Medaeval War Tactics

[Geoffrey S]

Edit: nevermind, it's not worth it.

[Boyar Son]

ok ok, role infintry in 1000 AD in this century alone, in france, england, and HRE. If you need to leave out HRE go ahead.

Did france use professional (not knights) soldiers often?

Did knights use spears?

Did knights decide the battle, with only them fighting? answer a YES or NO if you want to.

infintry battles were 1v1? (whole line charging then pick target)

these questions above pertain to france,england, and HRE in the 1100 AD.

thanks to those who would actually answer intead of stating why they wont.

[Boyar Son]

Im sorry at end i said 1100 AD intead of the correct 1000 AD.
I would use edit but guess why its not there :P

[Innocentius]

Others, exactly what do you expect from me, from a question basicaly telling me to go somewhere else?

I expect only what I would expect from myself: a thought-out questions, asked politely and with my own personal research to back it up. For example:

"From what I've read on X, it seems A and B participated in battles mainly when Y or Z were present. [Insert example/proof]. Why was A and B so dependant on Y or Z in X?"

X being the geographic area, time, people involved etc. I think you can figure the rest out yourself.

Did france use professional (not knights) soldiers often?

I don't know, actually. Considering the time, professional soldiers hardly existed in Western Europe, with the possible exception of Italian mercenaries. That is: if you don't count levy soldiers and such as professional soldiers.

Did knights use spears?

The lance was the primary weapon, yes. These were come-and-go weapons however, and would often break in the first clash, or be rendered useless once it got to close-up melee fighting.

Did knights decide the battle, with only them fighting?

There were battles in which knights fought knights, and the infantry assembled were never engaged in actual combat. So yes, some battles were decided by the knights alone.

infintry battles were 1v1? (whole line charging then pick target)

Impossible to know. Judging from what we know from later centuries, it was preferable if the infantry fought as units, but less experienced/professional soldiers could very well engage in those foolish slugfests you see in the movies (NB: movies are a horrible source if you want to learn anything about history).

[Watchman]

Feudal warriors like knights could be termed "semi-professionals" methinks. The early knights were basically the household guards and retainers of the feudal barons, and spent a lot of time attending to assorted duties around their employer's dwelling (or tending to their fief, if enfeoffed with land) when not practising their fighting skills. Ditto for the lower feudal warrior ranks, the sergeants.
The whole point of the system was after all the maintenance of a body of trained warriors capable of economically sustaining themselves.

Mercenaries would have been the only "professional" soldiers in the sense of it being their only occupation.

Anyway, by the end of the 11th century European heavy cavalry - knights - had AFAIK gone completely over to the couched lance (the overhand and throwing-spear approach was still around by the Battle of Hastings, 1066, but was apparently abandoned soon after). The early lance was not meaningfully different from any long cavalry spear (the "wasp-waisted" heavy tapering lance was a much later developement that accompanied the invention of plate armour), and served as such readily enough; nor was the couching technique particularly new or confined to Europe. What the Europeans began to do differently was specialising in shock action with it, and altering their cavalry tactics accordingly; the basic two-rank attack line (with lighter cavalry following close behind in support) described in later sources was probably around this early already.

In other words, the knights became specialists in linear frontal assault; the downside was that the resulting tactical formation was rather lacking in agility, and encounters with solid infantry capable of repelling the attack sometimes led to quite spectacular failures.

IIRC this developement started in France, and was quite succesfully exported by the Normans; by the Crusades it was the signature of European heavy cavalry.

Knights were commonly enough dismounted in sieges, and sometimes in field battles as well; period German knights were noted to be particularly willing to do this and highly competent as heavy infantry, doubtless due to the prevalence of forests (where cavalry have major trouble) in their homelands.


European infantry of the period was a mixed bag. Generally speaking the quality tended to be low in heavily feudalised regions where the heavy cavalry dominated, a trend carried over from late Carolingian times already. The commoner infantry levy of such parts tended to be of rather low quality, and incapable of standing up to a cavalry charge or better foot. There would have been the infantry sergeants (low-ranking feudal troops) and the upper end of of the independent peasantry who would have been much better equipped and of higher fighting calibre, but they would not have been very numerous; certainly warlords preferred to augment their domestically available quality infantry forces with mercenaries whenever possible.

In northern Europe a major source for such capable hired heavy infantry was the Low Countries. The region was heavily urbanised and had little in the way of feudalism (being economically and geographically somewhat unsuited for the system), and relied primarily on infantry militias for its defense; many of these made a career selling their skills to feudal warlords short of solid foot soldiers. Northern Italy was much similar in the south.

