Warfare in the Middle Ages (1000-1300)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Some basics about Warfare in the High Middle Ages (1000-1300). The problems with battles and sieges, the limits of cavalry, constant warfare, castle and fortifications, etc.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble....
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» RallyPoint - www.rallypoint...
» tumblr - / militaryhistoryvisualized
Military History Vlogs is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.
» SOURCES «
France, John: Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300
Contamine, Philippe: War in the Middle Ages
Bradbury, Jim: The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare
Gillingham, John: Richard I and the Science of War in the Middle Ages, in:France, John (Ed.): Medieval Warfare 1000-1300, p. 299-312
Ohler, Norbert: Krieg & Frieden im Mittelalter
Allmand, Christopher: War, in: The New Cambridge Medieval History VII, c. 1415-c.1500 p. 161-174
Hehl, Ernst-Dieter: War, Peace and the Christian Order in: The New Cambridge Medieval History IV-1, p. 185-228
Bongard, David L.: History, Medieval Military, in: Brassey’s Encyclopedia of Military History and Biography, p. 469-485
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
Hey man, just wanted to say your videos are very well put together, informative, and has concrete facts backing it up. That’s very rare nowadays on TH-cam, keep up the good work!!!!
I would definitely love to see more on your Vlog channel regarding the medieval period. Perhaps commentary on specific events, battles etc. Great video.
isnt Cavallerie quite effective in raiding? I mean it has speed and mobility for supise attacks and the defenders of a village probably didnt stand a chance a gainst a knight.
@@olf7olf72 Raiding was indeed very effective. It was done heavily during the 100 years war. This post feudal period saw the deterioration of knightly conduct. Before that there were chivalric limits to what a knight ought and ought not to do to civilians.
Knights and nobles did have practice working in groups; largely through the hunt, which was more like medium scale military maneuvers than like going out in the woods looking for dinner.
unless, you are, wait for it, the Mongols. Causing ecological devastation just to pass the winter.
I suppose this is also a reason why viking raiders really put the fear into the rest of Europe. Vikings rarely fought battles. They rarely committed armies to fighting battles. Instead they were expert raiders.
They got in. