Military strategy, rule number one: fights are dangerous. It's better if you can just make the enemy run away or give up. Many people don't know or tend to forget that soldiers and warriors are humans, therefore they have a healthy amount of fear of dying. You always remember that in your considerations about war, that's why your videos are so good.
Thiago Monteiro True to a degree, but each soldier you don't kill or capture you could be potentially fighting again. The best result is they are all dead or at least morally crushed and discredited. For many battles the hunting of survivors by cavalry went on for several days after.
No rule number one is make sure your men know which end of the stick is the pointy one two is location location location three is if you have overwhelming firepower bloody well use it. your thinking of rule number 753201-6
I was once chased by pack (or what it calls) of domestic gooses, they spread wing and made weird but bloodthirsty sound, but the closer they get to me, the slower they were moving. On the one point they almost stopped, so it was clear that they strategy was about to scare me off by their charge, not by their goose's bites
In my opinion, the #1 reason not to pursue: If the enemies know that they can live by running away, they will. If they know that they will be slaughtered if they run away, however, they'll stay and fight to the bitter end.
+Ze Rubenator That's Sun Tzu 101 my friend :) Always leave your enemy an escape route, otherwise they may resign to fight to the death, which will be very costly to your army. Conversely, try *not* to leave many inviting escape routes for your own army, and the men will push themselves to incredible feats!
Notably, surrender is a philosophical escape route if not an actual physical escape route. When the Allies pushed the Nazis back, the Nazis were readily willing to surrender against superior forces, as surrender would be accepted and the conditions would not be too inhumane. When the USSR pushed the Nazis back, they faced much stiffer opposition, because surrender would likely lead to immediate death by execution, or slow death by toiling away in work camps.
But the problem is that you *want* to kill them such that the enemies capacity to raise an army is crippled, such that he can't just try and defeat you a few weeks later.
It's amazing how fucking *brilliant* Sun Tzu was. His "Art of War" techniques and philosophy is still in use today. Idr the passage or chapter, but Sun Tzu frequently talked about how "an army with nowhere to run will be able to do the impossible". He also made it clear that you should never (or rarely) *completely* surround your enemy- always leave them a passage of escape. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: a desperate man, perhaps wounded, terrified, with no where to run- he may resign himself to *fighting to the death*. This is worst case scenario for *both* sides, because now both sides will probably take casualties trying to stomp out the remaining enemy who is going to keep swinging sharp objects until you stop his heart. *That* is a dangerous warrior.
I realize this is a 5 month necro, but leaving a passage to escape doesn't always have to entail an exit route for them to flee. Part of what made the Soviet army less effective than it could have been, was their executions and brutal treatment of prisoners. Geneva conventions rules regarding prisoners also helps to give the enemy the idea of that one way out- "well, we can always surrender" which is much better for your own troops, having not fought an enemy to the death.
Schmeethe88 Can't argue with that. One of the things that makes Sun Tzu's work so brilliant, is that it applies to *CONFLICT* in general, on any scale; from massive armies of Chinese soldiers, to a personal confrontation with a friend over a disagreement. Your analogy of using moral POW standards applies- Sun Tzu always says that the greatest victory involves zero fighting. If you convince your opponent that fighting would not end well for them, but that surrendering won't seal their fate or totally ruin them, you save tremendous resources, time, energy, and typically end on the moral high ground. This applies to simple arguments. Giving someone an ultimatum of a "non-conditional" nature is typically destructive to a relationship. I think Sun Tzu's Art of War could also be called "The Art of Conflict" because of the unbelievable number of situations which his advice can apply to- combat, social, business, politics, love... there's something to be learned and applied from Sun Tzu's teachings in almost any aspect of life. Sort of reminds me of Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings", and one of my favorite quotes from that work is "Once you understand the Way broadly, you see it in all things." That's the perspective of a master warrior- he mastered the art of dueling conflict, and had the insight to realize that the lessons he learned could be applied to far more than simply one on one duels to the death!
+Pira There are so many variables in battles to be considered, and Hannibal was a genius on the field- I am positive he would take into account all of the variables involved in completely encircling and butchering the Romans. But how many of the battles he was involved in did he do this? I'd reckon the large majority of battles Hannibal fought against the Romans, he defeated them and allowed them to rout. It's all situational; with any rule, there are exceptions, and all variables need to be considered. Hannibal knew what he was doing- so much so, that I'd place him among the world's greatest military minds right alongside Sun Tzu or Musashi. If only Hannibal had published some kind of manifesto of similar nature to Art of War or Book of 5 Rings... I'd die to have a peek into the wisdom of such a great man's mind.
Lindy I'm surprised you missed probably the number one reason for capturing the enemy in the ancient world - slavery! If you capture you enemy you don't need to bother with the process of ransoming him (unless he's someone important), you can enslave him and sell him right away. There's also one really good reason for pursuing - if you're the first unit past the enemy line, you'll also be the first to loot the baggage train, along with all the food, treasure and captives that entails.
lancer D This sounded more like it was aimed towards the Medieval era, where slavery whilst it existed in Europe sure, it was far far less common than in the ancient era.
lancer D People did not want soldiers as slaves. Unless you placed them in something like a mine or galley they had a reputation of proven killers. Hardly a desirable trait for a slave.
Wreqt What is the name of that march, anyway? Sounds awfully British. And by that I mean "a lot", not _awful_ awful. I quite like it, it fills me with a warm, imperial feeling.
Gilmaris I think it's one he made himself or had custom made for the Stoke Mandeville stuff or something like that. (Very vague, I know). Someone asked in the comments a while back and got a reply. (Not entirely but fairly sure)
There is an old German proverb that one should build golden bridges for fleeing enemies. The battle of Zama was likely won by the Romans because Scipio explicitly ordered his cavalry not to pursue the fleeing Carthaginian cavalry for too long. Hannibal's veterans were on the verge of turning the tides and routing the Roman infantry when the Roman cavalry returned and attacked them from the rear. Hastings and the Mongols have been mentioned already in this thread.
Jesse Fortner We Spaniards don´t like running as much as Germans, you know. We prefer dancing! And of course all our gold is in the churches and in our King´s family´s, so we can´t build anything out of it... xD
As a kid i took part in our town festivals before easter, we were using sprays throwing eggs at each other etc. Huge groups of people, a lot fun. Once we were gaining the upper hand and i was so into this that i started chasing 5 of them alone. Too bad cause when they realised it's just one guy they turned and before i realised, i was sprayed. I blamed total war for this.... XD
Good point, since the last thing either side needed was to be forced to fight to the last man. Much easier just to route the enemy. Sometimes they fought to the last man, or one side would almost completely eliminate the other without losing many of their own people, but routes were way more common.
What about the tactical reasons? In the Total War games at least whenever I rout an enemy unit I have to be careful about having them pursued by the winning unit. If the winning unit goes after them, often I will end up with a gap in my line, which I have to plug. Furthermore the pursuing unit might get surrounded by the remaining enemy units that have not routed.
silvercomic Which is, basically, what happened at Hastings 1066. Parts of Williams II. army started to retreat, because they thought that their duke would be dead and the battle almost lost. So the anglo-saxons pursued them. But William II. wasn't dead, regained control over his army and defeated those men. He saw that this was quite effective and faked another retreat - which caused another pursuit and another massacre. So yes, it can literal cost you everything if your troops just charge forward and think they would've already won. Although there are sometimes emotional/ideological reasons to pursuit and slaughter a defeated enemy. German mercenaries (Landsknechte) and Swiss ones are known for some nasty massacres against each other after battles. They just started hating each other at some point and stopped taking prisoners.
silvercomic Thats why you should keep some cav nearby. When the enemy unit flees you run them over with your cav but you should send them around the battlefield or the are gonna be surrounded (deoends where the fleeing unit is) ... Or you let the first units escape and save your cav four mass routs
silvercomic Trouble with tactical reasons is that it concerns generals, not infantrymen. Most soldiers will be relying on their initiative and looking out for themselves when it could take half an hour to relay messages and orders between them and their commander, and they may just decide to ignore those orders anyway (something total war neglects outside of specific berseker units). Most battles and sieges ended up as massive loot fests for the winning side, often extending to nearby towns as men ran about taking whatever they can get their hands on and it could take days for generals to restore order and discipline in their own army.
lancer D tactics are of concern to everyone including infantrymen. They don't want to over extend themselves unnecessarily only to end up deep wirhin the enemy's hold pursuing a routed troop. The main concern for myself would be not dying. Even the "simple" mind of a lowly infantryman can understand sticking your neck out to far.
