This work briefly highlights the main points of the development of the army in the Middle Ages in Western Europe: changes in the principles of its manning, organizational structure, basic principles of tactics and strategy, social status.
A detailed description of this battle has come down to us in the presentation of Jordan.
Of greatest interest to us is Jordan's description of the battle formations of the Roman army: the army of Aetius had a center and two wings, and on the flanks of Aetius he placed the most experienced and proven troops, leaving the weakest allies in the center. Jordan motivates this decision of Aetius by the concern that these allies do not leave him during the battle.
Soon after this battle, the Western Roman Empire, unable to withstand military, social and economic cataclysms, disintegrated. From this moment in Western Europe the period of the history of the barbarian kingdoms begins, and in the East the history of the Eastern Roman Empire continues, which received the name of Byzantium from the historians of modern times.
Western Europe: From Barbarian Kingdoms to the Carolingian Empire.
In the end of the 5th-6th centuries. on the territory of Western Europe, a number of barbarian kingdoms are formed: in Italy, the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, ruled by Theodoric, on the Iberian Peninsula, the kingdom of the Visigoths, and on the territory of Roman Gaul, the kingdom of the Franks.
In the military sphere at this time, complete chaos reigns, since three forces were simultaneously present in the same space: on the one hand, the forces of barbarian kings, which were still poorly organized armed formations, consisting of almost all free men of the tribe.
On the other hand, there are the remnants of the Roman legions headed by the Roman governors of the provinces (a classic example of this kind is the Roman contingent in Northern Gaul, led by the governor of this province Siagrius and defeated in 487 by the Franks under the leadership of Clovis).
Finally, on the third side, there were private detachments of secular and church magnates, consisting of armed slaves ( antrustionov), or from the soldiers who received land and gold from the tycoon for service ( bucellaria).
Under these conditions, armies of a new type are beginning to form, which included the three above-mentioned components. A classic example of the European army of the VI-VII centuries. can be considered an army of Franks.
Initially, the army was composed of all the free men of the tribe, capable of handling weapons. For their service, they received from the king land plots from the newly conquered lands. Every spring the army gathered in the capital of the kingdom for a general military review - "March fields".
At this meeting, the leader, and then the king, announced new decrees, announced campaigns and their dates, checked the quality of the weapons of his soldiers. The Franks fought on foot, using their horses only to get to the battlefield.
Battle formations of the Frankish infantry "... copied the shape of the ancient phalanx, gradually increasing the depth of its construction ..."... Their armament consisted of short spears, battle axes (francisca), long double-edged swords (spata) and scramasaxes (a short sword with a long handle and a single-edged leaf-shaped blade 6.5 cm wide and 45-80 cm long). Weapons (especially swords) were usually richly decorated, and the appearance of the weapon often testified to the nobility of its owner.
However, in the VIII century. significant changes are taking place in the structure of the Frankish army, which entailed changes in other armies of Europe.
In 718, the Arabs, who had previously captured the Iberian Peninsula and conquered the Visigoth kingdom, crossed the Pyrenees and invaded Gaul.
The actual ruler of the Frankish kingdom at that time, Major Karl Martell, was forced to find ways to stop them.
He faced two problems at once: firstly, the land reserve of the royal fiscal was depleted, and there was nowhere else to take land to reward the soldiers, and secondly, as several battles showed, the Frankish infantry was unable to effectively resist the Arab cavalry.
To solve them, he carried out the secularization of church lands, thus obtaining a sufficient land fund to reward his soldiers, and announced that from now on, not the militia of all free Franks would go to war, but only people capable of acquiring a complete set of riders' weapons: a war horse , spear, shield, sword and armor, which included greaves, plate and helmet.
To fight so to fight, write in the train!
Reflecting on the size of the armies, one cannot fail to mention such a component as supply, and here, too, it became clear that there were no matches with what the author writes.
Robb Stark Army: 298 A.D.
