Did battle lines typically "charge" one another like shown in movies or was there more of an organized approach?

by Richy8447

The reason I ask this question is because I was just watching a couple of battle reenactments and documentaries (Battle of Hastings documentary, reenactment, Battle of Libusin reenactment and the Battle of Tewkesbury reenactment. In the reenactment they were shown approaching at a brisk walking pace with the exception of Tewkesbury where they had a tiny little sprint near the end.

Now I may be a little confused in my definition of "charging" but I always thought it would be similiar to how it is portrayed in William Wallace, where both lines ran full speed at each other or one line hold and the other runs full speed at them.

Historically, would battle lines have rushed each other like portrayed in movies or would it be similar to how it's portrayed in reenactments?

Charging headlong to engage in a swirling melee is an invention of Hollywood, and is completely, utterly fictitious. Doing either in a close-order battle would’ve gotten you killed very quickly, which is why it was never done.

Close-order infantry sought at all times to maintain formation, because it offered the best collective protection, especially because they are relatively close formations are impervious to cavalry. Collective protection is a huge motivator to morale, as combatants are more apt to fight if they feel protected by their comrades. Maintaining formation was thus consistently emphasized. Classical Greeks placed extreme emphasis on hoplites maintaining their place in the phalanx. During the Principate and Late Antiquity, the bulk of Roman military training focused on unit maneuvers, so that units could react in battle to a wide variety of scenarios while maintaining formation. In battle, units would advance slowly so as to maintain formation, with the two battle lines usually advancing at a very timid pace as they closed. Hand-to-hand combat is also extremely physically and emotionally tiring, and a wild charge will leave a soldier exhausted before he’s even lifted his weapon. While brief, more rapid advances certainly did occur, they were far more measured than anything Hollywood depicts.

This gets to the heart of close-order battle. The goal of close-order battle was not to kill every enemy combatant. Rather, it was to break his formation and cause him to flee the field, whereby cavalry could begin the real killing. This is why the defeated side usually suffered such a disproportionate percentage of the casualties- their men were slaughtered because they broke formation and fled the field, presenting the perfect target for cavalry. Although doubtless an extremely unpleasant experience, infantryman, even in the front ranks, generally had a pretty good chance of coming out alive if they maintained formation. Since doing so drastically increased survivability, it is easy to understand why formations were utilized throughout history.

We forget that warfare is an inherently human experience. Pre-modern combatants weren’t stupid- they utilized tactics that offered them the best chance of surviving, and Hollywood’s ideas of warfare are about as far off as you can get.