My favorite description of a rout is from Sharpe's Eagle, when the Chasseurs overrun the two infantry squares through sheer luck and the incompetence of the Spanish and British forces. Cornwell described the pursuing Chasseurs as tiring themselves out by swinging their swords so much, to the point where they were really just slapping someone in the back with the flat of their swords every now and then to make them keep running. After all, they weren't interested in the rank and file that were running- those men were just there to prevent the British troops from rallying to retake their colors. I thought that was a pretty interesting description.
A battle is won both before, and after, if your men are stronger before you go in, or the enemy is weaker, then you have an advantage, after a battle, during a war, those same men then have to march double time half way across a nation, and thus need morale.
Do you understand that’s an allegory the book was written by the astronomer to the Chinese king . This astronomer who is a Jesuit Priest Didn’t interpreted The book it was written by him.. Walter Veith A brilliant Professor has a RUclips video explaining it
theknifesong I love that game for the odd details (like those highly detailed village maps, etc.). Have you ever seen the skeleton in the Vaegir castle? Haha. When I first saw that I was like, wtf? Talking to all these maidens and stuff around this skeleton is a little surreal.
I once had a battle in Medieval Total War in which most of my army was defeated, but one unit of my knights returned from a side engagement to find the entire enemy army strung out in pursuit, and proceeded to ride through them all and win the battle! It was EPIC. One other time not to pursue too aggressively: if the battle is still ongoing, and you have a chance to attack other enemies in their flank. Doing so can turn a small victory into a large one. Oliver Cromwell used the cavalry of the New Model Army in this way, notably at Naseby.
There is no respawn, so yes, I don't think they'd have the blood lust to put themselves at risk for no good reason at all. Soldiers always need motivation, and unless there is some issue of personal vengeance, I guess like russian soldiers counter attacking the germans, people will do the minimum necessary.
This reminds me of my childhood adventures in Glasgow where we would form into groups of a couple hundred or so based on small regions within whatever estate you're from and every night we'd assemble in formation in a field, golfcourse or whatever and take turns charging at each other with whatever weapons etc you could improvise. It was pretty rare for two sides to be well matched and committed enough to lead to anything more than a one sided rout where the losers are chased off at a slightly slower pace by the winners although when that did happen it was very nasty as you can imagine. We would have made for interesting study for anyone interested in the nuances of crowd dynamics etc in old style pitch battles, tehehe.
reminds me of a game we used to play in school called british bulldog. the two classes would line up facing each other and run at each other, we usually just hit each other or kicked and the teachers would go crazy when we did it so they had to separate the two classes at break time haha
I was fascinated in how pursuit, capture, ransom etc played out during the Diadochi Wars, with so many mercenary force's being used, it lead to some unusual scenario's playing out
***** All the other combatants used huge mercenary armies, Antigonus, Eumenes etc. Ptolemy used to keep all his mercenaries belongings in the hope that would keep them loyal. Early Carthage ended up in huge trouble with there mercenaries
***** no ,the whole navy was citizen only...the 40 000 reserve hoplite where all citizen...the sacred band hoplite as well as the sacred band cavalry(who outlived the infantry) and also the citizen lancers....all the mixed race lybian/phoenician formed a second class where alot of troops where drawn(way more than citizen) ....most of the rest was drawn from nubians by commercial treaty and as a replacement to tax. for the kelt a good 80% of them came from theyre own territory in spain(the barca domain) all that was after the rise in power in teh west of the phoenicians...before carthage became a fully blown indepedant city from tyr the regular army was 100% citizen with only ligth troops hired ad-hoc during the campaign
Ragimund VonWallat What about the Mercenary War? and didn't they use Greek mercenaries in Sicily? Hoplites not just light infantry ? you're right about the light infantry mercenaries, but they appeared on most battlefields serving a variety of nations
zwicky93 never said they didint used mercenary...i just pointed that the generalities such as:''they had native officers but all the rest was mercs'' were false and oversimplification
One of my RPG characters is a mounted mercenary that specializes exactly in this topic, so this wasy very inspirational. He is a character that specializes in using the "combat maneuver" set of actions and attacks; particularly 'grapple'. He's got a big, monstrous beast as well as horses, tracking, pursuing and capturing enemies, depending on his assignment. The trick of his character is that he's only moderately good at fighting monsters, but his profession has made him very good at collecting ransoms and bounties for keeping his employers' enemies alive.
Also, even putting all the self-interest aside (with, say, a very disciplined unit), there's very likely a unit with an unprotected flank now that's busy fighting your guys. Time to flank them! You'll be putting them in a bad position while outnumbered 2-1, so they're gonna want to run next. Now you have another unit free to gang up on their units. Repeat for cascade effect and you've likely just won the battle for your army!
On the kings ransom: The myth tells that the ransom of King Richard I , Lionheart was used to build a whole city, namely Wiener Neustadt (New Vienna). According to Wikipedia it was about 23 metric tons of Silver or 100.000 mark.
Yes to this, I read long ago in a book about Alexander that both he and Phillip II had expert cavalry units dedicated to pursuing routed infantry for long periods. The author argued that continuous pursuit of routing enemies generally meant that Alexander's battles were quite decisive (even by ancient standards) and that there were huge disparities in casualty figures. Most ancient armies didn't pursue routing forces as vigorously as the Macedonians, for the reasons stated. When you start taking this cat-and-mouse game seriously with specialist units it can be strategically decisive.
Fantastic video as always.For my own nerd pleasure I would add that often times pursuing a routed foe estranged the pursuers from their main line allowing them to be flanked. If I remember correctly Alexander employed the tactic of planning for a formation to break that would put pursuers in a position of being flanked by reserve units. While I can't be certain I believe Wellington also used this tactic though it could have been unintentional. Then of course there is when Feanor, second king of the Noldor pursued fleeing orcs until he was so far ahead of his own host that Morgoth's balrogs fell upon him and slew him.
There's also the whole deep ingrained primal resistance to killing principle. (As discussed in On Killing by David Grossman). Half-hearted pursuit falls into the posturing part of the Response to Aggression Matrix. (Fight, Flee, Posture, Submit) That and a fundamental awareness that you might be fighting for your lord's benefit, but not so much your own beyond immediate survival.
Another good reason to keep them running instead of catching them. If they were to run into another unit say part of their reserve and hear how this unit had been routed and were being pursued it will shake their confidence. Sure they may be forced to join this unit and return to fight you but that shaken confidence could very easily turn into fear and panic when they join the battle and find the situation dire.
Well plus I imagine a person retreating will run faster than a person giving chasing, because the person retreating means their life depends on running faster than the other guy. Also, the person retreating might throw away some of their gear, while I somehow doubt a person giving chase will want to toss away their own gear just to catch up with someone.
I listen in on a conversation between 2 mounted police officers recently. They also train their horses in not pursuing to hard, as in case of riots it is often the goal to drive a crowd before you forcing them from a area not actually to catch up with them.
A good example of a pursuit going way to far was in the Battle of Lund 1676 between Sweden and Denmark Charles XI left his main army chasing fleeing Danish cavalry for hours. He got back to the main army just in time.
A very good example for this is the Battle of Hastings. Exactly that was pretty much the reason why Harold Godwinson and the Anglo-Saxons lost that battle.
I learned this the hard way when playing Total War. I usually saved a couple units of cavalry archers to attack during pursuit and had maybe a few anti-personal cannons hoisted on a flank to catch them. Ranged units are so much fun.
Another reason you might not want infantry to give chase is because that will leave a gap in your front line. So either enemy footsoilders can surround their opposing unit with it or the enemies may even send a cavalry unit thought to cause massive damage and disruption from the back. You would leave a hole in your front line which you don't want.
i seem to recall several, if not many, occurances where one side faltered and started to retreat, with the opposing force giving chase. Only to soon find that it was a feint devised to somehow envelope or flank the pursuers once they broke formation to chase.
In the case of a rout I would say that horse archers would play a big role in it because when playing an RTS game like total war i usually just use horse archers against heavy infantry and routing enemies
Another point that might be important here is that retreating men are not always dispersed rabble. Sometimes they are tactically withdrawing to a better position, or to where they know there are reinforcements, and you are chasing them into a trap. I don't know how often that actually happened, but I do it all the damn time in strategy games. Both AI and human players fall for it entirely too often.
This reminds me of the Discworld novel Guards! Guards! in which the a new recruit to the city guard is told to chase, but not too hard, after all you don't really want to catch them. Also the general procedure for dealing with bar-fights and the like is to wait for it to be over and then arrest anyone on the ground, after all they're not likely to fight back and anyone standing either had nothing to do with it or is a good fighter.
I suppose calvary bowman, or contrary to that, Parthian tactics, could also be another factor affecting whether pursuit is a good strategy in a medieval battlefield. Because a moderately ranged attack in either regard could work towards attrition without the risks of direct hand-to-hand combat.
More than once in history part of a unit was essentially told to break and flee so when the enemy pursued a hidden reserve unit hit the dispersed chasing unit. Happened in the US Revolutionary War (a much later time period) at least once that I recall in the Southern Theatre.
There's an instance of this happening in The Livonian Chronicles of Henry. A pagan lord turned convert, who joined the Livonian Brothers of the Sword was part of a unit that had been routed during a battle. Whilst fleeing, he got cornered by a dozen pagan enemies, and with his back against a tree he kills almost half of them before he goes down because he goes into a desperate frenzy. Also he was wearing mail armour, so he could withstand the blows of the enemies for a while, whilst the pagan wore little to no armour.
The more I watch this channel the more I begin to realize that war (throughout history) is about winning battles and not killing people. Just now I've noticed how different these two concepts are.
The Black Company by Glen cook actually has a scene in one of the later books ware a battle goes terribly wrong because a flank of the enemy brakes and the soldiers on the victorious side go chasing after them. One of the main characters remarks something like "Presumably to beat them in a foot race"
good points but i would like to add that when large numbers of troops run away many will die of starvation especially if they already looted the lands behind them and i believe many battles turned around at the pursuit stage. also i bet horse archers would make excellent pursuit units great video btw
Battle of Hastings is a prime example of why you don't chase; Harold's infantry broke formation and chased William the Conqueror's, but William's forces were only feigning a rout, and breaking up Harold's infantry made them easy pickings, after that all that was left in Harold's army were his housecarls.
josh buckers Wasn't something similar described at the battle of hastings? Where the normans couldn't crack the english shield wall; parts of the battle line started fleeing ( or allegedly pretended to do so ); parts of the english broke their shield wall to charge after the running normans which then sent in their cavalry to mop up the now overextended and out-of-formation soldiers. (?)
josh buckers Many cases in Hussite Wars i believe. They basically made fortified wagon fort and than provoke enemy by any means necessary to bait attack on it and shoot the cavalry down. The most notable battle of faint retreat was whe two fractions met at the end of the war using same tactic at Battle of Lipany (1434).
Almost covered all reasons but you forgot one very important one. One Very Important Reason for a victorious infantry unit not to give chase: keeping their place in the *army's formation.* If they broke away from their place in the line, their comrades who were still back fighting would be vulnerable, open to a sudden enemy flanking maneuver or other action to exploit the gap in your army's lines. Also, leaving formation means that you've become an easy target yourself, ready to be ambushed by hidden enemy (cavalry), to be surrounded and cut down to pieces. He almost got it with the specialist units that were to chase off fleeing enemies. Cavalry. If they weren't too busy looting the enemy's camp after they had done a charge or two because they were the Topgun Mavericks of their era and didn't need to follow orders much. And what's a more attractive target: fleeing enemies who had dropped most of their things and you had to collect them one by one by one. That sounded too much like real work. Or: a completely undefended enemy camp, with all the gold and valuables neatly stacked in tents like a "drive-in" of old times?
What is interesting is in archaic warfare many psychological quirks that would deter people from simply cutting down enemies engaged in the ritual of open combat would melt away as ingrained hunting instincts would take over and the enemy would psychologically at least become prey to be pursued and taken down. This stage of combat would result in far higher rates of casualties than other parts of any battle.
another reason you dont pursue routed enemies unless specifically ordered/ trained to do so, is that its a common tactic (especially by fairly mobile units) to pretend to rout and run off, this is to draw out glory seekers, and other people who are otherwise to dumb to breathe without being told how too. the 'routed' unit would run just far enough to draw out pursuers, then turn rapidly and cut them down. this is especially effective when used by a Calvary unit.
Sun Tzu made the point that you should always give the enemies troops a way to run. It is also why he said it was imperative that you be known for treating your prisoners well. A soldier who knows his side has lost and knows you are fair to prisoners won't fight anywhere near as hard or as long as one who is cornered and certain he is going to die anyway.
I thought light infantry would be used specifically for this reason. So you get a mix of cavalry and light infantry that pursues the defeated enemy after the battle. The light infantry has short weapons, like axes, clubs and swords.
One additional reason not to pursue too vigorously was it broke up your own army's setup. If one wing of an enemy force broke and took off and the wing of your army that broke them took off in pursuit, it left the flank of your own army vulnerable. Part of the reason the Normans won the battle of Hastings was because of a somewhat premature pursuit when the Saxons thought they had broken one flank. Pursuing too hard could get you killed; it's how Cesare Borgia died in 1507 when he got too far in front of his own men in pursuit of a body of fleeing knights...who turned around and killed him.
Another important one missed: if you pursue routing soldiers too enthusiastically, you leave a big hole in your formation, and the battle may not yet be over. This happened several times in European history: one flank routed and was pursued, and the rest of the army rallied and actually won the battle.
Yet another reason not to pursue the enemy would be that in a lot of cases, you fought that battle there in the first place in order to capture or maintain control of that specific location. Once the enemy runs away, you've accomplished your goal and the last thing you'd want to do in many cases is to then abandon that location or even split your forces and leave it vulnerable to being recaptured
Wouldn't killing a running unit cause the other units to not run because they see what will happen? Or will they get demoralized and start running too?
Probably also a bad idea since they would be heading towards other enemy formations. The Battle of Waterloo June 1815. French Marshal Michel Ney mistook movement of casualties to the rear for the a retreat, He ordered a cavalry charge with 9,000 men. Turned out to be a bad move and Wellington's infantry formed squares to take on the cavalry. The french heavy cavalry had casualties of almost 50% when it was all said and done.
In Total War, I've been using my light cavalry in much the way discribed here. I've observed, however, that heavy cavalry tends to be better suited for breaking the enemy or facing them head on.
Another reason why you might not pursue them is because it could be a faint leading you into a trap. Did William the Conquer not use that tactic to lure the saxons off the high ground at battle of Hastings? It was certainly used in historic battles in my locality, when during a period of siege during the glorious revolution, the besiegers attempted to take a strategic village outside the city walls. One of the commanders in the city sallied out to prevent this, he placed his infantry in bogs and bushes, rode on with his cavalry, had a bit of a fight and retired, and were pursued by the enemy cavalry who were ambushed by the infantry inflecting considerable casualties including French senior officers.
I would also say you wouldn't want to pursue just incase it is a trap an example of this is when William the Conqueror invaded England he got his soldiers to pretend to route then when the enemy followed the ones running turned around reformed and started to fight again and other troops would surround the troops that were pursuing and before you know it your entire army is encircled
And there's also no reason that you would catch up to those you're pursuing. You're both running, you're both infantry, and thus only the slightly faster will catch the slightly slower, which means that units won't be effective, individuals that run faster than those other lot will find themselves alone in catching the enemy. You're also likely to catch their worst men, or their best, depending on who runs fastest.
Titus Livius remarked than mostly pursuits were done by calvary, but the infantry was well know for butchery once the enemy flew. After reading the whole series I believe no exaggeration was done, as he describes the technique of the roman soldiers, the idea was to corner then and again, meatgrinding them if the general didn't liked the battle or make them prisoners.
Also perhaps time better spent collapsing on the flank of an enemy unit to your right or left assuming they're not all running. Also keeping in mind the fled unit might turn around and flank YOU after youve collapsed on another targetif the cavalry isnt keeping them busy. Also chasing one part of an army opens up a hole in your battle line if you have no reserves to fill it.
If you pursue far enough you will be behind enemy lines, which will make it easy for fresh enemy troops to attack you, which also is very likely to rally the guys you were pursuing causing you to be surrounded and cut to pieces. Like at the battle of Dara.
Also, if you catch them, you'd probably need to house and feed them and store them in some location, which costs your team money and resources and also collects a bunch of bad guys together who are likely to cost your side a considerable expense to secure.
this is actually quite topical to me at the moment. lately I've been playing quite a bit of Total War: Rome 2, and lately I've had a problem that I haven't noticed before. when my units route an enemy unit, I would typically fold my now unoccupied unit around behind the enemy's remaining units in a vice maneuver. but lately, many of those routed units have been regrouping and now have access to my flanks, forcing me to invest in swift or skirmisher cavalry to run them down before that happens. I just thought it was a strange coincidence that a video on this issue would be posted just as I'm facing it as a virtual general.
A really good example is Senlac hill at Hastings: The Saxon shield wall breaks integrity, to chase the fleeing normans. If they had stayed together and held the wall, history would be quite different.
another reason you should watch out in a persuit is that it might be an ambush, they might trick you in believing they run away, and catch you off guard
Not sure how big you are on video games, but if you have any interest, I strongly recommend the Mount & Blade series. I'm sure it has its fair share of inaccuracies, but it definitely leans more toward the side of being a historical simulator instead of being your run of the mill fantasy RPG. Your mention of cavalry being used to chase off routed units made me think, "I really need to do that next time I'm in a battle."
I think that, as a commander, if you trust in your troops to decide when to go chasing after an enemy, then that decision is probably going to be made based on group psychology rather than on any kind of tactical judgment. Your men will be tired, full of adrenaline, scared, they might have lost their immediate commanding officer, or that officer might not be able to enforce order. All it takes is a few hotheads running off on their own, or a few pragmatists deciding that chasing prisoners is better than continuing on to fight the next enemy unit, and then your group cohesion is lost. In the worst case, your men might charge right into an ambush, and then you're the one ransoming prisoners. In that light, it sounds really, really useful to have specialized troops whose only function is to chase enemies. They can be specialized in that one thing, and have been drilled extensively on how, when and when not to do it. And those same men will have plenty of other functions to serve in the daily course of warfare, so they're hardly a waste even when they aren't fighting.
I think Sun Tzu said something about not trying to engage a retreating/trapped enemy...? I'd probably just hold my ground and laugh and throw taunts at the enemy, partially to damage their morale and partially to boost mine
Psychologically, it's been known that chasing routing enemies at an almost leisurely pace not only avoids desperation last stands, but can also encourage them to stop running and, in fact, surrender. This tactic was advised to a particular King during China's warring states era by his strategist, who cautioned against pursuing their recently defeated and routing enemy too aggressively. The result, as he predicted, was a large number of the fleeing soldiers eventually surrendered, bolstering the king's own army rather than diminishing it through combat.
Military strategy, rule number one: fights are dangerous. It's better if you can just make the enemy run away or give up.
Many people don't know or tend to forget that soldiers and warriors are humans, therefore they have a healthy amount of fear of dying. You always remember that in your considerations about war, that's why your videos are so good.
Thiago Monteiro True to a degree, but each soldier you don't kill or capture you could be potentially fighting again. The best result is they are all dead or at least morally crushed and discredited. For many battles the hunting of survivors by cavalry went on for several days after.
Thiago Monteiro Unless you are Spartan, in which case dying saves you from eating Spartan food!
No rule number one is make sure your men know which end of the stick is the pointy one
two is location location location
three is if you have overwhelming firepower bloody well use it.
your thinking of rule number 753201-6
You forget rule #0 which is Scare the Bastards so they don't fight you at all just give up their loot.
Thiago Monteiro But what about BERZERKAAAS!?
I was once chased by pack (or what it calls) of domestic gooses, they spread wing and made weird but bloodthirsty sound, but the closer they get to me, the slower they were moving. On the one point they almost stopped, so it was clear that they strategy was about to scare me off by their charge, not by their goose's bites
@S billings the word gaggle makes me cackle
That's the old fake cry wolf strategy that gets people killed. Hence the term Goose Slapped.
That's a wonderful story
It makes me giggle.
And that is how unnamed goose game started....
As Han Solo learnt, to his detriment, you REALLY don't want to run so fast that you risk actually catching the fleeing Storm Troopers.
morallyambiguousnet Get back to the shiiiiiiip!
morallyambiguousnet Which is also what happened at hastings, except they were completely cut off then.
morallyambiguousnet LOL Thank you.
+Usammity Han Solo was at Hastings chasing Stormtroopers around?
k1ll3rbunny
Yeah man
In my opinion, the #1 reason not to pursue: If the enemies know that they can live by running away, they will. If they know that they will be slaughtered if they run away, however, they'll stay and fight to the bitter end.
+Ze Rubenator That's Sun Tzu 101 my friend :)
Always leave your enemy an escape route, otherwise they may resign to fight to the death, which will be very costly to your army. Conversely, try *not* to leave many inviting escape routes for your own army, and the men will push themselves to incredible feats!
Notably, surrender is a philosophical escape route if not an actual physical escape route. When the Allies pushed the Nazis back, the Nazis were readily willing to surrender against superior forces, as surrender would be accepted and the conditions would not be too inhumane. When the USSR pushed the Nazis back, they faced much stiffer opposition, because surrender would likely lead to immediate death by execution, or slow death by toiling away in work camps.
But the problem is that you *want* to kill them such that the enemies capacity to raise an army is crippled, such that he can't just try and defeat you a few weeks later.
