Would infantry charges actually confer much advantage?

[mmcv]

Something I've been wondering lately, how effective do you think charging as infantry was against other infantry?

I'm thinking mostly from a mechanical perspective here. A lot of rules attribute some form of bonus to the charger, but I've never come across much in historical accounts. Usually the force they were charging would either be charging too or have braced their spears and shields, in both cases essentially nullifying any charging "bonus".

I'm talking infantry charging infantry here, not cavalry. I'm also not saying ancient infantry didn't charge, they did, particularly for the last stretch between forces, but more if being the one instigating the charging inferred some physical advantage to the combat. 

Of course the physiological aspect can't be overlooked and I know in gunpowder era that fixing bayonets and charging was an effective way to break an enemy's morale, but that doesn't seem to be the case so much in ancient warfare, where close combat was expected and troops tended to be armoured or equipped for it.

What do people think?

Caveat, I'm pretty heavily laden with the cold so I may be taking nonsense... 

[steve_holmes_11]

I suspect this is one of those things that appear in wargames because they've always appeared in wargames.

What I do believe is there is an element of historic context.

Back in the world of ancients, then a pepped up warband full of Irregular A fervour and hallucinogens is a threat to some of the era's finest defenders.
However, Irregular A warbands were a rarity, and most troops showed a lot more respect for their own life and limb.
This leads to a lot of flinching before stepping into killing range, and it's the advancing troops who have the most cohesion to lose from flinching.

Fast forward to the Pike and Shot era, and infantry generally appear to have adopted the role of the mobile firebase.
As with ancients, you'll find some determined cornishmen and others who are prepared to dive into pike combat with determination.
But it seems that most battalia preferred to come up a bit short, and let their accompanying shooters exchange volleys.

And the pattern repeats:
Consider WW2 - most soldiers "don't like it up em", and are equipped to conduct combat at longer distances.
Those prepared to neglect their health to close with the enemy are still achieving remarkable win ratios.

By this point (in fact by the point of the magazine repeater) we start to witness the highly aggressive chargers still winning, but starting to suffer disproportionate casualties during their wins.
The science of war starts looking into methods of keeping your spearhead troops in top form.
That may be a humane - short dangerous deployments followed by rotation and rest (like the Western paras and commandos).
Or it may be - Create more guards divisions as the old ones are annihilated, or expect every soldier to die for the emperor.

Individual battles provide exceptions.
Determined troops who immediately get stuck in and achieve surprise often win with remarkably few casualties.
This applies from the Grande Armee at Jena to the Paras at Goose Green.


Let me return to the question, and attempt a sensible answer.

I don't believe a charge (as we understand it in our rules - ie movement to contact) does confer advantage.
I do believe what the ancients crowd term an impetuous charge (with emphasis on closing the range as fast as possible, as opposed to all the screaming, running about naked and painting yourself blue) is a surefire winner.
However the impetuous charge will vary slightly according to military equipment, and it's very difficult to guarantee that the charge you order will arrive with its impetuosity intact.

[mmcv]

I suspect this is one of those things that appear in wargames because they've always appeared in wargames.

....


Let me return to the question, and attempt a sensible answer.

I don't believe a charge (as we understand it in our rules - ie movement to contact) does confer advantage.
I do believe what the ancients crowd term an impetuous charge (with emphasis on closing the range as fast as possible, as opposed to all the screaming, running about naked and painting yourself blue) is a surefire winner.
However the impetuous charge will vary slightly according to military equipment, and it's very difficult to guarantee that the charge you order will arrive with its impetuosity intact.

Yeah that sounds sensible. Certainly we see a more aggressive and disciplined unit can often overwhelm their opponent at contact, but that seems more like it's the unit itself and their quality rather than they being the ones who charge. Battle lines would push at each other, pull back, skirmish and have a lot of back and forth rather than a full charge then mad messy melee.


The context for this is a few sets of rules I've been working on and the charge mechanic is one I've gone back and forth on. At present I have a charge test that they can pass or fail, though an extreme pass confers a bonus in melee (and an extreme fail causes them to flinch back instead). I'm considering doing away with this and instead having some other penalty/bonus system instead, but simply giving the better unit a charge bonus doesn't make sense since they'll have the advantage in melee already from being higher quality. Then again, the aggressive act of instigating the charge might be enough to consider conferring advantage.

[FierceKitty]

I recall Caesar's account of Pharsalus, and his emphasis on the value of a "Get 'em, boys" attitude (he blames Pompey for neglecting this and rather trying to rest his troops).

[Ithoriel]

One of the things I like about Strength and Honour is that battle lines tend to push each other about until someone piles up enough advantages to start the rot.

For the Ancients and Medieval period, at least, I suspect the psychological advantage of initiating a charge may have been more decisive than the physical impact. Though if you're a 5'7 Roman legionary and a 5'10" Gaul powers into you with his weight and speed transferred through his shoulder and shield then even being braced is likely to lead to you being rocked physically as well as mentally. Which is where being drilled and disciplined comes in, I guess.

