briefly, below.
The Frontal Assault
"Hi diddle diddle, straight up the middle." Folk Ryhme.
| The Frontal Assault |
|
| Push Back |
|
| Breakthrough |
|
There are several variations on the breakthrough theme:
| The Wedge |
|
| Column Charge |
|
| Frontal Assault, on the oblique |
|
| Strong Side, Right |
|
Envelopment
Envelopment involves getting troops into the rear of the opposing
formation or battle line. Sometimes referred to as the first tactical
maneuver, many historians attribute this advance to Philip of Macedon.
Most troops are right-handed. In battle most troops seek to protect their
weapon side (the right) by edging closer to the shield of the man on their
right. This produces a sort of lateral motion in the entire formation with
the result that the entire unit drifts a little to the right. This leaves
the rightmost portion of the formation without any foes to face so they
wrap around the opponent's formation and engage those troops in the rear
ranks. There are two elements to most envelopment maneuvers, the frontal
attack to fix the opponent and the flanking attack to break their line.
There are two types of envelopment, single and double. Each type can be
done in the normal manner or in retrograde.
| Single Envelopment Right, Standard - With the line thinned |
|
| Double Envelopment, Standard |  |
| Single Envelopment Right, Standard - Shifting the line right |
|
| Double Envelopment, Retrograde |
|
Flanking
The flank attack seeks to use maneuver to increase combat strength.
It does so by allowing your forces to engage the opponent from a direction
other than the frontal arc. The flanking maneuver is rarely used by a single
unit against another single unit (but when it is, it must be executed rapidly
and aggressively and there is some assumption that the defending unit is
somewhat slower or less disciplined than the attacking unit). In the absence
of multiple threats, the defending unit can simply rotate to meet the attack.
This is not to say that the single unit flank is not effective. If the
opponent has placed the bulk of his best Category 1 troops on the front
line and you attack his left flank instead you will prevent many of his
best troops from coming to blows until later in the battle.
| Attacking the right flank |  |
| Attacking the rear-
Properly speaking this is an envelopment since it involves attacking the rear of the opposing formation. I have chosen to include it here because of the similarity to attacking the flank. |
 |
In the first example the unit chooses to attack the opponent on
his left flank. In the second, the unit chooses to charge past the
opponent's right flank and then curves back in to attack the opponent in
the rear (envelopment).
| Denying the flank |
|
 |
|
| In this example the opponent is attacked by two different units. The first unit, in solid red, fixes the opponent. The second unit, in striped red, attacks the opponent's left flank. In the second illustration we see that the second unit is charging to penetrate the opponent's line and disrupting their formation. Although the second unit has only killed or wounded two of their opponents (and have suffered a casualty of their own in the process) they have thrown their opponent's battle line into disarray. The first unit, still organized, will have the advantage as they move in to support the attack. |  |
Logistics redux
A popular proverb, widely attributed to Napoleon, says: "Amateurs
study tactics, professionals study logistics." This is just as applicable
in the SCA as it is in the real world. A commander with no troops
at the battle is up a smelly creek without a means of propulsion.
A commander with a thousand moderately skilled troops will generally defeat
a commander with 100 outstanding troops. Broadly speaking there are
three times to examine when considering logistics in the SCA: Before the
War, During the War, After the War. All are limited by one very obvious
constraint: this is a game. Every fighter is responsible for equipping
themselves, transporting themselves to the site of the fighting, and maintaining
themselves once they arrive. Even with this constraint in mind, there are
some things that can be done to ensure that armed and trained troops arrive
at the battle site and fight well.
Before the War
Organize your units. Whatever units you are going to form should have at least three months to practice together, against other units. Use all the tools of team-building to forge a strong unit.
Equip your units. Many fighters are sidelined by unserviceable armor. An armorers guild can help ensure that armor is well maintained and broken pieces are replaced. An armorers guild will also help to attract new fighters by making it less intimidating for new fighters to get a basic kit together. Creating tabards and unit banners can involve non-fighters in the unit-building process. Organize a mass rattan purchase and make sure you have weapons enough for each fighter plus one spare for each two men in the unit.
Train your units. Train as you intend to fight.
Make arrangements to transport your unit to the site and house
them. Find everyone with reliable transportation and work out how much
cargo and passengers your unit can collectively carry. Arrange for ride-sharing.
Repeat this process with camping space.