It's amazing how fucking *brilliant* Sun Tzu was. His "Art of War" techniques and philosophy is still in use today. Idr the passage or chapter, but Sun Tzu frequently talked about how "an army with nowhere to run will be able to do the impossible". He also made it clear that you should never (or rarely) *completely* surround your enemy- always leave them a passage of escape.
The reasoning behind this is quite simple: a desperate man, perhaps wounded, terrified, with no where to run- he may resign himself to *fighting to the death*. This is worst case scenario for *both* sides, because now both sides will probably take casualties trying to stomp out the remaining enemy who is going to keep swinging sharp objects until you stop his heart. *That* is a dangerous warrior.
I realize this is a 5 month necro, but leaving a passage to escape doesn't always have to entail an exit route for them to flee. Part of what made the Soviet army less effective than it could have been, was their executions and brutal treatment of prisoners. Geneva conventions rules regarding prisoners also helps to give the enemy the idea of that one way out- "well, we can always surrender" which is much better for your own troops, having not fought an enemy to the death.
Schmeethe88
Can't argue with that. One of the things that makes Sun Tzu's work so brilliant, is that it applies to *CONFLICT* in general, on any scale; from massive armies of Chinese soldiers, to a personal confrontation with a friend over a disagreement. Your analogy of using moral POW standards applies- Sun Tzu always says that the greatest victory involves zero fighting. If you convince your opponent that fighting would not end well for them, but that surrendering won't seal their fate or totally ruin them, you save tremendous resources, time, energy, and typically end on the moral high ground.
This applies to simple arguments. Giving someone an ultimatum of a "non-conditional" nature is typically destructive to a relationship. I think Sun Tzu's Art of War could also be called "The Art of Conflict" because of the unbelievable number of situations which his advice can apply to- combat, social, business, politics, love... there's something to be learned and applied from Sun Tzu's teachings in almost any aspect of life.
Sort of reminds me of Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings", and one of my favorite quotes from that work is "Once you understand the Way broadly, you see it in all things." That's the perspective of a master warrior- he mastered the art of dueling conflict, and had the insight to realize that the lessons he learned could be applied to far more than simply one on one duels to the death!
what about hannibal when he surrounded the romans and completely eliminated them.
It still took forever to slaughter the surrouded Romans so it did cost troops. And I believe initially some were able to escape.
+Pira There are so many variables in battles to be considered, and Hannibal was a genius on the field- I am positive he would take into account all of the variables involved in completely encircling and butchering the Romans. But how many of the battles he was involved in did he do this? I'd reckon the large majority of battles Hannibal fought against the Romans, he defeated them and allowed them to rout.
It's all situational; with any rule, there are exceptions, and all variables need to be considered. Hannibal knew what he was doing- so much so, that I'd place him among the world's greatest military minds right alongside Sun Tzu or Musashi. If only Hannibal had published some kind of manifesto of similar nature to Art of War or Book of 5 Rings... I'd die to have a peek into the wisdom of such a great man's mind.
This helped me in Mount and Blade war-band when it came to using my cavalry.
those swadian knights ;)
Khergit for days! Nothing beats the Khergit horse archers, enemy has crossbows? I swarm them, and flank them, and reload ridiculously quickly.
Sarranid Mamluke master race.
***** Ever seen a Mamluke be swarmed by Khergits? He certainly didn't.
he made a video why horse archers aren't the unstoppable force people think they are.
Lindy I'm surprised you missed probably the number one reason for capturing the enemy in the ancient world - slavery! If you capture you enemy you don't need to bother with the process of ransoming him (unless he's someone important), you can enslave him and sell him right away. There's also one really good reason for pursuing - if you're the first unit past the enemy line, you'll also be the first to loot the baggage train, along with all the food, treasure and captives that entails.
lancer D This sounded more like it was aimed towards the Medieval era, where slavery whilst it existed in Europe sure, it was far far less common than in the ancient era.
lancer D People did not want soldiers as slaves. Unless you placed them in something like a mine or galley they had a reputation of proven killers. Hardly a desirable trait for a slave.
Rl Badger Man, that's what I like in my workers. A desperate, savage hatred of me, and weapons training.
Connorcj1 That's why you sell them.
lancer D That's also why nobody's gonna buy them.
It is good to hear the outro back. :^)
Xabier Clemente The trumpety-pumpety rumpus has returned.
Wreqt And the world rejoices.
Wreqt What is the name of that march, anyway? Sounds awfully British. And by that I mean "a lot", not _awful_ awful. I quite like it, it fills me with a warm, imperial feeling.
Gilmaris We definitely need the name.
Gilmaris I think it's one he made himself or had custom made for the Stoke Mandeville stuff or something like that. (Very vague, I know). Someone asked in the comments a while back and got a reply.
(Not entirely but fairly sure)
There is an old German proverb that one should build golden bridges for fleeing enemies.
The battle of Zama was likely won by the Romans because Scipio explicitly ordered his cavalry not to pursue the fleeing Carthaginian cavalry for too long. Hannibal's veterans were on the verge of turning the tides and routing the Roman infantry when the Roman cavalry returned and attacked them from the rear.
Hastings and the Mongols have been mentioned already in this thread.
Segalmed In Spanish there is a similar proverb, but instead of gold it's silver.
MrRostit Lesson: it's better to retreat from Germans than Spaniards.
Jesse Fortner We Spaniards don´t like running as much as Germans, you know. We prefer dancing! And of course all our gold is in the churches and in our King´s family´s, so we can´t build anything out of it... xD
Segalmed but what about Hastings?
Kaknamenuss
Eh, I did mention it in the last line. But several other people in this thread have already commencted, so I did not give any details.
As a kid i took part in our town festivals before easter, we were using sprays throwing eggs at each other etc. Huge groups of people, a lot fun. Once we were gaining the upper hand and i was so into this that i started chasing 5 of them alone. Too bad cause when they realised it's just one guy they turned and before i realised, i was sprayed. I blamed total war for this.... XD
“That lot’s desperate, and frightened, and they’re carrying sharp sticks.”
-Lindybeige 2K15
Missed a chance to talk about Hastings. The saxons did exactly what you said they shouldn't have, AND it was just a trap.
but what if i *REAAAALLLLYY* wanted that nice sword?
archer maybe?
Why, dude? What stats does it have?
I can hear that REAAALLLYY said with Lloyd's voice :)
Good point, since the last thing either side needed was to be forced to fight to the last man. Much easier just to route the enemy. Sometimes they fought to the last man, or one side would almost completely eliminate the other without losing many of their own people, but routes were way more common.
What about the tactical reasons? In the Total War games at least whenever I rout an enemy unit I have to be careful about having them pursued by the winning unit. If the winning unit goes after them, often I will end up with a gap in my line, which I have to plug. Furthermore the pursuing unit might get surrounded by the remaining enemy units that have not routed.
silvercomic Which is, basically, what happened at Hastings 1066. Parts of Williams II. army started to retreat, because they thought that their duke would be dead and the battle almost lost. So the anglo-saxons pursued them. But William II. wasn't dead, regained control over his army and defeated those men. He saw that this was quite effective and faked another retreat - which caused another pursuit and another massacre. So yes, it can literal cost you everything if your troops just charge forward and think they would've already won.
Although there are sometimes emotional/ideological reasons to pursuit and slaughter a defeated enemy. German mercenaries (Landsknechte) and Swiss ones are known for some nasty massacres against each other after battles. They just started hating each other at some point and stopped taking prisoners.
This sort of falls into the "stay in formation" line of reasoning...
silvercomic Thats why you should keep some cav nearby. When the enemy unit flees you run them over with your cav but you should send them around the battlefield or the are gonna be surrounded (deoends where the fleeing unit is) ...