Missile fire, until recently, seems to have been less effective than many rules make it. Missile fire slowly whittles away the enemies strength and saps their will. Melee shatters one side or the other.

Comparatively few charges by melee troops seem to have been halted by missile fire in that period.

Experience, training, equipment, position and attitude are probably more significant than who charged who. Whether it is the steady tramp of pike or legion or the howling tide of wild barbarians heading towards you, waiting for the onslaught is probably more stressful than making the charge.

"Hut - Dich - Baur Ich Komm!"

[FierceKitty]

I see you've succumbed to temptation and are referring to archery as "fire". 

[pierre the shy]

"Irregular A" warband?......now there's a name I have not heard for a long time......a long time!

Well at least since DBM came into use anyway   

They were pretty good, till they ran into "Regular B" Late Roman legionaries double armed with pila and machine guns darts. 

[paulr]

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

My copy of those is just about in one peice

[sultanbev]

There was a remarkable video of a close assault near Kherson t'other day. A Russian platoon of about 16 men were dug in on a berm, overlooking a tree lined road, two men on guard, rest inside bunkers.

A Ukrainian BMP charges down the road at full tilt, receives some kind of fire that misses - swings round just below the berm, infantry who were already half out of the hatches, ie, riding on the BMP rather than in it - bale out, two of them charge the trench at the top of the berm, both sides blazing away, one falls back and the BMP peppers the trench line, then all of a sudden all the Russians are running and two Ukrainians are on top of the berm firing RPG into the retreating Russians. No casualties on either side. What I call AT3 CV9 versus DT4 CV7 but there you go.

Anyway, back to the question, I've always thought it was formations that confer some type of advantage, even if in practice, it is merely psychological. Certainly two lines, whether ancient, napoleonic or 19th century meeting each other would not confer any advantage to either side.

There is a descriptive somewhere by a historian of how most ancient combat usually starts. Two opposing blocks approach each other, shouting insults, jeering and banging shields. Lobbing javelins if they have any. This might go on for a bit. Sometimes a champion from one side will challenge a champion from the other to single combat. More often at random points along the line, a bolder man with clumps of taggers-on seeking bravado will move forward and try and take a swipe at someone in the opposing line. Then retire a bit. Then randomly repeat for both sides randomly along the line, until one side is ordered to charge, or the other skulks off anyway having lost a few men.

I do think ancients rules should have two types of "melee" - one with the usual charge, and another where two blobs just sort of intermingle at very close range, like an advance to contact rather than a specific charge. Morale rather than casualties would determine the outcomes in both cases.

Mark

[Big Insect]

I always liked the fact that the Late Roman Legionary was wearing a Green Peace badge around his neck 

I think that the 'advantage' of Infantry attacking/charging seems to depend on the quality of the troops and there method of fighting. Look at the Sudan Campaign and you see British regulars preferring to stand (& shoot) with their bayonet at the ready, rather than attack the Mahdist tribesmen. And generally doing better by adopting that approach.

Alexander seemed to favour an aggressive pike attack with his phalanx, even against Elephants. But would go defensive against cavalry, who usually did not want to plough into a formation 12 deep with pike points at its front.
However, at Grandson the Burgundian Ordonnance mounted men-at-arms did charge the stationary Swiss pikes (with a degree of success) but then you can argue that Ordonnance MAA were probably armoured at the very peak of the armorers craft, as were their horses.

From my re-enactment days I would argue that an infantry charge does carry a degree of advantage, if only in added momentum.

[Raider4]

Wargames include a charge bonus to incentivise charging - it's better to charge than be charged. This gets the game going, rather than having two opposing forces just standing there doing nothing.

Does this reflect reality? No idea. But then I don't think any wargame comes anywhere near being close to a simulation of the real thing.

[Raider4]

There is a descriptive somewhere by a historian of how most ancient combat usually starts. Two opposing blocks approach each other, shouting insults, jeering and banging shields. Lobbing javelins if they have any. This might go on for a bit. Sometimes a champion from one side will challenge a champion from the other to single combat. More often at random points along the line, a bolder man with clumps of taggers-on seeking bravado will move forward and try and take a swipe at someone in the opposing line. Then retire a bit. Then randomly repeat for both sides randomly along the line, until one side is ordered to charge, or the other skulks off anyway having lost a few men.

That's pretty much how Bernard Cornwell describes battles in his Arthurian dark age trilogy. It does sound very plausible. I also expect there's a fair bit of alcohol involved.

[John Cook]

I always liked the fact that the Late Roman Legionary was wearing a Green Peace badge around his neck 

That's the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge.

[mollinary]

Love the 'CXXC!' As his three darts hit treble XX.