Robb Stark: 20,000 foot and horse
Frey: 3,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry
Edmar Tully: 16,000 foot and horse
Lord Vance, Clement Piper: 4,000 foot and horse
Moat Kailin: 400 infantry
Howland Reed: several thousand infantry and archers (guarding the Isthmus) 2000
Total: 46400 people on foot and on horseback
Medieval armies were not very concerned about the supply of food and medicine. They lived mainly by plundering and taking supplies from the local population. Usually, for civilians, the passage of a friendly army was as devastating as the raids of enemies. Medieval armies did not stay in one place for long, as local food and fodder supplies quickly ran out. This was a real problem in sieges. If the besieging army did not take care of organizing a constant supply of food in advance, the besiegers, as a rule, began to starve even earlier than the besieged. If the army remained in one place, then there was also a problem of hygiene. Medieval armies carried a large number of animals besides horses and did not differ in cleanliness, so problems with dysentery often arose. Disease and exhaustion greatly reduced the size of the feudal armies. During the campaign in France, King Henry V of England lost about 15 percent of his army to disease during the siege of Harflo and even more during the march to Agnicourt. In the battle itself, he lost only 5 percent of the soldiers. Henry V himself also died of an illness related to unsanitary conditions.
The basis of the army's diet was bread, and it was required for one soldier per day about 2.5 kg. and sugar and butter were not available in the Middle Ages. And with meat, things were much poorer, so 2.5 kg of bread per person per day is the minimum necessary for a medieval army on a campaign.
Let's make some simple calculations. Take Stark's army as an example, in 298 A.D. Whispering Forest. Martin writes about 46.4 thousand warriors. Great, let's multiply 46400 by 2.5 kg and get = 116,000 kg per day. So, the carrying capacity of an ordinary one-horse peasant cart is about 200 kg. We get that the daily ration of the army delivers 580 carts. For a month of the trip (30 days), 17,400 carts will be required, respectively. To visualize, if these transport carts are put in 10 meter increments, they will stand almost 170 km away,
from King's Landing to Winterfell (distance - approx. 1200 km)
The speed of movement of the foot army according to the regulations of the 18-19 centuries, a normal day's march was about 25 km. In reality, the army usually moved at a speed of 15-20 km per day. During a forced march, they could walk up to 50 km per day, but they could not walk at this pace for a long time.
To illustrate, let's calculate what baggage is needed for an army of 10 thousand people for a month of a campaign. We multiply 10,000 by 2.5 kg and multiply by 30 days and we get = 750,000 kg. Accordingly, 3,750 transport carts. This is not all. Now let's take into account that the travel agents (one per cart) also need to be fed. And the horses need to be fed. Let's say horses can graze themselves on opposite meadows. However, where can one find early pastures for horses on a hike? .. To simplify the calculations, we will abstract from this problem. Taking into account the fact that the convoy consumes no less soldiers, we will get for a month of marching for 10,000 soldiers, 6,000 workers of the convoy will be required and, accordingly, a convoy of 6,000 carts loaded with food. By the way, moving in one column, such a convoy will stretch for 60 km.
Of course, our calculation is approximate, in practice there are factors both reducing the size of the convoy and increasing it. But in any case, the overall scale of the disaster can be imagined.
Of course, the army could be fed at the expense of the local population. However, in the Middle Ages, the population density was not high (for example, in the 17th century, a village of 2-3 yards was typical) and an army of several thousand people could not feed the immediate vicinity. That is, in principle, it was possible, probably, to feed on the robbery of the local population, but then it was necessary to stop the campaign and engage in ransacking the surroundings for food for people and horses.
In connection with the above, the size of the armies must be reduced 10 times.
"Amateurs are engaged in tactics. Professionals study logistics" (c)
What is your opinion on this?
