Implications for military development

Medieval armies generally (this is the period that you're referring to, right?) used wagons for logistical purposes, so the difference is less great than you might think. I don't think that medieval armies are renowned for their marching speeds.
Remember, too, that an important factor in the Hussites' success was their discipline and religious motivation, as well as their lack of class distinction. This contrasts heavily with the feudal armies that they went up against. In addition, the tactics developed by Zizka were designed specifically to face large feudal armies of knights.
I don't know about your green men or the technological advancements of the Vetronians but a more useful strategy for facing the Fomorians might be pike and shot formations, which possess considerable advantages over wagon tactics: they had greater tactical flexibility, they could march and fight more quickly on much more varied terrain, and were capable of offensive maneuvers. I realize that putting this in your book may shove it into a different era that you don't want, but it's something to think about.

 

Well, there is no gunpowder, of one. Second, the main enemy being faced currently are either nomads or were once nomads - so something like Ottoman Empire. Vetronian army itself is a mix: while its equipment is based on Western European armies (Gothic armour and stuff), actual recruitment is based on Byzantine thematic model. This means that even provincial forces are lot more disciplined than feudal armies were, and central force is comparable to ancient Roman legions in terms of discipline.

Also, wagon tactics as utilized by John Hunyadi appear to have had significant tactical flexibility - wagons themselves could be employed either defensively or offensively. In fact, due to wagons being an actual physical barrier, tactical flexibility might have been greater than that of later pike-and-shot formations - or of pike-and-crossbow formations utilized by Matthias Corvinus. I'm still doing research on that topic, but if wagon tactics were as inflexible as you seem to believe them to be - or incapable of offensive maneuvers - I would not have this much trouble deciding on which approach to use.

Another aspect to consider is that field artillery in my setting is based on Roman tension artillery (tormenta): so scorpions, ballistae etc. This means that, if used in field as opposed to siege, it should probably be mounted on wagons so that it does not require assembly - and to give it line-of-fire over infantry. If its effect could be significant enough to justify including it, it would mean that wagons are going to be present one way or another. But that brings up a question of how much artillery to include, and what will its exact tactical utilization be.

At this point, I may well opt for each province having an infantry-cavalry-wagon legion + all-cavalry rapid-reaction cohort. But question of exact composition of forces (how many infantry? Cavalry? Wagons? What would be composition of infantry? Cavalry? Etc.) remains.

 

Not sure the whole Mongol army moved at that rate,

Mongols I believe were and still are primarily nomadic. Genghis Kahn for example his army was vast, so I doubt that an army of that scale could mobilise that quickly. which Leads me to suspect it was only a fraction of his army that would have covered that kind of distance in a day.

I don't have any sources of that just my personal logical/illogical opinion.

 

Torsion, not tension.

 

The issue with mounting it on wagons is sheer weight. A one-talent ballista is huge, and a three-talent one even larger.

While these weapons were often wheeled so they could be hauled along behind the infantry, they were slow. If mobility is the key, it's going to restrict you to wait for the artillery to catch up.

For them to be useful in the field, you would need a critical mass of smaller versions. A bit like guns, a few guns makes very little difference - you need massed volley fire. A ballista is going to take out only a few men at a time at most, and unlike cannon fire, doesn't have quite the same psychological effect. More men lobbing pila would be more useful.

 

I had actually envisioned usage more akin to artillery or else snipers, lobbing incendiary projectiles to disrupt enemy infantry and open up path for cavalry charge. Another possibility would be using smaller versions (scorpions) to pick off enemy officers - I believe even those had much longer range than man-portable bows or crossbows did.

 

Accuracy would be an issue, although the scorpio was used in this manner.