Generally speaking period infantry was divided into close-order spearmen and missile troops. The primary job of the former was to form a solid bulwark shieldwall to anchor the line, which the cavalry (the primary offensive arm) could use as a rallying point and the missile troops could shelter behind. Much period heavy infantry was "unarticulated", that is, incapable of performing offensive maneuvers without excessively compromising their formation. This meant that while they could advance to attack against their similarly cumbersome opposite numbers, they were rendered immobile in the face of enemy cavalry as moving would have upset the ranks and allowed the horsemen to smash the disordered unit apart. Primarily the infantry offensive action was left to the missile troops, whose job (besides countering their opposite numbers) was above all to weaken the enemy ranks; later on the northern Italians would indeed rely chiefly on the crossbow (covered by heavy spearmen) for the destruction of the enemy.

The higher-grade infantry of the Low Countries, northern Italy, Scandinavia (which out of necessity retained much of "Viking" approaches to combat long into the Middle Ages) and probably Germany were probably well enough drilled that they may have been (and definitely were, in the case of Scandinavia at least) capable of "articulated" offensives, though.

infintry battles were 1v1? (whole line charging then pick target)

Normally heavy infantry fought in a dense shieldwall (as mentioned above); there's not much room for individual combat there, rather unit cohesion and teamwork is everything. Dismounted knights, being considerably better armed and trained than most foot troops, would have been better capable of carrying themselves in more open-order and indivdualistic fashion if necessary, but normally fought in similarly dense ranks (they were in fact often spread out among the common foot to stiffen the line and add some punch to it).

Actual open-order melees would have been rare, and primarily limited to rugged terrain where solid formations could not be maintained (people usually avoided using heavy troops in such ground anyway), or rare instances where units lost cohesion and became intermingled without either side immediately breaking.

[Boyar Son]

THANK YOU!!

[The Stranger]

Watchman

The higher-grade infantry of the Low Countries, northern Italy, Scandinavia (which out of necessity retained much of "Viking" approaches to combat long into the Middle Ages) and probably Germany were probably well enough drilled that they may have been (and definitely were, in the case of Scandinavia at least) capable of "articulated" offensives, though.
Normally heavy infantry fought in a dense shieldwall (as mentioned above); there's not much room for individual combat there, rather unit cohesion and teamwork is everything. Dismounted knights, being considerably better armed and trained than most foot troops, would have been better capable of carrying themselves in more open-order and indivdualistic fashion if necessary, but normally fought in similarly dense ranks (they were in fact often spread out among the common foot to stiffen the line and add some punch to it).

I would like to add the swiss and the scots to that in the 14th century.

a frequently used formation was also the schiltrom or crownformation. Infantry formed a circle or halfcircle in which infantry was closely packed together, this formation deemed very hard to break for knights but was an easy target for trained archers.

still I would recommend the book the art of warfare in western europe during the middle ages. it has answers to all your questions...

[Watchman]

Sure, but the topic was 11th century... I mean, if you wanted to go for a greater coverage there'd already have been the Iberian peninsula where even knights long fought as light cavalry with javelins, and things were generally done in a rather unusual way owing to terrain and politics.

[Fisherking]

When you get down to it, it is too general a topic for a simple answer. Everything changed several times and you had a wide variance in every region. Who was considered a noble changed and who could own and bare arms.

But as a general rule you could say that most armies until the late period where peasant levies. They fought with what they had or were given and disserted or went home at the first opportunity. Mercenary armies became more popular in the north during the hundred years war and that was basically the beginnings of professional armies of that time. No one really kept a standing army until after the medieval period ended.

As tactics are the best use of men and their weapons you can see that the prevalent weapons of the time and place are the key to any tactical discussion.

[The Stranger]

Sure, but the topic was 11th century... I mean, if you wanted to go for a greater coverage there'd already have been the Iberian peninsula where even knights long fought as light cavalry with javelins, and things were generally done in a rather unusual way owing to terrain and politics.

sorry forgot about that

[Incongruous]

The English were noted of coarse for their use of infantry tactics and skill as such.

I think I am correct in saying that the former Frankish Empire was the area where infantry quality declined rapidly due to it being the heartland of proto-feudal ideals and millitary tactics. Cavalry being the dominant force in these areas well into the 14th century.

The Arab armies also made use of well armed cavalry during this period dind't they? Heavily armed and aroured? In the Western Islamic area's large amounts of well armed archers were common were they not?

The Irish and other Celto-Nordic cultures were also master infantrymen, but also used light cavalry, didn't they? Highly organised war fleets were a feature of Norse kingdoms of britain, at least imediatley after they invaded.