Or you let the first units escape and save your cav four mass routs
silvercomic Trouble with tactical reasons is that it concerns generals, not infantrymen. Most soldiers will be relying on their initiative and looking out for themselves when it could take half an hour to relay messages and orders between them and their commander, and they may just decide to ignore those orders anyway (something total war neglects outside of specific berseker units). Most battles and sieges ended up as massive loot fests for the winning side, often extending to nearby towns as men ran about taking whatever they can get their hands on and it could take days for generals to restore order and discipline in their own army.
lancer D tactics are of concern to everyone including infantrymen. They don't want to over extend themselves unnecessarily only to end up deep wirhin the enemy's hold pursuing a routed troop. The main concern for myself would be not dying. Even the "simple" mind of a lowly infantryman can understand sticking your neck out to far.
"Come on you coward! We've beaten you!... Oh god he stopped..." XD
My favorite description of a rout is from Sharpe's Eagle, when the Chasseurs overrun the two infantry squares through sheer luck and the incompetence of the Spanish and British forces. Cornwell described the pursuing Chasseurs as tiring themselves out by swinging their swords so much, to the point where they were really just slapping someone in the back with the flat of their swords every now and then to make them keep running. After all, they weren't interested in the rank and file that were running- those men were just there to prevent the British troops from rallying to retake their colors. I thought that was a pretty interesting description.
"The acme of skill is to subdue your enemy before meeting them on the battlefield." - Sun Tzu
A battle is won both before, and after, if your men are stronger before you go in, or the enemy is weaker, then you have an advantage, after a battle, during a war, those same men then have to march double time half way across a nation, and thus need morale.
Do you understand that’s an allegory the book was written by the astronomer to the Chinese king . This astronomer who is a Jesuit Priest Didn’t interpreted The book it was written by him.. Walter Veith A brilliant Professor has a RUclips video explaining it
Sounds just like Warband
***** You'll never change my Kerghit ways!
*chaos everywhere*
theknifesong I love that game for the odd details (like those highly detailed village maps, etc.). Have you ever seen the skeleton in the Vaegir castle? Haha. When I first saw that I was like, wtf? Talking to all these maidens and stuff around this skeleton is a little surreal.
***** Correction, it's almost pillaging season!
***** Filthy villagers, who do they think they are having possessions! I'll show them!
***** You'll get nothing but cold steel from me!
I once had a battle in Medieval Total War in which most of my army was defeated, but one unit of my knights returned from a side engagement to find the entire enemy army strung out in pursuit, and proceeded to ride through them all and win the battle! It was EPIC.
One other time not to pursue too aggressively: if the battle is still ongoing, and you have a chance to attack other enemies in their flank. Doing so can turn a small victory into a large one. Oliver Cromwell used the cavalry of the New Model Army in this way, notably at Naseby.
There is no respawn, so yes, I don't think they'd have the blood lust to put themselves at risk for no good reason at all. Soldiers always need motivation, and unless there is some issue of personal vengeance, I guess like russian soldiers counter attacking the germans, people will do the minimum necessary.
This reminds me of my childhood adventures in Glasgow where we would form into groups of a couple hundred or so based on small regions within whatever estate you're from and every night we'd assemble in formation in a field, golfcourse or whatever and take turns charging at each other with whatever weapons etc you could improvise. It was pretty rare for two sides to be well matched and committed enough to lead to anything more than a one sided rout where the losers are chased off at a slightly slower pace by the winners although when that did happen it was very nasty as you can imagine. We would have made for interesting study for anyone interested in the nuances of crowd dynamics etc in old style pitch battles, tehehe.
Braveheart dude that sounds hella awesome. I wish I had such experience.
reminds me of a game we used to play in school called british bulldog. the two classes would line up facing each other and run at each other, we usually just hit each other or kicked and the teachers would go crazy when we did it so they had to separate the two classes at break time haha
I was fascinated in how pursuit, capture, ransom etc played out during the Diadochi Wars, with so many mercenary force's being used, it lead to some unusual scenario's playing out
***** All the other combatants used huge mercenary armies, Antigonus, Eumenes etc. Ptolemy used to keep all his mercenaries belongings in the hope that would keep them loyal. Early Carthage ended up in huge trouble with there mercenaries
***** no
*****
no
,the whole navy was citizen only...the 40 000 reserve hoplite where all citizen...the sacred band hoplite as well as the sacred band cavalry(who outlived the infantry) and also the citizen lancers....all the mixed race lybian/phoenician formed a second class where alot of troops where drawn(way more than citizen) ....most of the rest was drawn from nubians by commercial treaty and as a replacement to tax.
for the kelt a good 80% of them came from theyre own territory in spain(the barca domain)
all that was after the rise in power in teh west of the phoenicians...before carthage became a fully blown indepedant city from tyr the regular army was 100% citizen with only ligth troops hired ad-hoc during the campaign
Ragimund VonWallat What about the Mercenary War? and didn't they use Greek mercenaries in Sicily? Hoplites not just light infantry ? you're right about the light infantry mercenaries, but they appeared on most battlefields serving a variety of nations
zwicky93
never said they didint used mercenary...i just pointed that the generalities such as:''they had native officers but all the rest was mercs'' were false and oversimplification
3:16 "A cornered mouse _Never Fights"_
(**Crashing noises, turns to camera**)
*"DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!"*
this is probably your best video, in its content but especially its delivery
Also it can be a feint retreat to weaken and disperse the main body of your army
One of my RPG characters is a mounted mercenary that specializes exactly in this topic, so this wasy very inspirational. He is a character that specializes in using the "combat maneuver" set of actions and attacks; particularly 'grapple'.
He's got a big, monstrous beast as well as horses, tracking, pursuing and capturing enemies, depending on his assignment. The trick of his character is that he's only moderately good at fighting monsters, but his profession has made him very good at collecting ransoms and bounties for keeping his employers' enemies alive.
Also, even putting all the self-interest aside (with, say, a very disciplined unit), there's very likely a unit with an unprotected flank now that's busy fighting your guys. Time to flank them!
You'll be putting them in a bad position while outnumbered 2-1, so they're gonna want to run next.
Now you have another unit free to gang up on their units.
Repeat for cascade effect and you've likely just won the battle for your army!
On the kings ransom: The myth tells that the ransom of King Richard I , Lionheart was used to build a whole city, namely Wiener Neustadt (New Vienna). According to Wikipedia it was about 23 metric tons of Silver or 100.000 mark.
John was ransomed for the equivalent of 15 years of taxes. John died 4 years later still in captivity. Seems like a bad deal they made
Yes to this, I read long ago in a book about Alexander that both he and Phillip II had expert cavalry units dedicated to pursuing routed infantry for long periods. The author argued that continuous pursuit of routing enemies generally meant that Alexander's battles were quite decisive (even by ancient standards) and that there were huge disparities in casualty figures. Most ancient armies didn't pursue routing forces as vigorously as the Macedonians, for the reasons stated. When you start taking this cat-and-mouse game seriously with specialist units it can be strategically decisive.
Fantastic video as always.For my own nerd pleasure I would add that often times pursuing a routed foe estranged the pursuers from their main line allowing them to be flanked. If I remember correctly Alexander employed the tactic of planning for a formation to break that would put pursuers in a position of being flanked by reserve units. While I can't be certain I believe Wellington also used this tactic though it could have been unintentional. Then of course there is when Feanor, second king of the Noldor pursued fleeing orcs until he was so far ahead of his own host that Morgoth's balrogs fell upon him and slew him.
I've learned so much from this channel.