 

Tactically speaking, the wagons were used defensively most of the time. That was the whole point. They were remarkably successful. but only against a certain enemy utilizing certain tactics. It's simply not true that the tactical flexibility of tabor wagons exceeds that of pike formations. For one, pike formations are clearly capable of fighting and marching over more varied terrain. Pike formations do in fact form a physical barrier, a very murderous one that is extremely effective against cavalry. Also, the offensive capabilities of pike formations are obviously greater than those of wagons--they're able to quickly advance and repel the enemy with their pikes in addition to their great defensive capabilities, something wagons can't do. Also, since your country doesn't possess gunpowder, much of the advantage of tabor wagons is gone. A large part of their success was based on gunpowder weapons.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be obnoxious, just pointing some things out.

 

I am still trying to find the details of that battle, but from what I do know, at Vasaq in 1442. John Hunyadi arrayed his army so that heavy cavalry was on the wings, heavy infantry in center, and wagons at flanks, between infantry and cavalry. This forced Ottomans to send sipahis to protect the wings - and sipahis simply were not able to withstand Western heavy cavalry in a direct confrontation. And that IIRC was not the only battle where he used wagons offensively, but I have had problems with finding the details.

Regarding pike formations, they actually strike me as far more defensive. If you deploy them in a square, only a quarter of pikes will be able to engage the enemy, and points of the square are still vulnerable to cavalry charge. If you deploy them in line, and your cavalry charges, then suddenly infantry flanks will be vulnerable to countercharge. If you deploy them in circle, they won't be able to maneuver. I am not certain how these problems were solved, historically.

EDIT: THough I guess one could do something similar to Byzantine infantry square and have a hollow pike square, with cavalry (and supplies) protected by infantry and moving out as necessary.

 

I may be misunderstanding something. In your world, do these nomadic peoples field solely cavalry armies? Because I guess that would change things a bit. As for pike formations being far more defensive in conventional warfare, tell that to Alexander. I'm sure your armies wouldn't be composed solely of pike infantry, correct? Combined arms form a large part of tactics. I don't think it's wise to consider a single element without reference to the others.

In reference to the offensive capabilities of pike, consider this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_of_pike

 

If you're fighting a force composed solely of cavalry and your army is afoot, then regardless of tactics, your role will be defensive. They will likely retreat before an advance, and are capable of greater mobility, regardless of whether your force is composed of wagons or pike.
Additionally, no well drilled pike square can be overwhelmed by an equivalent or even much large force of cavalry. These squares were capable of rapid changes in direction, certainly quickly enough to counter a cavalry charge, which take time. Basic geometry tells us that the longer the diameter is, the longer is the circumference. Any formation rotating around the focus of a circle (the pikes) are capable of swifter changes in outward direction than the force circling along the circumference of a circle (the cavalry force) are of an inward one.
The problem of flanks being vulnerable when disposed in a straight line is easily solved by a) putting cavalry on the flanks, b) by not taking the offensive (or at least not taking the offensive by putting your pikes in a straight line and advancing) when you are so disadvantaged as to have no or insufficient cavalry. Pike formations are extremely flexible, so you can dispose them practically any way you want.

This would be true in any event if your cavalry is routed. Well drilled pike formations, however, should be quick enough in forming squares to at least resist a cavalry charge to the flanks. If this is combined with a frontal charge by the enemy, well you may be in trouble, I don't know.

 

There are actually several threats that need to be dealt with:
1) Fomorians - infantry-only, but live and travel underwater; mostly attack along the coasts. Larger and stronger than humans, but have underdeveloped armour (no metal use)
2) Undead - very slow infantry, but mass armies and vulnerable only to swords. Do not think, do not feel, but likely somewhat fragile.
3) State armies - mix of heavy and light infantry, heavy and light cavalry - melee and missile troops present in all four categories, though there are obviously variations
4) Private armies - basically same as state armies, but maintained by rich individuals (a form of bastard feudalism, basically, but more similar to Byzantine dynatoi than to Western European feudal lords)
5) State raiders - irregular troops on state payroll used to raid enemy territory; similar to Byzantine Akritai, Croatian Uskoks, Caliphate Gazis or Ottoman Akincis
6) Private raiders - same as former, except they pay themselves through loot. A lot of overlap between the two, naturally.
7) Nomads - a lot of variation. Some are cavalry-only, mixing light and heavy cavalry in various proportions; others include infantry and wagons. Some fight exclusively as war bands of raiders, others utilize actual armies and tactics and do not shy away from direct confrontation. The only thing common to all of them is that they have no naval power. But since I based situation on cca 15th century, main case of this are actually state armies which are descended from nomads and still utilize nomadic tactics despite themselves being sedentary (and thus also have a navy).