[Hound of Ulster]

The Irish chieftains prefered Kerns (tribal warriors armed with javelins) and Gallowglass (heavy infantry). They also used lots of cavalry.

[Randal]

In the 11th century, the Low Countries were not much urbanised yet, and their armies were as feudal as everybody else's. There were some cities already, but they are rarely said to have played any significant part in the wars of that time... it's all dukes and counts leading their knights.

Later on, the cities of Flanders are very significant and everybody knows the battle of the Golden Spurs. But even that was only a small part of the low countries... most of it remained poor and rural until the early modern age.

So, I doubt there was much good quality urban militia to be found in the low countries in the 11th century.

[Watchman]

Wasn't fair a bit of the Norman heavy infantry at Hastings Flemish mercenaries ?

[Fisherking]

Yes Flemish and Bretons made up a sizable portion of Billy’s Boys. Robert the Bruce was of Flemish ancestry too.

The Cities were not so small and unimportant as you may think, but were more independent and not as interested in war as trade. Lords may have wanted to control everything but some things were just too much to handle. The HRE didn’t exactly have much say in Italy which was supposed to be in their domain. There were City leagues that kept them out.

Burgess and the others were important markets and with out them it was tough to get rid of your goods and exchange them for something else you might need so it was wise of the nobility to leave well enough alone.

[Incongruous]

Indeed, but during the early period of the 11th century outside of Italy there were no great leagues of towns were there? I know that such leagues in germany by the 13th cen. were increadibly powerful, but I have not heard of anything as such before then.

[Watchman]

Yeah well, the feudal lords weren't all that big shots either back then (already given their sheer numbers and fractitiousness). And just about the first thing burghers tended to do if and when they got off the feudal yoke was building as strong a wall around their town as they could afford, and setting up a militia to keep it safe. The latter would have been fairly easy actually, as urban centres in the feudal system were due troops as much as anyone...

Given that the Low Countries region sits at the mouth of around the biggest navigable rivers in Western Europe, and is generally well-placed for trade, one suspects the local burghers could build some fairly hefty walls indeed...

Anyway, that they had enough quality infantry that they could export it as mercenaries suggests a fair bit about the region too.

[Fisherking]

Frederick I Barbarossa had to fight his way into Italy to be crowned. Of his six expeditions into Italy this first was the most successful. City leagues were what kept him out. That was the mid 1100s.

I don‘t think you are going to find a more powerful figure in that time and if he couldn‘t whip the cities into line then what do you think happened elsewhere.

Other than the English Civil war and border fighting with Scotland and England you don‘t have people sacking and burning cities in the central middle ages.

Money was just coming back into common use. Earlier it was a mostly barter economy in Northern Europe. The cities were the best sources of money because of the markets…and before them the fairs. If you some how did take their money then you were left with no place to exchange your goods. Flanders was important to just about everyone in the north in the 1100s so nobody was going to kill the goose that was laying golden eggs.

[Innocentius]

Other than the English Civil war and border fighting with Scotland and England you don‘t have people sacking and burning cities in the central middle ages.

I wouldn't say that, since what you claim is so general that it simply can't be true. I know of a few (fortified) cities that were captured, sacked and burned during the Hundred Year's War (14th century), but perhaps that's slightly out of the time frame. Anyway, I'm almost certain there were sacking and burning of cities and towns in the 12th and 13th centuries outside England as well

[The Stranger]

i think he was reffering to england only... ofcourse there was sacking of cities and towns in the 12th and 13th century... but not much in the english mainland... but they had their civil wars, uprisings and mercenary rebellions... so it still wouldnt be true...

[Fisherking]

Sure, Never Say Never!

What I should have said was Trade Centers…like Burges and so on. They were much too valuable to the Lords and Princes to do much more than threaten them…which I am sure they routinely did. An enemies city that was unimportant to you was fair game if you could get it and were not sure that you were going to retain it. But over all cities were just too important to the economy to go plundering them wholesale.

Burning those places was like burning your own money.

[Incongruous]

Indeed, throughout European warfare the enemies cities have always been the prime targets on an army's hit list. If you burnt them down you not only deprived you're starved and tired men of shelter, and thus invite mutiby or desertion, but of the massive income many of them would have provided you. They would also serve as areas of recriutment in the future.

It is interesting is it not that, warring armies were quite willing to burn vast areas of prime cropland but not a prime city? It has always fascinated me.

[Watchman]

Cities taken by storm tended to get sacked somethign fierce, with all the usual raping and random killing and vandalism. It's not like commanders could actually much influence their troops in such chaotic circumstances anyway, and looting rights were in any case seen as sort of "danger pay" for the dangers of siege assault. Fortified places capitulating before being succesfully stormed were however spared; this was something of a fairly universal rule of warfare, partly to avoid unpleasant desperate last stands by defenders who knew they'd die anyway - which tended to get costly for the too-brutal conqueror.