During the War
Make sure you are in the right place at the right time. Find out what the battle schedule is. Coordinate with other commanders to make sure that your unit is where it needs to be when it needs to be there.
Make sure everyone gets fed. A meal plan is an excellent team-building activity and it ensures that everyone gets at least the minimum amount of food they need each day. See the appendix for the excellent article on running a soup kitchen for fighters.
Make sure everyone stays healthy. This is a collection of simple actions that many heavy fighters ignore. Make sure your unit can rest in the shade. If there is no natural shade available, make some with some sort of sunshade. Make sure that people have an opportunity to shower (total body rash is debilitating, uncomfortable, and embarrassing). Make sure that people don't get alcohol poisoning or get into fights. Make sure that there is water and shade on the field.
Make sure everyone is having fun. It is not your job to entertain
everyone, but you can brighten a person's entire event by taking a few
moments to find out how they are doing and pointing them in the right direction.
After the War
Get together and have an After Action Review. Without pointing fingers and regressing into blamestorming highlight all the things you did wrong. Write them down. Highlight all the things you did right. Write them down. Hold a brainstorming session to come up with possible solutions to the things you did wrong. Try them all and adopt the successful ideas. Videotapes and eyewitness accounts are a great help during this process.
Recognize the contributions that people have made. Anyone who has gone out of their way to do something for the unit should be given an 'atta boy'. Anyone who has done something particularly bone-headed should be counseled. Remember, praise in public, criticize in private. It will rarely be necessary to chastise someone for doing something stupid if that action affected the rest of the unit. The guy that leaves the flank un-guarded will feel an awful lot of peer-pressure not to repeat that mistake in the future. Recognition is an important part of team building. That recognition means that the recipient has been recognized, by his peer group, as being not only a "man among men" but an examplar of manhood. Written down in this fashion the concept appears laughable, but it is important on a very deep level.
Fix your gear. A lot of people don't have a lot of funds available
after a war, but this is the best time to fix your gear and improve it
(while the lessons that drove the improvement are still fresh). The possible
alternative is to discover a week before the next war that you can repair
your armor or go to the war, but not both.
Command and Control
This is yet another area where I feel that the SCA closely resembles the Ancient Greeks. What command and control we have is fairly rudimentary. Our leaders lead from the front and our amateur troops have little in the way of training and discipline to condition them to respond to signaling devices more complex than someone shouting. What this means is that a battle tends to consist of a setup where the commander marshals his forces, an initial engagement where the commander commits his troops to the battle according to the plan he has formed (or according to the developing circumstances), and the remainder of the battle where the troops make their own decisions. This situation is horrendous when looked at from one angle, but advantageous when looked at from another. While no commander wants to surrender control of his forces the fact remains that many successful armies throughout history have relied on the initiative of low level leaders. The catch is that in order to take advantage of low level leaders you must develop the leaders and you must institutionalize their leadership. Let me clarify this point. The best low level leaders in the world will not do an army a bit of good if the army is not conditioned to respond to them.
Because of the relatively immense nature of this task (remember:
this is a game) most kingdoms prefer to create command structures at the
upper and middle levels and integrate the existing low level commanders
of various units into the structure. Those kingdoms that do cultivate low
level commanders tend to use them as leaders of ad-hoc units formed in
the heat of battle, as individual exemplars of discipline, skill, and courage,
or as the component pieces of ad-hoc special tasks units.
Command Syntax
Commands are ways of communicating intent. At their most basic every command seeks to convey the message 'this group should go to this place and accomplish this task'. There are many ways of communicating this message to the intended audience. The most simple method is shouting. Further variations on the theme include couriers, drums, horns, flags, mirrors, fires, hand signals, and code phrases. At some point in time most armies standardize their commands to improve performance. This has advantages and disadvantages, particularly in a medievalist milieu. Standard commands ensure that everyone in your force understands what you want them to do. It also means that the forces opposing you do as well. I will first look at a basic command syntax, then I will examine some SCA specific examples, and finally I will propose a template for creating a good system.
I will use the command syntax of the US military as an example because that is the background that I come from. The US military divides commands into two parts, the prepatory command and the command of execution. There is a third part, the supplementary command, which is used to relay commands to subordinate units, but let's come back to that later. The prepatory command alerts the troops to the nature of the action that will be taken. Any American soldier hearing the prepatory command "Forward!" will instinctively prepare to step off and will wait for the command of execution "March!". This command sequence is delivered using a command voice and in a cadence. The command voice is a distinctive sound which originates in the diaphragm, not the throat, and carries through the sound of battle not because it is louder but because it is distinctive, authoritative, and confident. Compare this to the British command voice which is pitched higher than normal speech to carry through the sounds of battle. The cadence of the command, the rythym with which it is delivered, is equally important. A properly delivered command sequence is almost a chant. This rythym helps to cut through the fog of war and allows everyone to anticipate the command of execution.