1. Bilmen
Source: bucks-retinue.org.uk
In medieval Europe, the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons often used in battles numerous detachments of bilmen - infantry warriors, whose main weapon was a battle sickle (halberd). Derived from a simple peasant harvest sickle. The battle sickle was an effective melee weapon with a combined tip of a needle spear point and a curved blade, similar to a battle ax, with a sharp butt. During battles, it was effective against cavalry well protected by armor. With the advent of firearms, the bilmen (halberd) detachments lost their importance, becoming part of beautiful parades and ceremonies.
2. Armored boyars
Source: wikimedia.org
The category of service people in Eastern Europe during the X-XVI centuries. This military class was widespread in Kievan Rus, the Moscow state, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Moldavian principalities, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The armored boyars come from "armored servants" who served on horseback in heavy ("armored") weapons. Unlike servants, who were freed from other duties only in wartime, the armored boyars did not bear the duties of the peasants at all. In social terms, the armored boyars occupied an intermediate stage between peasants and nobles. They owned land with peasants, but their civil legal capacity was limited. After the annexation of Eastern Belarus to the Russian Empire, the armored boyars became close in their position to the Ukrainian Cossacks.
3. Templars
Source: kdbarto.org
This was the name of the professional warrior-monks - members of the "order of the mendicant knights of the Temple of Solomon." It existed for almost two centuries (1114-1312), emerging after the First Crusade of the Catholic army in Palestine. The order often performed the functions of military protection of the states created by the crusaders in the East, although the main purpose of its establishment was to protect the pilgrims who visited the "Holy Land". Knights-"Templars" were famous for their military training, skillful use of weapons, clear organization of their troops and fearlessness, bordering on insanity. However, along with these positive qualities, the Templars became known to the world as tight-fisted usurers, drunkards and libertines, who took their many secrets and legends with them into the depths of the centuries.
4. Crossbowmen
Source: deviantart.net
In the Middle Ages, instead of a combat bow, many armies began to use mechanical bows - crossbows. The crossbow, as a rule, surpassed a conventional bow in shooting accuracy and destructive power, but, with rare exceptions, it lost a lot in terms of rate of fire. This weapon received real recognition only in Europe since the XIV century, when numerous units of crossbowmen became an indispensable part of the knightly armies. A decisive role in raising the popularity of crossbows was played by the fact that from the XIV century their bowstring began to be pulled by the collar. Thus, the restrictions imposed on the pulling force by the physical capabilities of the shooter were removed, and the light crossbow became heavy. His advantage in penetrating power over the bow became overwhelming - bolts (shortened arrows of crossbows) began to pierce even solid armor.
Medieval battles slowly transitioned from skirmishes between poorly organized military units to battles involving tactics and maneuvering. In part, this evolution was a response to the development of different types of troops and weapons and the ability to use them. The first armies of the Dark Middle Ages were crowds of foot soldiers. With the development of heavy cavalry, the best armies became crowds of knights. Foot soldiers were used to ravage agricultural land and hard work in sieges. In battles, however, the infantry was threatened from both sides, as the knights sought to meet the enemy in duels. The infantry in this early period consisted of feudal recruits and untrained peasants. Archers were also useful in sieges, but they risked being trampled on the battlefield.
By the end of the 15th century, military leaders had made great strides in disciplining knights and creating armies to act as a team. In the English army, the knights grudgingly recognized the archers after they had demonstrated their worth in a large number of battles. Discipline also increased as more and more knights fought for money and less for honor and glory. Mercenary soldiers in Italy are best known for long campaigns with relatively little bloodshed. By this time, soldiers of all branches of the army had become property that was not easy to part with. Feudal armies seeking glory turned into professional armies, more eager to survive in order to spend the money they earned.
Cavalry tactics
The cavalry was usually divided into three groups, or divisions, which were sent into battle one after the other. The first wave was supposed to break through the enemy ranks or break them so that the second or third wave could break through. If the enemy fled, a real massacre began.
In practice, the knights acted in their own way to the detriment of any plans of the commander. The knights were mainly interested in honors and glory and were not shy about means in the first row of the first division. Complete victory in battle was secondary to personal glory. Battle after battle, the knights rushed to the attack as soon as they saw the enemy, destroying any plans.