Cities were mostly of wood, and had major fires every now and then anyway; doubtless the chaos of assaults caused them too, and they could of course be very destructive and dangerous.

The key thing about cities, however, tended to be their location - usually at key trade junctions etc. That meant they were usually repopulated rather rapidly, even after having been brutally sacked with the inhabitants put to the sword (which sometimes happened) - the opportunity to make money was simply too good for people to pass up.

It is interesting is it not that, warring armies were quite willing to burn vast areas of prime cropland but not a prime city? It has always fascinated me.

Burning crops and devastating the countryside was the standard, and often almost only, major operation of most Medieval campaigns. Sieges were costly and difficult things, and commanders didn't start them lightly - it wasn't that unusual for the besieger to come off worse and be severely defeated. Instead the armies then ravaged the countryside around the fortresses. This served several purposes; first, it showed the populace their lord was incapable of protecting them (and protection from enemies was the "social contract" feudalism - and most any other overlordship for that matter - was based on); second, these being crops in the enemy's territory being burned, it hurt him economically. The potential economical and logistical impact of such devastation could be quite severe, and over time weaken the defender so much the aggressor could actually start seriously aiming for territorial conquest (which meant taking fortified places) with decent chances of success.

Of course, a whole lot of small villages and peasants' huts were torched in the process. Heck, later Medieval armies even had men specifically employed to burn down buildings that had first been looted...

Once a city or other major settlement, nevermind a fortified one (which the important ones nigh invariably were), was in a situation where you could torch it it was already by default yours; a valuable possession indeed, and one which it made little sense to destroy as with it you controlled a fair bit of the surrounding countryside.

[Incongruous]

Yes, but it still interests me. This savage destruction of the prime source of food and thus life, and that it was so common.

Well you have taken the city but the country side is rabaged and burnt, the people are starving.
It is for me, the greatest insight into the Medieval mind. Just my two though.

[Fisherking]

Where you find this is the 30 years war. Population ,especially after the pelage, but even before was a much needed labor force.

You also don’t even encounter the mass killings even in the English occupation of Ireland until Elizabeth I. If you want to look at brutal battle grounds Ireland is the place to start and much of our visions of how cruel war could be come from wars like that.

There were regions and times where mass killings took place but it was not as prevalent during the middle ages as before and after.

I don’t think that their feelings of brotherhood were the reason of course. It was more a matter of greed.
It was an age when more and more land was coming under the plow, which meant more for the owners of that land (the lords), and trade networks were being established where luxury products were available. Now the poor don’t buy those things so you know who they were aimed at.

Crop destruction was what happened when armies marched through an area and having one (army) at home was as destructive to you as to any enemy.

Troops foraged for food…you can read that as looted it from the common folk…they brought trains with supplies but they did not provide that much in the way of actual support. They lived off the countryside and if it was an invading army they usually spoiled what the enemy might be able to win back. No matter who was fighting the big losers were the peasants or whom ever land was being occupied. But as bad as it may have been in the middle ages it got worse in the later 16th and 17th centuries.

Also remember that most wars were fought during the campaign season…meaning the summer up until harvest time. This is because food was more available then and roads more passable.

If one were in a siege then it meant that food had to be brought up to feed the troops when they couldn’t loot it from near by, and that was expensive and time consuming. Also remember that people didn’t drink water then because it was unsafe. They had to make beer for the troops…and it was some offal stuff too that they gave them…

[The Stranger]

Sure, Never Say Never!

What I should have said was Trade Centers…like Burges and so on. They were much too valuable to the Lords and Princes to do much more than threaten them…which I am sure they routinely did. An enemies city that was unimportant to you was fair game if you could get it and were not sure that you were going to retain it. But over all cities were just too important to the economy to go plundering them wholesale.

Burning those places was like burning your own money.

true... but sacking cities did happen, ofcourse they were never burned down to the ground like the mongols did sometimes...

[Fisherking]

Yes! During the Crusades there were lots of sacked cities…but that was not in the west. The Venetians sacked Constantinople and got rid of a major competitor that way but they didn’t hold the city for all that long. There was sacking and pillaging in Iberia, but Iberia was the exception to almost everything.

The English, Irish, & Scotts Crusaders on the way to the first crusade stopped off to help take Lisbon…

You can find where cities were taken and some were plundered but for the most part they were too valuable to those around them to interrupt commerce because they depended on them for too much.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Archers...and trebuchets. That's my tactics!