>>500801>>501268Just to clear things up, there is probably a little confusion between you guys. 'Forest' today is pretty much interchangeable with 'woods' (at least in everyday UK parlance).
In the medieval period in Britain, and most of Europe, 'forest' meant an area of woodland under special, usually royal, control, meaning that compared to the rest of a country, they are pretty small areas. Usually for hunting rights etc. Meanwhile 'woodland' just meant any old woods that aren't specifically out of bounds for commoners.
So you're kind of both right: there would be little point leading an army into a forest, unless you wanted to hide. They were not very big, and hard to move through for no benefit (lots of deer though, I guess). At the same time, woodland covered huge swathes more of Europe then than it does now, but most would have large trackways/roads through them, so in the campaigning seasons (spring/summer: less mud and snow everywhere) it would normally have been feasible to get an army through one.
Boring archaeologist out.