Regarding pike formations, problem as I see it is what I have basically explained:
1) If you use a square, you can at best have only 1/4 of pikes facing the enemy
2) If you use a phalanx, you need something to protect the flanks

More importantly, however, all pre-gunpowder armies I know of used infantry square as an essentially defensive formation: Byzantines relied on their cavalry to strike out, and infantry was basically there to protect the cavalry. Matthias Corvinus apparently did something similar, though he used actual circular formation instead of square one, and similar formation was used in Hundred Years' War. Offensive employment of infantry square IIRC only appeared in pike-and-shot era, and I am not sure why.

Two main models I am considering currently are armies of John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus.

John Hunyadi utilized a sort-of-a-phalanx. Center of the line was heavy infantry armed with close-combat weapons (such as pollaxes) and protected by pike-wielding pavesarii. Infantry itself was supported by crossbowmen - they would shower the enemy with bolts as the enemy formation closed in to attack (or Hunyadi's own formation did) before retreating to the rear so that men-at-arms can come forth. Infantry was supported by armed wagons, which acted to protect infantry's flanks from cavalry charge (and flanking attacks in general) and by light skirmishers, which retreated into wagons or behind the infantry as necessary. At the flanks was located heavy shock cavalry (armoured knights), themselves supported by mounted crossbowmen. Ahead of heavy cavalry were located cavalry skirmishers who were to counter enemy skirmishers. Reserve consisted of heavy cavalry.

Cavalry was organized in lances, each consisting of two heavy cavalrymen (a knight and a coustillier) and two mounted crossbowmen. Infantry consisted of pavise pairs (pavise carrier armed with a spear, and a supporter armed with a polearm) who kneel to not impede crossbow fire, maybe four ranks of crossbowmen and heavy armati in half-plate armour armed with tin can opener (usually a pollaxe). Skirmishers stood outside wagons and supported heavy infantry, retreating to wagons as necessary.

This system was designed to counter extremely adaptable Ottoman army. Western European feudal armies were completely incapable of dealing with Ottomans. Essentially, Western knights could easily wipe out sipahis in a charge - and Ottomans knew this. But feudal tactics consisted of showing heavy cavalry down the enemy's throat - at Krbava, for example, cavalry charge nearly wiped out front Ottoman units. But once cavalry got bogged down in enemy infantry, sipahis outflanked and surrounded them. Since their own infantry was too far behind to help, each segment got engaged and wiped out separately. Hunyadi's deployment forced Ottomans to deploy sipahis at flanks, lest they get surrounded; but that meant sipahis would have to face Western heavy cavalry head-on.

Matthias Corvinus utilized apparently similar tactics, seeing how his Black Army had 30 000 soldiers, 2 000 war wagons and 100 cannons. Yet his own description of his tactics is different. He states that his infantry consists of clipeati with servants (described above), handgunners (around 20% of infantry). Heavy infantry (clipeati and armati) serve as a shield or a wall, defending the light infantry by forming a circle of pavises; light infantry breaks out of this circle to attack the enemy as opportunity presents itself. Main task of clipeati and armati is to protect the ranged troops - handgunners and crossbowmen - from enemy cavalry. Clipeati are described as advancing against enemy infantry while being protected by fire from crossbowmen and handgunners. While defensive part described infantry circle which was used in Western Europe at the time, offensive part actually sounds similar to John Hunyadi's infantry tactics - but there is no mention of either wagons or cavalry - I am not sure whether he did not describe them, or maybe description I have is only a partial citation. I also know that he utilized services of mercenary pikemen, but again, no details.

 

Triangle then.

