PDA

View Full Version : The Myths of Medieval Warfare



Mister D
01-15-2013, 04:41 PM
Snip

Training instilled discipline into the knight. The image of the impulsive knight charging headlong into the fray is largely a false one. An Arabian warrior in the Crusades, Usamah ibn Munqidh, complained of his enemies: 'Of all men, the Franks are the most cautious in warfare'. Discipline was vital to the success of the cavalry The shock charge, the knight's greatest tactical weapon, depended on the serried ranks of the cavalry maintaining tight formation during the assault thereby creating an irresistible force that could, according to the Byzantine, Anna. Comnena, break through the walls of Bahylon. The victory won by Simon de Montfort's greatly out numbered French force at Muret in 1213 showed what it could achieve the Crusaders burst through the enemy ranks to reach King Peter of Aragon, killing him and annihilating his army. Incidentally, this battle also offers a good example of a medieval commander directing his mounted tactical reserve in a decisive flank attack. Verbruggen also establishes that knights could be recalled from: charge and be reorganised for further assaults, rebutting a long-held belie to the contrary. A variation of this was the feigned flight, most famously employed at Hastings in 1066, a tactic devised to draw out the defences of the enemy, thereby rendering him more vulnerable to a renewed cavalry charge.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110805091334/http://www.deremilitari.org/2010/06/the-myths-of-medieval-warfare/

RollingWave
01-15-2013, 09:04 PM
I'm fairly familiar with this subject, seeing that I have been working on a rather large mod for Medieval 2 Total War for a couple years now.

From the different battles of various point that I read, it seem to be that the Crusaders were indeed generally cautious, and it's not hard to see why since their reinforcement were extremely limited, any knight lost would take a long time to replace, but this wasn't always the case. especially amongst new arrival to the Holy lands and among the more religiously driven (AKA the Templars ) brash actions were more common (and was part of the reason for Hattin )

The example of the battle of Muret of course, makes the point that while Simon was calculating and brave, the King of Aragon (who's also you know.. a knight) was much less so, seeing that it was noted that before this battle in a show of Bravado he decided to only don the grabs of a common knight instead of one of a King, which probably lead to his death seeing that in common practice combatants would usually avoid killing a figure of such high ranking (because the ransom would be much more lucrative) and his unknown whereabouts also caused great confusion to his (much larger) army.

Of course, if Simon's charge DIDN'T work, he would have also been called a brash fool, bravery and foolishness is often only separated by a thin line.

In other examples though, you can see that there were indeed examples of Knights making decision to charge that really didn't make much sense. one of the more noted example was probably the ill fated battle of Nicopolis (1396) where the HRE emperor Sigmund lead a large army against the Ottomans, in which the large French contingent openly took their own action when their plan wasn't accepted in the war council (and many senior French knights didn't agree with them either, but the younger leaders took their own initiatives) . which ended in utter disaster and probably extinquished the last hope of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Otherwise, the battle of Mohacs was sort of another example, though that part appeared less of the individual discipline issue as a rather poor strategic choice and overconfidence in the knights ability thing. where the Kingdom of Hungary eventually went all in and gambled their entire existence on a cavalry charge against Sueilman the Magnificent... which ended up with the Young Hungarian King getting killed.

Overall, I think ill-discipline is a bad way to describe it, the individual knights were usually disciplined, more so than the average warrior of the time, but Western European general in this period tend to be more prone to be overconfident in the knights charge , this combined with the nature of a feudal army, where command structure is often not Absolute (aka, most men only take order from their immediate lord, whom may often be equal or at least not a direct subject to the army commander ) .

The nature of style of combat was also an issue, similar problem exist elsewhere as well, but in the example of say.. a Turkish army, where the combat style is always more hit and run oriented, if something doesn't work they simply run. but when a charge doesn't work... your in deep deep trouble.

Mister D
01-15-2013, 09:18 PM
Excellent post, RW. Regarding Mohacs, I think the Hungarian King's biggest problem was the simple lack or coordination from and even loyalty of his nobles. Louis was simply unable to respond with the necessary force in time. That must have impacted his strategic and tactical thinking. That of course goes back to your point about a feudal military structure.

Peter1469
01-15-2013, 09:27 PM
After the fall of Rome, there was little of what we would call combined warfare. I don't remember the Latin, but in the Roman legions, they had a term where maximum discipline was enforced- and if soldiers would violate the rules of the legion, such as accepting personal combat, they would likely be executed if they survived, even if they helped the cause. When the legion was in less jeopardy, such things like accepting personal combat was encouraged.

Many of the orders of Knights did bring discipline back to warfare. And the power of the heavy cavalry charge. At least in the begging the Templars were not among them.

In general, had the European Crusaders been more disciplined, they would have snubbed Islam out.

There were three roads running north to south through the Levant to the Sinai. Egypt was to the west and Arabia was to the east. Had the Crusaders cut off all three routes, Islam would have been choked to death.

Different historians have different opinions on this: did the Western commanders not understand this reality? Or did they quarrel on specific strategy. I tend toward the latter. During the 200+ years of the Crusader kingdoms, the Westerners fought each other almost as much as they fought the Muslims. Often in alliance with various Muslim groups. The Templars even joined with the Assassins (not the Muslim name).

We you get down to the basics, the Crusades were pure politics and not religion.

Mister D
01-15-2013, 09:33 PM
The Crusader states even considered an alliance with the pagan Mongols. The armies of Prester John!

Peter1469
01-15-2013, 09:43 PM
The Crusader states even considered an alliance with the pagan Mongols. The armies of Prester John!

Absolutely. To sick them on the Muslims!

RollingWave
01-15-2013, 09:44 PM
Excellent post, RW. Regarding Mohacs, I think the Hungarian King's biggest problem was the simple lack or coordination from and even loyalty of his nobles. Louis was simply unable to respond with the necessary force in time. That must have impacted his strategic and tactical thinking. That of course goes back to your point about a feudal military structure.

True, but he knew what he had by the time he went into combat, which was obviously not enough, yet he decided to go all out for a charge instead of the more rational approach of siege defense and a lot of small harrasment attack, his youth and inexperience may have played a part into this of course. Which was yet another problem of the feudal society , leaving the fate of nation in the hand of someone barely out of his teens with no prior combat experience.


After the fall of Rome, there was little of what we would call combined warfare. I don't remember the Latin, but in the Roman legions, they had a term where maximum discipline was enforced- and if soldiers would violate the rules of the legion, such as accepting personal combat, they would likely be executed if they survived, even if they helped the cause. When the legion was in less jeopardy, such things like accepting personal combat was encouraged.

Many of the orders of Knights did bring discipline back to warfare. And the power of the heavy cavalry charge. At least in the begging the Templars were not among them.

In general, had the European Crusaders been more disciplined, they would have snubbed Islam out.

There were three roads running north to south through the Levant to the Sinai. Egypt was to the west and Arabia was to the east. Had the Crusaders cut off all three routes, Islam would have been choked to death.

Different historians have different opinions on this: did the Western commanders not understand this reality? Or did they quarrel on specific strategy. I tend toward the latter. During the 200+ years of the Crusader kingdoms, the Westerners fought each other almost as much as they fought the Muslims. Often in alliance with various Muslim groups. The Templars even joined with the Assassins (not the Muslim name).

We you get don't to the basics, the Crusades were pure politics and not religion.
I guess your referring to the Crusaders taking Egypt, which is really an interesting thought for many reason, and they did come pretty close .

The most interesting aspect was probably that at the point, Egypt was still at least 40% Christian (although almost non of them were of the Catholic Church), so it would have been a lot more conceivable that the Crusaders could actually hold on to it. but on the other hand, Egypt and the Levant have always historically been a pretty bad geostrategic position for a long lasting Empire (way too exposed with little to no natural barrier to rely on)

I don't think they would have really "snubbed Islam out " per say, seeing that even in the best case assumption it was unlikely that they say.. Conquer Persia. but if Almaric took Egypt and didn't die so young (not to mention leaving only a leper as heir) then the odds of a much longer survival certainly perked up by a lot.

But the always severe lack of man power made this a highly unlikely task, though I guess the best what if assumption would be something like

Amalrec takes Egypt
Doesn't die young
Produce a more legitimate heir
Nur Ad Din dies before making serious gains.
Zengids still collapse into internal struggle
Mongols still wreck the Islamic powerhouse in Persia and eventually Iraq.

But that's not how history work.

Peter1469
01-15-2013, 09:47 PM
The new Total War is coming out soon, right?

RollingWave
01-15-2013, 09:52 PM
supposedly this year Rome II will be out, though frankly due to the vastly diminished ability to mod the game since M2TW I have only had a passing interesting in the last few release. CA has never done a great job when it came to historical accuarcy, though admittedly the last 3 release was better than some of the jokes that existed in the first RTW and M2TW. but its hard to have long commitment to games you can change for the better.

Peter1469
01-15-2013, 09:56 PM
supposedly this year Rome II will be out, though frankly due to the vastly diminished ability to mod the game since M2TW I have only had a passing interesting in the last few release. CA has never done a great job when it came to historical accuarcy, though admittedly the last 3 release was better than some of the jokes that existed in the first RTW and M2TW. but its hard to have long commitment to games you can change for the better.

May favorite was Rome Total War Total Realism, but I can't find a good link to down load it. All I find are newer versions that are not as good.

Mister D
01-15-2013, 10:10 PM
True, but he knew what he had by the time he went into combat, which was obviously not enough, yet he decided to go all out for a charge instead of the more rational approach of siege defense and a lot of small harrasment attack, his youth and inexperience may have played a part into this of course. Which was yet another problem of the feudal society , leaving the fate of nation in the hand of someone barely out of his teens with no prior combat experience.

True enough. It doesn't absolve Louis of bad decision making. That said, the nobility simply did not rally around the crown. Louis was not able to muster sufficient forces to resist the Ottoman advance. Siege warfare, while buying time, ensured defeat without aid from the other Christian states. While it was certainly a mistake that Louis did not wait for reinforcements from Transylvania and Croatia he took a gamble. In his position, a desperate gamble may have been his only card.

RollingWave
01-15-2013, 10:18 PM
May favorite was Rome Total War Total Realism, but I can't find a good link to down load it. All I find are newer versions that are not as good.

Yeah the older RTR was very good, though I like Roma Surrectum better.


True enough. It doesn't absolve Louis of bad decision making. That said, the nobility simply did not rally around the crown. Louis was not able to muster sufficient forces to resist the Ottoman advance. Siege warfare, while buying time, ensured defeat without aid from the other Christian states. While it was certainly a mistake that Louis did not wait for reinforcements from Transylvania and Croatia he took a gamble. In his position, a desperate gamble may have been his only card.

There's a lot of ifs I guess, The Hungarians were unlikely to be able to defend the major cities, but they had a lot of castles in the mountains which would be very hard to take out. And of course, we get back to the problem that Louis being a young king haven't established his authority properly which was part of the reason why he couldn't rally, but even if he did, he was surely going to be out numbered at Mohac still, albeit at a lesser degree. unless he could get a crusade from Europe or something.

RollingWave
01-16-2013, 01:49 AM
Here's my mod for M2TW , a submod for the popular Stainless Steel mod. it bascially tries to expand and push the engine further, and focus more in the high period with great historical detail.

all faction icons

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/29-factions.jpg

Faction starting position and general regions. (though in latest update I did cut off a few region from the Byzantiums as they proved way too powerful, and those region their control were dubious anyway)

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/factions-7.jpg