The SCA does not have a single standard command syntax. Commands vary from Kingdom to Kingdom and Barony to Barony. I think that just about everyone in the SCA understands what the commander means when he yells "Follow me" or "Charge". The typical SCA command would probably be something like: "Utopians, Charge!" It tells a specific group of people what to do and meets the basic requirements of a good command. Unfortunately, it also tells the opponent exactly what is coming. With the exception of Drachenwald and Ealdormeare the SCA tends to be composed of people who speak English. Any command you give is just as comprehensible to your opponents across the way. This makes it difficult to conceal your intent or to achieve any kind of tactical surprise. Many Kingdoms work around this problem by creating 'code word' plays; pre-planned sequences that can be executed when a code word is used. This will be examined in more detail in the section on Standard Operating Procedures.
A good command syntax should be precise but not overly so.
It should follow a standard pattern but should not be so rigid as to limit
tactical flexibility. Above all it should be simple. I think it should
look something like this:
| <Unit Identifier> + [Conditional Modifier] + <Command> + <Prepatory Command> + <Command of Execution> |
The <Unit Identifier> says who the command is intended for. As an additional option, the Unit Identifier can be repeated twice. This helps to get the attention of fighters who are focused on staying alive at the front of a battle line.
The [Conditional Modifier] is an optional command that is used to pass on situation specific information. This information typically modifies how the action to be taken will executed.
The <Command> indicates what action is to be taken.
The <Prepatory Command> literally means "get ready 'cause here we go". I would suggest that the <Prepatory Command> should always be "Ready".
The <Command of Execution> means "do it now". I would
suggest that the command of execution should be "Move".
An example:
Outlands! Charge! Ready! Move!
Or
Utopians! Utopians! At a fast trot! Advance! Ready! Move!
The more experienced among you have already spotted a major flaw in the first example. There is a two beat pause between the command and the actual execution of the command. In the specific case of the command "charge" this is a problem. I won't pretend to offer an easy solution. You can ignore the problem and accept that your opponent will be ready to receive your charge, you can come up with a new command to replace the universal "charge", or you can specify that some commands only use the unit identifier and the command itself becomes the command of execution.
The basic concepts to take away from this section are:
- A command should tell who to go where and what to do once they get there. The when is always assumed to be immediately after the command of execution is given.
- A command should be delivered in a clear and confident voice (from the diaphragm).
- A command should be delivered with a good cadence (think of it as chanting or singing).
It has been pointed out to me that different forms of communication are appropriate for different levels of command. Flags, drums, and horns are generally inappropriate, in the Medievalist setting, for signalling to the troops in general because there is no way for a commander to ensure that all troops know what the signals are and what they mean. They might be appropriate for signalling to sub-commanders because the commander can mandate that his sub-commanders must know the signals. Once the signal reaches the sub-commanders they can relay the command using voice commands. The example given to me involved initiating an attack in echelon where banners were used to inform the army sub-commanders when to begin their advance.
Standard Operating Principles
Standard Operating Principles are the combined concepts that define
the philosophy of fighting for a unit. Throughout this article you have
seen glimpses of the philosophy that I embrace. But there are other philosophies
that are equally valid. It's not a question of better or worse, different
is just different. Principles don't tell you what to do, they tell you
how to do it. Below you will find the text of an article I wrote in 1992,
and updated in 1997, that defines the Standard Operating Principles of
Anglesey as I understand them (13).
