Editing Combined arms (section)

==Middle Ages==
At the [[Battle of Hastings]] (1066) English infantry fighting from behind a shield wall were defeated by a Norman army consisting of archers, foot soldiers (infantry), and mounted knights (cavalry). One of the tactics used by the Normans was to tempt the English to leave the shield wall to attack retreating Norman infantry only to destroy them in the open with cavalry. Likewise Scottish [[sheltron]]s – which had been developed to counter the charges by English heavy cavalry, and had been used successfully against English cavalry at the [[Battle of Stirling Bridge]] (1297) – were destroyed at the [[Battle of Falkirk]] (1298) by English archers acting in concert with mounted knights. Both Hastings and Falkirk showed how combined arms could be used to defeat enemies relying on only one arm.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hamilton |first=John |year=2010 |title=Knights and Heroes, Fantasy and Folklore |id=Set 2 |publisher=ABDO Publishing Company |isbn=9781617842856 |page=18 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LkN6AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA18}}</ref>

The English victories of [[Battle of Crécy|Crécy]], [[Battle of Poitiers (1356)|Poitiers]] and [[Battle of Agincourt|Agincourt]] were examples of a simple form of combined arms, with a combination of dismounted knights forming a foundation for formations of English [[English longbow|longbowmen]]. The lightly protected longbowmen could down their French opponents at a distance, whilst the armoured men-at-arms could deal with any Frenchmen who made it to the English lines. This is the crux of combined arms: to allow a combination of forces to achieve what would be impossible for its constituent elements to do alone.

During the Middle Ages military forces used combined arms as a method of winning battles and furthering a war leader or king's long-term goals. Some historians claim that during the Middle Ages there was no strategic or tactical art to military combat.{{who|date=November 2022}} Kelly DeVries uses the Merriam-Webster definition of combat "as a general military engagement".<ref name=DeVries1966>{{cite book |author=DeVries, Kelly |year=1996 |title=Infantry Warfare in the early Fourteenth Century |page=18 |location=Rochester, NY |publisher=Boydell Press}}</ref> In the pursuit of a leader's goals and self-interest tactical and strategic thinking was used along with taking advantage of the terrain and weather in choosing when and where to give battle. The simplest example is the combination of different specialties such as archers, infantry, cavalry (knights or shock mounted troops), and even peasant militia. At times, each force fought on its own and won or lost depending on the opposing military competence. During the Middle Ages leaders utilized a combination of these skilled and unskilled forces to win battles. An army that has multiple skills available can engage a larger force that incorporates mainly one or two types of troops.

Each type of military formation – infantry, archers, cavalry, or peasants – has certain advantages that the other does not have. Infantry allows a force to hold ground and in the event of overwhelming enemy forces withdraw into terrain that mounted troops cannot maneuver as easily, thus negating the advantage of the horse. Archers provide standoff with their bows or crossbows. Cavalry can maneuver faster and provide fast attack before the enemy has had time to prepare defenses. Peasants are more numerous and cheaper on the royal coffers. Over the long term the army can cross-train and learn the skills of the specialties to increase [[combat effectiveness]]. This is known as a combat multiplier today. The combination of the different skills help provide a commander the flexibility to minimize risk when it comes to engagements. The overall objective of any military force is to fight and win, while also preserving the largest number of combatants to carry on the larger strategic aims of the king. This can be seen in some of the engagements during the Middle Ages.