There's also the whole deep ingrained primal resistance to killing principle. (As discussed in On Killing by David Grossman). Half-hearted pursuit falls into the posturing part of the Response to Aggression Matrix. (Fight, Flee, Posture, Submit)
That and a fundamental awareness that you might be fighting for your lord's benefit, but not so much your own beyond immediate survival.
Another good reason to keep them running instead of catching them. If they were to run into another unit say part of their reserve and hear how this unit had been routed and were being pursued it will shake their confidence. Sure they may be forced to join this unit and return to fight you but that shaken confidence could very easily turn into fear and panic when they join the battle and find the situation dire.
You are so insightful. I love your scholarly viewpoints!
When you surround an enemy, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard. - Sun Tzu.
"...and a king´s ransom could really be worth...a king´s ransom!" :D nice pun
Your reasoning is logical. The term "chasing off" comes to mind.
I’m becoming addicted ! Make a brilliant History Teacher !
Could you do a video about how weather affected battles maybe? Like would armies really siege in the middle of storm like in modern movies?
Well plus I imagine a person retreating will run faster than a person giving chasing, because the person retreating means their life depends on running faster than the other guy. Also, the person retreating might throw away some of their gear, while I somehow doubt a person giving chase will want to toss away their own gear just to catch up with someone.
wow I just recently found these vids, and they will be very useful in making my DnD campaigns more realistic. thanks
I listen in on a conversation between 2 mounted police officers recently.
They also train their horses in not pursuing to hard, as in case of riots it is often the goal to drive a crowd before you forcing them from a area not actually to catch up with them.
A good example of a pursuit going way to far was in the Battle of Lund 1676 between Sweden and Denmark Charles XI left his main army chasing fleeing Danish cavalry for hours. He got back to the main army just in time.
A very good example for this is the Battle of Hastings. Exactly that was pretty much the reason why Harold Godwinson and the Anglo-Saxons lost that battle.
Lloyd, you are a treasure!
I learned this the hard way when playing Total War. I usually saved a couple units of cavalry archers to attack during pursuit and had maybe a few anti-personal cannons hoisted on a flank to catch them. Ranged units are so much fun.
Another reason you might not want infantry to give chase is because that will leave a gap in your front line. So either enemy footsoilders can surround their opposing unit with it or the enemies may even send a cavalry unit thought to cause massive damage and disruption from the back. You would leave a hole in your front line which you don't want.
I love your channel, I've been binging a ton of your videos
Another reason could be feints, not for an entire army but few units moving around, skirmishing and feinting a retreat could scatter tight formations.
i seem to recall several, if not many, occurances where one side faltered and started to retreat, with the opposing force giving chase. Only to soon find that it was a feint devised to somehow envelope or flank the pursuers once they broke formation to chase.
In the case of a rout I would say that horse archers would play a big role in it because when playing an RTS game like total war i usually just use horse archers against heavy infantry and routing enemies
Another point that might be important here is that retreating men are not always dispersed rabble. Sometimes they are tactically withdrawing to a better position, or to where they know there are reinforcements, and you are chasing them into a trap. I don't know how often that actually happened, but I do it all the damn time in strategy games. Both AI and human players fall for it entirely too often.
This reminds me of the Discworld novel Guards! Guards! in which the a new recruit to the city guard is told to chase, but not too hard, after all you don't really want to catch them. Also the general procedure for dealing with bar-fights and the like is to wait for it to be over and then arrest anyone on the ground, after all they're not likely to fight back and anyone standing either had nothing to do with it or is a good fighter.
+Wrel should do a video about this. It's an important principle in unit cohesion in Planetside 2.
Hugh Grant!
I've been trying to figure out who Lindy's spoken manner and expressions reminded me of.
I suppose calvary bowman, or contrary to that, Parthian tactics, could also be another factor affecting whether pursuit is a good strategy in a medieval battlefield. Because a moderately ranged attack in either regard could work towards attrition without the risks of direct hand-to-hand combat.
More than once in history part of a unit was essentially told to break and flee so when the enemy pursued a hidden reserve unit hit the dispersed chasing unit. Happened in the US Revolutionary War (a much later time period) at least once that I recall in the Southern Theatre.
There's an instance of this happening in The Livonian Chronicles of Henry. A pagan lord turned convert, who joined the Livonian Brothers of the Sword was part of a unit that had been routed during a battle. Whilst fleeing, he got cornered by a dozen pagan enemies, and with his back against a tree he kills almost half of them before he goes down because he goes into a desperate frenzy. Also he was wearing mail armour, so he could withstand the blows of the enemies for a while, whilst the pagan wore little to no armour.
The more I watch this channel the more I begin to realize that war (throughout history) is about winning battles and not killing people. Just now I've noticed how different these two concepts are.
I legit read the title as "Persuit in babies - don't try too hard" lmfao
The Black Company by Glen cook actually has a scene in one of the later books ware a battle goes terribly wrong because a flank of the enemy brakes and the soldiers on the victorious side go chasing after them. One of the main characters remarks something like "Presumably to beat them in a foot race"
Harold II made the mistake of pursuing his enemy, it lost him the throne of England.
good points but i would like to add that when large numbers of troops run away many will die of starvation especially if they already looted the lands behind them and i believe many battles turned around at the pursuit stage. also i bet horse archers would make excellent pursuit units great video btw
Battle of Hastings is a prime example of why you don't chase; Harold's infantry broke formation and chased William the Conqueror's, but William's forces were only feigning a rout, and breaking up Harold's infantry made them easy pickings, after that all that was left in Harold's army were his housecarls.
were there any cases of a infantry unit of faking a rout, and baiting out a cavarly charge and killing all the horsemen?
that's some high level play I imagine so
Very risky
josh buckers MLG Teamplay
josh buckers Wasn't something similar described at the battle of hastings? Where the normans couldn't crack the english shield wall; parts of the battle line started fleeing ( or allegedly pretended to do so ); parts of the english broke their shield wall to charge after the running normans which then sent in their cavalry to mop up the now overextended and out-of-formation soldiers. (?)
josh buckers Many cases in Hussite Wars i believe. They basically made fortified wagon fort and than provoke enemy by any means necessary to bait attack on it and shoot the cavalry down. The most notable battle of faint retreat was whe two fractions met at the end of the war using same tactic at Battle of Lipany (1434).
Almost covered all reasons but you forgot one very important one.
One Very Important Reason for a victorious infantry unit not to give chase: keeping their place in the *army's formation.* If they broke away from their place in the line, their comrades who were still back fighting would be vulnerable, open to a sudden enemy flanking maneuver or other action to exploit the gap in your army's lines.
Also, leaving formation means that you've become an easy target yourself, ready to be ambushed by hidden enemy (cavalry), to be surrounded and cut down to pieces.
He almost got it with the specialist units that were to chase off fleeing enemies. Cavalry. If they weren't too busy looting the enemy's camp after they had done a charge or two because they were the Topgun Mavericks of their era and didn't need to follow orders much. And what's a more attractive target: fleeing enemies who had dropped most of their things and you had to collect them one by one by one. That sounded too much like real work. Or: a completely undefended enemy camp, with all the gold and valuables neatly stacked in tents like a "drive-in" of old times?
What is interesting is in archaic warfare many psychological quirks that would deter people from simply cutting down enemies engaged in the ritual of open combat would melt away as ingrained hunting instincts would take over and the enemy would psychologically at least become prey to be pursued and taken down. This stage of combat would result in far higher rates of casualties than other parts of any battle.
another reason you dont pursue routed enemies unless specifically ordered/ trained to do so, is that its a common tactic (especially by fairly mobile units) to pretend to rout and run off, this is to draw out glory seekers, and other people who are otherwise to dumb to breathe without being told how too. the 'routed' unit would run just far enough to draw out pursuers, then turn rapidly and cut them down. this is especially effective when used by a Calvary unit.