| Work as a team,
Everything else we discuss will be subordinate to this principle. We are a mercenary group which fights in melees. While individual fighting skill is to be encouraged and admired, we fight as a group, not a collection of individuals. By cooperating effectively we can overcome opponents who, on an individual basis, are more skilled than us. There are many facets to teamwork. Foremost among these is trust. Each individual must trust everyone else to do their part in an intelligent manner. This allows each person to focus on a single task, confident that they can devote their entire attention to that task and not have to worry about their back. Trust is something that is earned over long periods of association and carries over into aspects other than combat. For example: if you can't be trusted in camp, how can you be trusted on the battlefield? The association that produces trust also allows you to understand people, to know them. Only by talking to people, by being around them can you begin to understand how they think, why they act the way they do. In battle, this familiarity will translate into an increased ability to cooperate. If you know that Bob McBob is an aggressive SOB who believes the best defense is a good offense, and you have fought with him before, then you can have a pretty good idea of how he will react in battle. Know the people you fight with, your enemies as well as your friends. Never fight as an individual so long as one friend remains alive. Work together to get the kills and accomplish the group's mission. No action on the battlefield should be wasted. Use your attack, for example, to create an opening for someone else. You may not kill your opponent, but by moving his shield out of position you make it possible for the spearman two people down to gut him like a fish. In the same vein, watch for the opportunities that your comrades create for you. By working together two mediocre fighters can get as many or more kills than a good fighter who fights as an individual. Every action you take should be intended in some way to help the group. Communicate,
Fight the way you planned,
Don't let the enemy use his resources,
Aggression,
All actions on the battlefield should be carried out as violently and as ruthlessly as safely possible. A melee is not a tournament. We do not greet an enemy, ask him if he's comfortable, and then commence fighting. We sweep down on our foes like a storm. We overwhelm them, knock them down, and never give them a chance to rest or recover. If we can't go through them, then we slash them as we move by or around. When we are gone the wounded survivors should be trying, unsuccessfully, to figure out what just happened to them while we are halfway across the field cutting another unit to pieces. Avoid a fair fight,
Maintain unit cohesion,
Be aware of what's going on around you,
Someone has to be in charge,
Stay mobile,
Sometimes you have to leave your buddies behind,
This also applies to the enemy. Leave the gimps. A man on his knees can still fight and kill. If we gimp five or six of the enemy then we can take them out of the equation simply by rotating our front to focus our attacks on our unwounded foes. A smart foe won't let this happen, but most of them will. Do the math: Ten on ten. We gimp three and rotate our front so that the gimps can't attack us. Ten on seven. Once the entire unit is dead or gimped we can leave all of them where they lay and move on to attack another unit. Don't over focus and let a pocket of gimps cripple our force. Leave them, destroy their buddies who can still walk around, and come back to them later when we can take our time and pick them apart with spears. Take small bites and keep chewing,
Fight on the oblique,
On a larger scale this means not hitting a battleline head-on. Hit them from an angle. In this way all of our forces can engage a portion of their forces. We gain local superiority in numbers, we dictate the terms of the engagement and force the enemy to adjust, and we keep one of our flanks open in case we need to maneuver. Don't do stupid things,
|
These principles work well for Anglesey. Anglesey is a heavy unit
that moves fast and hits hard. It is not a shock unit like the vaunted
Atlantians or a skirmish unit to rival the Outlands or a disciplined legion
like Calontir. These are not the only possible principles, just the ones
that work for my unit. The question here is not "Do you agree with these
principles?", but "What principles is your unit using?" Compare the principles
used by Anglesey to the principles espoused by the Outlands in their War
Book.
| MELEE PRINCIPLES
INDIVIDUAL PRINCIPLES These are standard practices within a melee combat. All fighters should know these concepts so that they may be a viable asset to the war effort. All fighters should be familiar with these principles before entering into the melee. Hold- A hold is the command to cease fighting while maintaining a defensive posture. This is important due to the fact that missile fire or even individual combat may still be taking place. The fighter should repeat the phrase "HOLD!" and lower to one knee. Marshals will reinitiate combat when the area is clear. A hold should be called when an unsafe condition exists on the battlefield.. Killing from behind- When killing an opponent from behind, engage by closing and bringing your weapon into his view. With a sword, this can be done by reaching around and placing it in front of his grill. With a spear or two-handed weapon, place the weapon firmly on the opponent's shoulder so he may see it in front of his face. At this time shout "You are dead from behind my lord." Outlands warriors should also note that when killing from behind it is important to pick principal targets. (Excellent spearmen, elite knights, commanders, and archers are examples of principle targets). Dying- After you have been killed on the melee field it is important to maintain safety at all times. Roll