Medaeval War Tactics

[Boyar Son]

Playing MTW2, and seeing a certain pic from AoE2 (cav in bac)

I wonder... how'd they fight?

Just a big ol' scrap based on skill? What about the champions of each nation? Nobody used much tactics?

Why knights in bac?

[Watchman]

What ?

[Hound of Ulster]

Most medieval knights fought in small 'battles' of varying numbers. Some, who didn't own horses or chose to, fought on foot with the peasant levies. The horse-borne knights were organized by the affinity of the noble they were vassals of, and serve as a shock cavalry to break the opposition line. Lances and broadswords were preferred in the early medieval period, but would later be supplemented by maces, axes, shortswords, zweihanders and morning-stars. I recommend watching Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V, it depicts the late medieval soldier in terms of equipment and tactics very well.

[Furious Mental]

Obviously tactics were involved if they had a reasonable commander. For instance at the Battle of Hastings the Normans realised that they couldn't overcome the English just by charging up the hill so they spent most of the day skirmishing and drawing out some of the English with feints. Later in the middle ages, when men-at-arms started to fight on foot, obstacles were placed in front of armies to impede the enemy or force them to manouevre a particular way. The English were noted for this.

[Innocentius]

and serve as a shock cavalry to break the opposition line.

That varied from battle to battle of course. During some early medieval battles, the cavalry would do pretty much all the fighting, and knights fought knights, causing low to moderate casualties among the knights themselves.

There was no defined use for heavy cavalry in the 11th, 12th and 13th century.

Lances and broadswords were preferred in the early medieval period, but would later be supplemented by maces, axes, shortswords, zweihanders and morning-stars.

I think you are confusing things here. First of all, lances and swords (not necessariyl broad ones) were used during the entire medieval period and well into the 16th century. Further east, lances were used by cavalry - and with great success - into the early 18th century.

Second, maces, axes and morning stars were common and popular weapons, even among knights, already during the 12th century, it's just that it is mainly the high-quality swords that have survived to today. I realise you refer to the extended use of maces and such by the 15th century as armour improved, but it's important to remember one kind of weapon didn't replace the other.

I take it that you by shorswords refer mainly to the Katzbalge of the Landsknechts? Both the Katzbalge and the Zweihänder were rather typical weapons for the Landsknecht, but had little or nothing to do with knights. "Knights" in the early 16th century still fought with lances, swords and maces, and with the addition of the pistol or rifle later during the century. Also, Landsknechts are usually considered a part of Renaissance or early modern era warfare rather than late medieval, since gunpowder and pikes played such a big part in their warfare.

[Hound of Ulster]

The zweihander was used as early as the 14th century. The famous German mercs were merely most famous users of the big bad body-cleaver.

Nope, I was thinking of the Falchion.

[Watchman]

Two-handed swords have had many forms and sizes over the centuries you know, and go back to quite far Antiquity in some places (although they tended to get fogotten for a while at some point). The version the Doppelsöldners of the gaudily dressed Early Modern mercenary armies are famous for was AFAIK the largest ever actually used for combat, and a rather late developement (off the top of my head I'd guess second half of the 1400s at the earliest); it has been suggested it was developed partly to chop pike-shafts. Partly on the basis that they seem to have been largely withdrawn to bodyguard duties once people started adding metal reinforcements to their pikes to put a stop to such vandalism.

Knights those days, and not a few others, conversely favoured the "hand and half" longsword, as it was versatile, light and small enough to be carried as a sidearm and wielded one-handed from horseback, and the point could be thrust through the very few weaker points there were in period plate armour.

[Innocentius]

The zweihander was used as early as the 14th century. The famous German mercs were merely most famous users of the big bad body-cleaver.

Two-handed swords were used as early as the late 13th century, the famous Zweihänder only appeared towards the late 15th century however, as a response to pike warfare.

Nope, I was thinking of the Falchion.

The falchion was mainly popular during the early to high middle ages, but faded in popularity towards the end of the 14th century, when armour started to improve dramatically.

[...]it has been suggested it was developed partly to chop pike-shafts.

Ah, one of the oldest debate topics among military history nerds

I think it has been proved, through some research, can't cite any source unfortunately, that they were not likely to be capable of chopping off pike-shafts, they were rather designed to

a) shatter the pike-shafts (sweep them aside)
b) reach through the ranks and cut the pikeman (thus its great length)

[KrooK]

Tactics into medieval.
Its very hard to describe general tactics because into different parts of Europe people used different tacticsl. Just compare French tactic from beginning of XV century with with polish tactic from great polish teutonic war 1409-1411. I won't even mention Mongols because their tactic was really understood (with honorable mention of Lisowczycy unit) into XX century.

[Watchman]

Steppe-nomad fighting techniques tended to be a little murky for most people who didn't have the misfortune of living next to the troublesome buggers. Those who did, of course, by necessity tended to understand them quite well and came up with countermeasures in quite short order.

But yeah, there's the general problem that even if one brackets "Medieval" as between around the 11th to 15th centuries AD, and in the most common geographical definition of "Europe", there's still immense variations in tactics in both different times and places over it. Few people anywhere made war in the 15th century in the same manner as it had been made in the 11th; and the Bretons were different from the Normans, the Celtic Fringe from the Brits, the Scandinavians from the Germans, the Hungarians from the Austrians, the Russians from the Byzantines, the diverse Iberians from just about everyone else, the Venetians and Genoans from the Sicilians, all according to the vagaries of local geography, economy and sundry as well as the enemies they had to fight.

[Boyar Son]

please, generaly explain the tactics of the northern europeans (from England to france and HRE).

What did they do mostly with inf.?

What'd they do with archers moslty?

What'd they do with knights mostly?

What'd they do in battle? (just one head on fight? or depends on the general?) u know.. pitched battle.

who were the mainline inf? mainline archers? explain who generals preffered to recruit more, use more, sergeants or militia?


CLEARER?!??!?!?!?!

[Innocentius]

CLEARER?!??!?!?!?!

No. It's still a huge topic. You know, no one in here can give you the exact answers, and few in the world probably knows. Besides, we are not your question answering army, there are the things called Google and Books, you know.

[Furious Mental]

Yeah, read a book. You can't expect clear and detailed explanations of the entirety of medieval military tactics in a forum post. What I can tell you in one sentence, however, is that the vast majority of fighting consisted of raiding done by cavalry or mounted infantry from small garrisons.

[Boyar Son]

I come here asking a question to knoweledgable people and "google" is what i get innocentius?

I cant help but think you answered me like this because of some debate in the backroom...

[Peasant Phill]

I can't help but think that you would have had an answer if you would have asked it more politely, more precise and maybe backed by some research already done by you where others could start off.

Just a thought.

[Geoffrey S]

I come here asking a question to knoweledgable people and "google" is what i get innocentius?

I cant help but think you answered me like this because of some debate in the backroom...

If you want to know more on the subject, finding more basic information first is a polite way to go about it. Clearly by your extremely broad questions this knowledge doesn't exist yet, so it's quite justified that some people decide to put as much effort into answering as you put into questioning.

That said, some people have been remarkably polite and given their answers to your questions. Be grateful.

[Innocentius]

I come here asking a question to knoweledgable people and "google" is what i get innocentius?

Yes, that's because Google should always be your first option and choice when looking for information online. There's tons of webpages out there, use them! And if you can't find anything on these websites, check what books there are on the subject.

I cant help but think you answered me like this because of some debate in the backroom...

I can assure you that is not the case (I don't even recognize you from the Backroom), but I've seen other threads in various forums were people pop in and throw a very broad question, asking that it be answered for them - even though they could find out themselves in the first place.

I can also assure you that no one in here is knowledgeable enough to fully answer your question. Like Peasant Phill said; ask more politely, back it up with some of your own research and ask a somewhat more precise question, and at least i would be glad to help (if I can, that is).

[Watchman]

As it happens I've read enough on the subject that I could answer, to some degree at least, even the broad-spectrum inquiry here. But merely thinking of the amount of typing that would be necessary to cover any of the numerous different "theaters" (which actually had surprisingly little interaction with each other much of the time, chiefly due to geographical obstacles) of Medieval European warfare to any degree frankly boggles the mind.

Put bluntly, I don't have the time, energy or interest for that kind of essay.

Which is why more specific questions of more manageable scale and depth would be rather more likely to get real answers beyond "...just Google it, 'kay?"

[Pannonian]

please, generaly explain the tactics of the northern europeans (from England to france and HRE).

What did they do mostly with inf.?

What'd they do with archers moslty?

What'd they do with knights mostly?

What'd they do in battle? (just one head on fight? or depends on the general?) u know.. pitched battle.

who were the mainline inf? mainline archers? explain who generals preffered to recruit more, use more, sergeants or militia?


CLEARER?!??!?!?!?!

I recommend the newsgroup soc.history.medieval. If they can't answer your question, then they'll be able to point you to books you can read in order to reach your own conclusion. A caveat is that they don't suffer fools, so they'll expect your questions to be highly focused and backed up by at least basic knowledge, and that you'll be able to understand the answers they give. Still, from my experience, if you fulfill these basic criteria, they're friendly enough, and immensely helpful.

[The Stranger]

please, generaly explain the tactics of the northern europeans (from England to france and HRE).

What did they do mostly with inf.?

What'd they do with archers moslty?

What'd they do with knights mostly?

What'd they do in battle? (just one head on fight? or depends on the general?) u know.. pitched battle.

who were the mainline inf? mainline archers? explain who generals preffered to recruit more, use more, sergeants or militia?