Sometimes the warlords rushed the knights in order to better control them. It was a common course of action in a small army that had little chance of opposing attacks. The dismounted knights bolstered the combat strength and morale of the regular infantry. Dismounted knights and other foot soldiers fought from behind stakes or other military installations designed to weaken the power of cavalry attacks.
An example of the undisciplined behavior of the knights was the Battle of Crécy in 1346. The French army outnumbered the English by several times (forty thousand and ten thousand), having significantly more mounted knights. The British were divided into three groups of archers, protected by stakes driven into the ground. Between these three groups were two groups of dismounted knights. A third group of dismounted knights was held in reserve. Genoese mercenary crossbowmen were sent by the French king to shoot at the English infantry, while he tried to organize his knights into three divisions. However, the crossbows got wet and proved ineffective. The French knights ignored their king's efforts to organize as soon as they saw the enemy and drove themselves into a frenzy with shouts of “Kill! Kill! " Having lost patience with the Genoese, the French king ordered his knights to attack, and they trampled the crossbowmen on their way. Although the battle lasted all day, the English knights and archers on foot (keeping their bowstrings dry) prevailed over the French cavalry, who fought in a disorderly crowd.
Towards the end of the Middle Ages, the importance of heavy cavalry on the battlefield declined and became approximately equal to that of rifle and infantry. By this time, the futility of an attack against a properly deployed and disciplined infantry had become clear. The rules have changed. Palisades, pits against horses, and ditches became the usual defenses of armies against cavalry attacks. Attacks against numerous formations of spearmen and archers or riflemen with firearms left only a pile of crushed horses and men. The knights were forced to fight on foot or wait for a suitable opportunity to attack. Devastating attacks were still possible, but only if the enemy was fleeing disorganized or outside the protection of temporary field installations.
Rifle tactics
For most of this era, the infantry force consisted of archers using several types of bows. First it was a short bow, then a crossbow and a long bow. The advantage of archers was the ability to kill or injure enemies from a distance without engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The importance of these troops was well known in ancient times, but this experience was temporarily lost in the dark Middle Ages. The main ones during the early Middle Ages were the warriors-knights who controlled the territory, and their code required a duel with a worthy enemy. Killing with arrows from a long distance was shameful from the point of view of the knights, so the ruling class did little to develop this type of weapon and its effective use.
However, it gradually became clear that archers were effective and eminently useful in both siege and battle. Though reluctant, more and more armies gave way to them. William I's decisive victory at Hastings in 1066 may have been won by archers, although his knights have traditionally received the highest honors. The Anglo-Saxons held the slope of the hill and were so protected by closed shields that it was very difficult for the Norman knights to break through them. The battle went on all day. The Anglo-Saxons ventured out from behind the shield wall, in part to reach the Norman archers. And when they came out, the knights knocked them down easily. For a time it seemed that the Normans were about to lose, but many believe the battle was won by the Norman archers. Harold, king of the Anglo-Saxons, was mortally wounded by a successful shot, and the battle was over shortly thereafter.
Foot archers fought in numerous battle formations of hundreds or even thousands. A hundred yards from the enemy, a shot from both a crossbow and a longbow could pierce armor. At this distance, the archers fired at individual targets. The enemy was furious with such losses, especially if he could not answer. In an ideal situation, archers would destroy enemy units by firing at them for some time. The enemy could hide from cavalry attacks behind a palisade, but he could not stop all the arrows flying at him. If the enemy came out from behind the obstacle and attacked the archers, friendly heavy cavalry entered the battle, well, if in time to save the archers. If the enemy's formations simply stood still, they could gradually move so that the cavalry got the opportunity for a successful attack.
Archers were actively supported and subsidized in England, as the British were outnumbered in the war on the mainland. When the British learned to use a large contingent of archers, they began to win battles, even though the enemy was usually outnumbered. The British developed the "arrow shaft" method, taking advantage of the long bow's range. Instead of shooting at individual targets, archers with long bows fired at enemy-occupied areas. Firing up to six rounds per minute, 3,000 longbow archers could fire 18,000 arrows at numerous enemy formations. The impact of this boom shaft on horses and people was devastating. French knights during the Hundred Years War spoke of the sky blackened by arrows and the noise that these projectiles made when flying.
Crossbowmen became a notable force in the mainland armies, especially in the militia and professional troops formed by the cities. The crossbowman became a ready-made soldier with minimal training.
By the fourteenth century, the first primitive handguns, handguns, had appeared on the battlefields. Subsequently, it became even more powerful than bows.
The difficulty in using archers was to ensure their protection while firing. In order for the shooting to be effective, they had to be very close to the enemy. English archers brought stakes to the battlefield and hammered them into the ground with mallets in front of the place from which they wanted to fire. These stakes gave them some protection against enemy cavalry. And in the matter of protection from enemy archers, they relied on their weapons. They were at a disadvantage when attacking enemy infantry. Crossbowmen took huge shields equipped with supports into battle. These shields were used to make up walls from behind which people could shoot.
By the end of the era, archers and spearmen operated together in mixed formations. Spears held off enemy hand-to-hand troops, while rifle troops (crossbowmen or gunners from firearms) fired at the enemy. These mixed formations have learned to move and attack. The enemy cavalry was forced to retreat in the face of a disciplined mixed army of spearmen and crossbowmen or gunmen. If the enemy could not strike back with their own arrows and spears, the battle was most likely lost.
Infantry tactics
Infantry tactics during the dark Middle Ages were simple - to approach the enemy and engage in battle. The Franks threw their axes just before approaching in order to chop down the enemy. The warriors counted on victory at the expense of strength and ferocity.
The development of chivalry temporarily overshadowed the infantry on the battlefield, mainly because disciplined and well-trained infantry did not exist then. The foot soldiers of the armies of the early Middle Ages were mostly poorly armed and poorly trained peasants.
The Saxons and Vikings came up with a defensive tactic called the shield wall. The warriors stood close to each other, long shields pushed aside, forming a barrier. This helped them defend against archers and cavalry, which were not in their armies.
The infantry resurgence took place in areas that did not have the resources to support heavy cavalry — in hilly countries like Scotland and Switzerland, and in growing cities. By necessity, these two sectors found ways to bring effective armies to the battlefield with few or no cavalry. Both groups found that horses would not attack a barrage of sharp spikes or spearheads. A disciplined army of spearmen could stop the elite heavy cavalry of wealthier nations and lords for a fraction of the cost of a heavy cavalry army.
The battle formation shiltron, which was a circle of spearmen, was used by the Scots during the Revolutionary Wars at the end of the thirteenth century (reflected in the movie "Braveheart"). They realized that the Shiltron was an effective defensive formation. Robert the Bruce suggested that the English knights fight only on swampy terrain, which made it very difficult for the heavy cavalry to attack.
The Swiss spearmen are widely known. They essentially revived the Greek phalanxes and made great strides with long polearms. They created a square of spearmen. The four outer ranks held the spears almost horizontally, tilting slightly downward. This was an effective barrage against cavalry. The rear ranks used shafts with blades to attack the enemy approaching the formation. The Swiss were so well trained that their squad was able to move relatively quickly, so they were able to transform the defensive formation into an effective battle formation.
The response to the appearance of the battle formations of the spearmen was artillery, which punched holes in the dense ranks of the troops. The Spaniards were the first to begin its effective use. The Spanish shield-bearers, armed with swords, also successfully fought with the spearmen. They were soldiers in light armor who could easily move among the spears and fight effectively with short swords. Their shields were small and handy. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Spaniards were also the first to experiment, combining spearmen, swordsmen and gunners from firearms in one battle formation. It was an effective army that could use any weapon on any terrain for both defense and attack. At the end of this era, the Spaniards were the most effective military force in Europe.
Loading...