to one side, do not lay on your back or stomach. Draw knees up side to side but do not lay ankles flat across each other. Attempt to make no anvil like surfaces. Use your weapons and shield to cover vulnerable points. Stay still and listen for a command from the Marshall to clear the field. Outlands warriors should always fall to the ground when struck sufficiently. Diagonal Defense- In a melee the opponent across from you may not always be your biggest threat. More often it is the spearman/poleman to your left or right, those who are diagonal from you. They wield the weapons that will find the gap in your defense. Therefore it is imperative that you can rely on your fellow warriors to either side for protection. This also means that you must do the same. Diagonal shots are deadly; you must watch for them and protect your Outlands brother from them. Foil the attack with weapon, shield or warning, but do not let it kill your comrade. Barbecue- When our backfield has been penetrated, yell "Barbecue!" If you discover this by being killed from behind, make your dying breath a loud "I'm dead from behind!" Target Acquisition- When in battle it is important to take out the most dangerous threats first. Spearmen, archers, warriors of excellent skill or leadership should all be priorities to dispatch. Point out dangerous opponents to commanders, kill these targets when coming in from behind, stop them from killing your comrades. Do not break a line or tactic to do so. Leg em' and leave em'- This tactic is to hit someone in the leg and do not follow up with combat. Leave them for clean up later. Do not sacrifice yourself or a maneuver trying to finish them off. This tactic is especially important when flanking. Dead on the Ground- During combat some fighters may fall to the ground. To kill them without striking them you merely place a weapon on them, and say, "You are dead on the ground." Make sure you kill fallen units in this manner as you pass them to prevent them from rising in your back field. UNIT PRINCIPLES These are the basic foundations of melee fighting. It is important that all fighters understand and use these. They follow SCA combat guidelines and will help Outlands fighters develop discipline and cohesion. Dress- Dress is given to a unit when it needs to line up evenly. Dress right or dress left, the unit reacts to the specified side and lines up with even spacing. At a Trot- When maneuvering, units may be told to move at a trot in order to quicken the advance. The unit should attempt to maintain cohesion and form as it moves at a quick pace to its designated location. Charging- When charging the unit should move at a quick pace towards its goal. This is not a full speed maneuver until your are within three steps of the opponent. Therefore you would run, at a good pace, and then when met, power through into a sprint during the last three steps. Thus a three-step charge is initiated. Push through the line, do not pile up or slow down, impeding the process of those behind you. Shoot for gaps between shields, not the center of the shield itself. High/Low- This tactic is usually employed with thrusting weapons, but can be used in any situation where two fighters are communicating well. In this instance one fighter would strike an opponent's defenses either high or low, while an allied fighter would strike an instant later a correlating strike. Thus, if one fighter struck low, the other would strike high attempting to use the first impact to give them an open shot. Weapon Catch- With this tactic a shield man can grab a hooking spear with the basket of his sword pinning it to the shield. This will cause attacking hooker to be out of sync with his weapon and may open him up to other attacks. Verbal communication with other spearmen is important to the success of this attack. Disengaging Hook- During combat, pole arms may hook shields. In order to repel this attack, a fighter can push up, against the spear, with his basket hilt to dislodge the hook, or if a spearman is nearby, he can pry the hook off using his weapon as a lever. Avoid pulling away when hooked , thus breaking the shield wall and causing gaps to either side allowing for diagonal shots to be thrown by the enemy. |
These sets of principles look different and emphasize different aspects. They also agree on some principles. From this you can see that there is no one best way to express the principles your unit will use and that there are many different principles to choose from.
Standard Operating Procedures
This is where everything comes together. These are the procedures that your unit executes. The special code phrases that speak volumes to you and not your opponents. The bread and butter tactics that crush your opponents. Everything else in this article leads up to this point. Tactical Principles, Individual Roles, Standard Operating Principles, and Unit Organization all combine to create these procedures. As with Standard Operating Principles there are many different Standard Operating Procedures. The goal here is not to specify a universal set of procedures, it is to explain the general idea and, down the road a ways, produce a index of procedures that people can pick and choose from to form their own unique set.
Below is an excerpt (illustrations removed for the sake of brevity)
from the Outlands War Book. Originally written by Duke Koris Natterhelm
and recently (1999-2000) updated by Earl Joseph Cameron of Blackswan and
Syr Darius of Jaxartes this paper outlines the organization of the army
of the Outlands, the command structure, unit composition, standard operating
procedures, and standard operating principles. The Outlands takes the warrior
approach to creating melee units as is evident from the excerpt. Any warrior
from the Outlands would be expected to know the commands and procedures
below.
| Form up - This is the basic command to form our units and
ready for combat. The command would sound "Outlands, Form up!"
Advance - Advance is the command to move in a specific direction. This is more times than not, toward the enemy. The command "advance" could be used in addition to speed and direction, i.e., "advance to the left - move". Column - Unit forms into a column. The column can be as many wide as designated, but standard formation is two wide. The primary function of a column is rapid troop movement. Its secondary function is to break through a line. Re-Form - This command is used to draw units together. When a unit reforms it should draw together under command, calmly, and assess the situations. This is usually followed by additional commands. Fall Back - This command is used to maintain defenses while distancing ourselves from the opponent. All fighters should keep their eyes on enemy units until out of weapons' range and then await further instruction. The command Refuse utilizes the Fall Back maneuver but with the purpose of drawing the opponent forward into a trap. Pulse - This is a five to seven second attack and fallback. A typical pulse will occur while in a line. Three steps forward, an attack and retreat, while the outer fighters maintain defenses. The unit should fall back into its previous formation before any Outlander is killed. Wheel - This command is used to rotate around an enemy unit. One end of the line will advance while the other end falls back around a pivotal point in the line. A wheel can be to either side, "Outlands ready, Wheel Left, Move" in which the left side of the line advances while the right side falls back. Flank - Left or right side of the opposing line, the unit moves behind the enemy while engaging only when necessary. Outlands "Plan A" involves a hard right flank followed by a counter-clockwise sweep promoting deep penetration into the opponents backfield while pushing the opponent forward trapping them between the sweeping forces and a static or advancing front line. This strategy is also known as Hammer and Anvil. Deny - This command is actually two-fold - to take possession, then defend. It comes typically with a place in mind and is meant for occupying a position. On the command "Outlands Ready, Deny that Bridge, Move." The unit would run out take the end of the bridge and deny the enemy possession of it. |
It would be nice to contrast this set of procedures with a set of procedures from another Kingdom but, to the best of my knowledge at the time I am writing this, no other Kingdom has published their procedures on the internet.
Standard operating procedures can be simple or complex. Many kingdoms I have visited (and Atlantia where I first lived and first learned this) specify to their warriors that the command "Lay on!" means "Charge". In Anglesey the phrase "I'm going down to cowtown" used to mean that you were going to charge. People who were going to follow you on the charge would shout back "The cows are friends of mine" (14). Sometimes a cowtown cry would be met with stony silence or responses of "Not now you idiot!" and the idea was dropped.
Standard operating procedures can have similar names but differing executions. "Charge", for example, can mean "Charge to contact and kill everyone or push them back" or "Break through them and keep on going". It can mean "Everybody jog in a battle line until we're three steps from them and then run at them as fast as you can" or it can mean "Run like hell until you make contact and then slowly advance into them." On the one hand it is important to specify exactly what is expected of each fighter when a command is given. On the other hand being too specific can limit your ability to respond to unique circumstances.
Standard operation procedures are not a necessary piece of your battle plan. Anglesey does not really have anything in the way of an SOP. We have intentions and principles and take any legal actions needed, based on the principles to accomplish our intention (i.e. kill them all, break through to the banner, etc...) Commands to accomplish specific tasks are short, descriptive sentences (i.e. pull back) made up on the spot.
Wild hares
Deceptive banners and tabards and faux units
Many people are accustomed to fighting with their
neighbors. It is very rare for an experienced melee fighter to encounter
a unit he is unfamiliar with. When he does, he tends to assume the unit
is new and lacks group experience. Most units are identified by their tabards.
By issuing a unit new tabards the commander can create confusion in the
minds of the foe. Cagey foes will, of course, recognize individual members
of the unit by their armor and armaments, but most of the rank and file
will not immediately catch on. A distinctive unit of shock-troops, for
instance, might not be recognized until they hit the line. This can also
be used to create the impression of organized units that do not exist.
Many large wars attract a sizable group of individual warriors who look
for a unit to attach themselves to. These warriors can be formed up into
a large mass and issued basic tabards (bright colors) to create the impression
that they are a cohesive unit. Alternatively, several actual groups might
be formed up into a mass and issued identical tabards. The foe may plan
to deal with the entire unit (as opposed to dealing with several smaller
units). When the unit breaks up into their constituent parts and begin
to execute their portion of the battle plan, the foe units assigned to
counter them may be thrown into confusion. A less costly, and less effective,
method is to use banners for the same purpose. Highly visible, distinctive
banners can be used to create the impression of multiple units where there
is only one, one where there are many, and of troop movements that aren't
actually happening.