CLEARER?!??!?!?!?!

i suggest you read the book, the art of warfare in western europe during the middle ages - by Richard Vaughan

very general

infantry was until early 14th century used as a backup for the knights... the battle was usually decided in clashes of knights... after that they became more and more important and capable of holding their own... contributing to this was the rise of the longbowmen, the scottish pikemen, the flemish pikemen and last bot not least the swiss.

archers usually skirmished infront of the mainline to pepper the enemy and then withdraw, to later fill the gaps in the battleformation. they were few and underused, but deadly nonetheless. though most knights regarded them, specially the crossbow as unholy weapons, so they didnt respect them.

cavalry was the main force of the medieval army in the west, they were the best trained which made up for their small numbers. they usually tried to break through enemy formation with charges from the centre and flanks to run through it and then charge again from the rear. the power of the knights lay in their dense formation not their individual force, if they broke ranks they could easily be encircled by the foot who usually outnumbered them.

the usual misconception that in medieval battles generals just charged and didnt care what happened is very wrong. the most usual thing to do is to split the army into 3, the vanguard, the main part and the rear guard, the rearguard was usually commanded by the general himself or an able companion. the rearguard was very important because it had to break the tide of battle or cover the retreat, so the most trusted and battlehardened men could be found there.

[Boyar Son]

If you want to know more on the subject, finding more basic information first is a polite way to go about it. Clearly by your extremely broad questions this knowledge doesn't exist yet, so it's quite justified that some people decide to put as much effort into answering as you put into questioning.

That said, some people have been remarkably polite and given their answers to your questions. Be grateful.

You guys went on to talk about weopons and google! lol

ok, 1000 AD- 1300 AD, big difference in them? if so im interested in 1000AD

[Boyar Son]

yeah and about google, not very helpful... mostly games comes out.

@Watchman-hmm no time? that must be some essay

@pannonian- if they require that then i guess its best i dont go there, my medieval war history comes from totalwar games, kindom of heaven, and braveheart.

@Pheasant phil-im sorry you have the wrong thread, this is about medieval war tactics and strategy.

Really I tried google, wiki too and they dont answer my questions at all, thats why I came here, not to be flamed though.

[Pannonian]

You guys went on to talk about weopons and google! lol

ok, 1000 AD- 1300 AD, big difference in them? if so im interested in 1000AD

Time and locale. If you want a good answer, it'll probably go into social structures and economics as well. Look in google groups in soc.history.medieval and you'll find some decent threads on the subject. Eg. one discussion of Hastings went into a discussion of the geography, the strategy of both commanders leading to and entering the battle, logistics, timing of sunset, etc. From that thread, I learnt more about why each side did what they did than I ever did at school.

[Boyar Son]

Time and locale. If you want a good answer, it'll probably go into social structures and economics as well. Look in google groups in soc.history.medieval and you'll find some decent threads on the subject. Eg. one discussion of Hastings went into a discussion of the geography, the strategy of both commanders leading to and entering the battle, logistics, timing of sunset, etc. From that thread, I learnt more about why each side did what they did than I ever did at school.

pannonian I googled this site but I dont see much sites that match the quality of the one you described, so could you post a link please?

or is this it? http://faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/so....medieval.html

[Watchman]

@Watchman-hmm no time? that must be some essay

Oh you bet. I could spend hours merely discussing various major deviations from the very general and abstract summary The Stranger gave...

It's kind of like someone in the Backroom once quipped about Socialism; "it's like metal music, where every eejit seems to have his own brand."

[Peasant Phill]

@Pheasant phil-im sorry you have the wrong thread, this is about medieval war tactics and strategy.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. What has the subject has to do with the way you pose your question (demand?)?

[Pannonian]

pannonian I googled this site but I dont see much sites that match the quality of the one you described, so could you post a link please?

or is this it? http://faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/so....medieval.html

That's the newsgroup. Now look in the archives about those subjects you want to know about. And don't bother posting general questions like those you've done here until you've done at least some preliminary research to show you at least know the basics.

[Geoffrey S]

You guys went on to talk about weopons and google! lol

ok, 1000 AD- 1300 AD, big difference in them? if so im interested in 1000AD

Still a massive subject. Look, try this. When you ask a historical question, it's extremely easy to end up with such a massive subject that it's impossible to give an answer outside of writing a thick book, and even then it's tough. To prevent this, it's essential to contain a number of basics in a question: time, place, context (or subject). Once you've done that, look if it's possible or necessary to limit the wording even further; for instance, Europe to France, France to Normandy; or 'medieval' to 1000-1300, 1000-1300 to a more accurate time, and that to a specific event you feel illustrates what you want to investigate. Without these it's impossible for others to answer in a meaningful way.

Like I said, expect as much effort in replies as you put into your own research before posing the question. In that regard I think some have been extremely generous to you, and you yourself rather thankless.

@Watchman-hmm no time? that must be some essay

Well, yeah. Plenty of books written on the subject.

[The Stranger]

Oh you bet. I could spend hours merely discussing various major deviations from the very general and abstract summary The Stranger gave...

It's kind of like someone in the Backroom once quipped about Socialism; "it's like metal music, where every eejit seems to have his own brand."

so can I :P i said it was very general...

but he isnt really asking a very detailed question... so he gets general answers... and I wont be retyping entire books... if he wants to know... visit the library...

@Boyar Son, if i were you i'd take the advice of geoffrey

[Boyar Son]

I guess you guys find questions that are not easy irratating lol but ok I thank those who answered me on the topic or provided me with a source. Others, exactly what do you expect from me, from a question basicaly telling me to go somewhere else?

@peasant phil-still no answer to the topic eh?