Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by renewiltord | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

renewiltord

A bit confusing. The challenge was:

> Armed at all points, and on our steeds—and Heaven defend the right!

The battle was decided by

> Breton squire Guillaume de Montauban leapt on his charger and rode straight into the English ranks

The outcome was

> Though his mounted charge may have represented a breach of etiquette, the outcome proved such a crushing blow that the English could not carry on and effectively capitulated.

Why is that a breach of etiquette if you're on the horse and you all agreed to be on your horses. But assuming for whatever sake, that this was a breach, that makes the whole story absolutely hilarious. It is reminiscent of the Indiana Jones scene where Harrison Ford pulls out a gun to shoot a guy who does sword tricks.

Hahaha, what a bunch of suckers.

View on HN

The elaborate formalities of historical combat probably evolved as a way to minimize casualties. It's a pattern that appears over and over in military anthropology, where the goal of most conflict was to command good territory or carry off women. Going all-out to annihilate your enemy tribe completely was the equivalent of nuclear war.

It's also much deadlier for the winners to not let the opposing side retreat/surrender, if people feel trapped they'll fight to the death.

Ransom money and family relations or treatment of the hostages the enemy had were probably the big motivators.

Exactly.

I suspect that WW2 went on for an extra year because the Allies announced they wanted "unconditional surrender", which meant death for the leaders.

The Germans had a saying, "enjoy the war because the peace will be hell".

Also a german saying: "Der Soldat der beizeiten flieht, der kämpft auch noch im nächsten Krieg"... if you flee in time you can be able to fight in the next conflict.

An old saying from early in the first Millennium at least, through Menander apparently, but common in many cultures.

FWIW, the length of time between D-Day and the German surrender was less than a year.

The Germans knew long before D-Day that they were going to lose.

The reason for minimizing casualties was the armies consisted of paid mercenaries. Mercenaries had no interest in dying in combat, so it was maneuver to get the other side into a bad position, then they capitulate.

This all changed with conscription. Now, commanders could command vast armies of conscripts who were forced to fight, and the slaughter was/is tremendous.

That’s interesting. Do you know where I can find more stuff about this? And the etiquette of war back then?

The period was the middle ages in Italy with its warring city-states. I don't have a reference handy, as this was told to me by my father (who had a PhD in history).

*A History of Warfare' by John Keegan is a readable introduction to the combined history and anthropology of warfare, with a good bibliography.

'leapt on his charger' implies that he attacked very quickly, perhaps after the battle had officially started but both sides were still in fact glaring at each other and getting ready. I imagine it being a bit similar to a boxing match which begins when the bell rings, but opponents will typically touch gloves as a sign of respect before actually fighting. Sometimes a fighter will use this moment to sneak in an unexpected attack and catch his opponent off guard - well within the rules, but considered poor sportsmanship.

They had already fought for several hours earlier in the day and then paused for lunch. After resuming, the English lost one of their leaders but kept fighting and bunched up tightly. As far as fighting on foot goes goes, this made it impossible for them to win but also impossible to defeat given the number of fighters available.

The modern equivalent would be ending a gun battle by driving an armored truck through the enemy group.

Combat like this without reserve cavalry likely devolved into dismounted melee immediately after the first charge. They would have started mounted, charged with lances, became embroiled in close combat, eventually dismounting or being pulled off, then melee combat on foot.

The squire in question probably broke ranks and ran off and mounted his steed and then flanked his opens at full charge and just ran them over. That’s usually the job of reserve cavalry to smash formations of foot soldiers but they agreed to not have any reserves so it could be considered against the terms they agreed to even if he was taking part in the fight from the start.

Harrison Ford was originally supposed to do a giant sword fight. But then for several reasons, it was shortened and the outcome was much better:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/raiders-...

> Guillaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaume ... de ... Montauuuuuuban!!!!!

> Goddamnit Guillaume...

He had his chicken it was time to go!

What are you citing? My brain kind of lights up but cannot figure it out.

Leroy Jenkins. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLyOj_QD4a4

Makes me giggle every time.

I wonder if the breach of etiquette was that it was a squire who charged, not a knight.

Is it unchivalrous to attack someone on foot while you're on a horse?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com