 

That is usual case, yes. Although IIRC the square is not the only solution - if flanks are protected (maybe wagons could do that?), double-faced phalanx is also a possibility.

What is saw tooth formation? I have seen it mentioned, but never really described in detail. Is it something similar to Roman checkerboard formation?

 

Cavalry have been commonly used for this purpose. Terrain has also been employed from time to time. It seems that your army would consist of more than just pikes. Am I missing something? An army composed solely of pikes against a force of combined arms would most likely be forced into the defensive role regardless.

Pre gunpowder Medieval European armies, maybe. Pikes (more or less) were the main weapon of the Greeks, who used them offensively quite often. In fact, they conquered the world with them. Medieval tactics were not very innovative, and were mostly dominated by mounted knights. Pike/spear units were not in vogue among the elite, and they were mostly poorly trained peasants who would probably have been incapable of an ordered advance.

They can all be facing the enemy. And if you want a longer battle line, just stretch it out. It's a very flexible system.

 

Also, there's only so much room when attacking a side of a square. You can only fit so many horses into the front of the charge before they end up attacking thin air.

 

Thanks.

I have based it on battle order of John Hunyadi. Army would consist of a combination of heavy cavalry (knights / mounted men-at-arms, mounted crossbowmen), light cavalry (horse archers), heavy infantry (armati), shield infantry (clipeati), crossbowmen, skirmishers (slingers, javelin throwers, light crossbowmen) and battle wagons (with armati and crossbowmen).

Deployment would be basically this:

------------------Reserve (Heavy Cavalry, Mounted Crossbowmen, Light Cavalry)--------------
- Mounted Crossbowmen - Wagons - Crossbow infantry - Wagons - Mounted Crossbowmen
------ Heavy Cavalry ------- Wagons --- Heavy infantry --- Wagons ------ Heavy Cavalry ------


------Light Cavalry------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----Light Cavalry-----

(~ means basically empty space)

Another possibility I have thought of is having three lines, meaning that ranged troops (above in the second line) would be "sandwiched" between lines of melee troops.

A question: since plate armour would require each knight (as in, heavy cavalryman / mounted man-at-arms) to have two squires - I remember that each Byzantine kataphraktoi had two assistants, and they used lamellar armour, not plate - how practical would it be to have squires integrated into cavalry units as light cavalry (e.g. mounted crossbowmen) so as to minimize number of non-combatants?

I was talking specifically about infantry square, not pike formations in general.

If they are all facing the enemy, it is no longer pike square.

 

My mistake.
The thing about squares is that they're best for defense. If you're on the offensive, a line formation makes more sense.

Right, but it's just semantics at that point. If you're in a situation where you require spears pointing in all directions, then form a square. If not, then form a line. If the enemy is only in the front, you wouldn't want to form a square.

I believe that squires would nearly always follow their knights into battle. I don't think squires were noncombatants.

 

Right, thanks.

Thanks. I do believe square formations were used in march.

I don't think they were, either. But I think they were often if not usually light melee cavalry; I know that Hungarian and French lances had mounted crossbowmen, but I am not sure whether these were squires or separate combatants.

 

Turning 180 degrees is much easier than reforming from a column into a square. Byzantines marched in squares to protect themselves from Arab and Turkish cavalry archers, and Crusaders adopted that marching order.

Problem is, square cannot navigate obstacles, so when terrain was broken, column was required.

https://books.google.hr/books?id=iSWPAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=byzantine+marching+square&source=bl&ots=jxLPezmoh8&sig=ACfU3U1QwAyk_b3-whnm5HgfbP9KpIeEgg&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI3Mfp0NbnAhVI-yoKHb9HARgQ6AEwCXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=byzantine%20marching%20square&f=false

https://books.google.hr/books?id=_b5BDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT304&lpg=PT304&dq=byzantine+marching+square&source=bl&ots=MvjkbpP_An&sig=ACfU3U31gI0j83RUzMv8ZZ79C8ldoTXN1Q&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI3Mfp0NbnAhVI-yoKHb9HARgQ6AEwC3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=byzantine%20marching%20square&f=false