Command insignia
Kingdoms which seek to create command structures must face the fact that many troops have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing one heraldic device from another on a field. The command structure must be highly visible. This means insignia which any idiot can remember after a night of heavy drinking, a command structure that follows the same guidelines, and insignia that a near-sighted man not wearing his glasses can identify from a distance of thirty feet. The key to this insignia problem is distinctiveness and contrast. You must use symbols which are un-ambigious and colors which do not bleed together. The general rule is light on dark or vice versa. Moreover, the insignia must make the command structure stand out from the common mass of heraldry.
Glossary
This section will define terms. I find it to be increasingly the case, in all aspects of life, that people fail to communicate effectively because they have different interpretations of what a word or term means. A good, modern, military example of this can be found in the Gulf War. General Shwartzkopf, the overall commander, wanted General Franks, the commander of the VII Corps, to "slam" into the Iraqi Republican Guard. General Shwartzkopf thought he was saying 'attack aggresively and quickly', General Franks thought he was saying 'hit them with overwhelming power'. While General Shwartzkopf thought he would get bold attacks that penetrated the Republican Guard and left isolated units to be defeated in detail what he got was a slow juggernaut that destroyed everything in its path.
Lieutenant: From the latin locum tenens, literally 'place holder'. Descriptive of a role, not a position or rank.
Captain: From the latin capitanus, caput, 'head'. The head of an organization.
Constable: From the latin comes stabilus, 'person in charge of a stable'. The head of an organization, overtones of cavalry.
Sergeant: From the latin serviens, 'servant'. Sergeants don't like to have this pointed out to them. Trust me.
Corporal: From the Italian caporale, capo 'chief', caput 'head'. The head of an organization.
Ensign: An identifying banner or the person who
carries that banner (in which case it is describing a role not a rank).
End Notes:
1. At the time this article was first drafted there were a total of seven articles on SCA melee combat available on the Internet. In October of 2000 there were over thirty (many of which are no longer available).
2. It is curious that those jousts were also artificial in that they attempted to recreate an imagined glorious past, but that is another subject altogether.
3. This is a gross simplification of a complex system. Elements of feudalism were never entirely absent from the Roman social, political, and military systems. Very broadly speaking, however, this is an accurate description.
4. Some medieval states were capable of supporting a standing army but were stymied by other factors, typically the resistance of subordinate nobility to the power a standing army gave to a monarch and the burden of taxation necessary to support that standing army. The Ordinance Companies in 15th Century France are one example of this.
5. This relationship also existed among the Romans, whose terminology I have used, and the Celts. Amongst the Celts this relationship was known as celsine, Roman writers gave the Germanic institution the name comitatus. There are still further examples from farther afield and the relationship seems to be one of a number of natural primate organizations.
6. Neolithic Warfare, Arther Ferrill. From a draft subsequently published in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History
7. Battle Studies, Ardant du Picq
8. Men Against Fire, S.L.A. Marshall
9. From the works of Wu Ch'i, Chapter 3, Section 3, Paragraph 2, (a Chinese strategist from the 6th Century BC) included as an appendix to the DW Griffiths translation of Sun Tzu's Art of War
10. It is estimated that the army of Alexander the Great only lost approximately 700 men to actual battle casualties up until the time of Alexander's death (On Killing Grossman). This remarkable statistic (particularly so in face of the number of battles and sieges this army participated in) is attributed to the fact that Alexander's army was never routed.
11. An Essay on Melee Tactics, Duke Kein MacEwan (see here for full text).
12. This is hardly a new idea. In Strategy, a Byzantine treatise on warfare (Three Byzantine Military Treatises, George T. Dennis), this passage is found. "In firing against infantry or cavalry, when they are drawn up opposite us, we should not aim straight ahead but off to one side, except when shooting at the horses' feet. For each man in the enemy's line opposite us is covered by his shield."
13. This range can be extended by spearmen who take a step towards the target or who use the step throw. The step throw involves bring the rear foot forward and extending the arm closest to the butt end of the weapon forward towards the opponent. This extends the spear out as far as it will go and leaves the spearman completely open to attack.
14. No one else in Anglesey, to the best of my knowledge, has ever written this information down. As I make no claim to speak for Anglesey you have only my word for it that these are accurate. Also, Anglesey fights primarily in Atlantia and the East where killing from behind is not allowed.
15. The phrases are taken from a song by "The Dead Milkmen" for no reason other than we liked the way it sounded.