Sun Tzu made the point that you should always give the enemies troops a way to run. It is also why he said it was imperative that you be known for treating your prisoners well. A soldier who knows his side has lost and knows you are fair to prisoners won't fight anywhere near as hard or as long as one who is cornered and certain he is going to die anyway.
I thought light infantry would be used specifically for this reason. So you get a mix of cavalry and light infantry that pursues the defeated enemy after the battle. The light infantry has short weapons, like axes, clubs and swords.
I was just wondering how much a king's ransom would be. Glad to see it in the after notes.
awesome video :) im so glad we talked about this instead of movie camera shots ^_^
One additional reason not to pursue too vigorously was it broke up your own army's setup. If one wing of an enemy force broke and took off and the wing of your army that broke them took off in pursuit, it left the flank of your own army vulnerable. Part of the reason the Normans won the battle of Hastings was because of a somewhat premature pursuit when the Saxons thought they had broken one flank. Pursuing too hard could get you killed; it's how Cesare Borgia died in 1507 when he got too far in front of his own men in pursuit of a body of fleeing knights...who turned around and killed him.
Another important one missed: if you pursue routing soldiers too enthusiastically, you leave a big hole in your formation, and the battle may not yet be over. This happened several times in European history: one flank routed and was pursued, and the rest of the army rallied and actually won the battle.
Hey Lloyd. Random question: what do you think about electro swing?
Człowiek Wiking As long as I don't have to dance to it, I see no reason to make it illegal.
Lindybeige This reply makes me more sad than I care to admit.
lloyd reacts to modern music
what is your opinion on softcombat?
@@lindybeige What about jazz?
Yet another reason not to pursue the enemy would be that in a lot of cases, you fought that battle there in the first place in order to capture or maintain control of that specific location. Once the enemy runs away, you've accomplished your goal and the last thing you'd want to do in many cases is to then abandon that location or even split your forces and leave it vulnerable to being recaptured
Wouldn't killing a running unit cause the other units to not run because they see what will happen? Or will they get demoralized and start running too?
Probably also a bad idea since they would be heading towards other enemy formations. The Battle of Waterloo June 1815. French Marshal Michel Ney mistook movement of casualties to the rear for the a retreat, He ordered a cavalry charge with 9,000 men. Turned out to be a bad move and Wellington's infantry formed squares to take on the cavalry. The french heavy cavalry had casualties of almost 50% when it was all said and done.
This is actually well represented in Crusader Kings 2
In Total War, I've been using my light cavalry in much the way discribed here. I've observed, however, that heavy cavalry tends to be better suited for breaking the enemy or facing them head on.
This helped me a lot in m&b warband, now i actually can use my cavalry way better.
Another reason why you might not pursue them is because it could be a faint leading you into a trap. Did William the Conquer not use that tactic to lure the saxons off the high ground at battle of Hastings?
It was certainly used in historic battles in my locality, when during a period of siege during the glorious revolution, the besiegers attempted to take a strategic village outside the city walls. One of the commanders in the city sallied out to prevent this, he placed his infantry in bogs and bushes, rode on with his cavalry, had a bit of a fight and retired, and were pursued by the enemy cavalry who were ambushed by the infantry inflecting considerable casualties including French senior officers.
This explains the basics of what we do in Total War games :)
I would also say you wouldn't want to pursue just incase it is a trap an example of this is when William the Conqueror invaded England he got his soldiers to pretend to route then when the enemy followed the ones running turned around reformed and started to fight again and other troops would surround the troops that were pursuing and before you know it your entire army is encircled
I would have thought flanking ongoing engagements between other units might have got a mention amongst reasons not to pursue.
And there's also no reason that you would catch up to those you're pursuing. You're both running, you're both infantry, and thus only the slightly faster will catch the slightly slower, which means that units won't be effective, individuals that run faster than those other lot will find themselves alone in catching the enemy. You're also likely to catch their worst men, or their best, depending on who runs fastest.
Titus Livius remarked than mostly pursuits were done by calvary, but the infantry was well know for butchery once the enemy flew. After reading the whole series I believe no exaggeration was done, as he describes the technique of the roman soldiers, the idea was to corner then and again, meatgrinding them if the general didn't liked the battle or make them prisoners.
Also perhaps time better spent collapsing on the flank of an enemy unit to your right or left assuming they're not all running. Also keeping in mind the fled unit might turn around and flank YOU after youve collapsed on another targetif the cavalry isnt keeping them busy. Also chasing one part of an army opens up a hole in your battle line if you have no reserves to fill it.
In the American Civil War at the the Battle of Cedar Creek, Custer pursued Early's troops for 20 miles. Happened often in the Shenandoah in 1864.
If you pursue far enough you will be behind enemy lines, which will make it easy for fresh enemy troops to attack you, which also is very likely to rally the guys you were pursuing causing you to be surrounded and cut to pieces. Like at the battle of Dara.
Also, if you catch them, you'd probably need to house and feed them and store them in some location, which costs your team money and resources and also collects a bunch of bad guys together who are likely to cost your side a considerable expense to secure.
this is actually quite topical to me at the moment. lately I've been playing quite a bit of Total War: Rome 2, and lately I've had a problem that I haven't noticed before. when my units route an enemy unit, I would typically fold my now unoccupied unit around behind the enemy's remaining units in a vice maneuver. but lately, many of those routed units have been regrouping and now have access to my flanks, forcing me to invest in swift or skirmisher cavalry to run them down before that happens. I just thought it was a strange coincidence that a video on this issue would be posted just as I'm facing it as a virtual general.
A really good example is Senlac hill at Hastings: The Saxon shield wall breaks integrity, to chase the fleeing normans. If they had stayed together and held the wall, history would be quite different.
another reason you should watch out in a persuit is that it might be an ambush, they might trick you in believing they run away, and catch you off guard
Not sure how big you are on video games, but if you have any interest, I strongly recommend the Mount & Blade series. I'm sure it has its fair share of inaccuracies, but it definitely leans more toward the side of being a historical simulator instead of being your run of the mill fantasy RPG. Your mention of cavalry being used to chase off routed units made me think, "I really need to do that next time I'm in a battle."
I think that, as a commander, if you trust in your troops to decide when to go chasing after an enemy, then that decision is probably going to be made based on group psychology rather than on any kind of tactical judgment.
Your men will be tired, full of adrenaline, scared, they might have lost their immediate commanding officer, or that officer might not be able to enforce order. All it takes is a few hotheads running off on their own, or a few pragmatists deciding that chasing prisoners is better than continuing on to fight the next enemy unit, and then your group cohesion is lost.
In the worst case, your men might charge right into an ambush, and then you're the one ransoming prisoners.
In that light, it sounds really, really useful to have specialized troops whose only function is to chase enemies. They can be specialized in that one thing, and have been drilled extensively on how, when and when not to do it. And those same men will have plenty of other functions to serve in the daily course of warfare, so they're hardly a waste even when they aren't fighting.
I think Sun Tzu said something about not trying to engage a retreating/trapped enemy...?
I'd probably just hold my ground and laugh and throw taunts at the enemy, partially to damage their morale and partially to boost mine
Psychologically, it's been known that chasing routing enemies at an almost leisurely pace not only avoids desperation last stands, but can also encourage them to stop running and, in fact, surrender. This tactic was advised to a particular King during China's warring states era by his strategist, who cautioned against pursuing their recently defeated and routing enemy too aggressively. The result, as he predicted, was a large number of the fleeing soldiers eventually surrendered, bolstering the king's own army rather than diminishing it through combat.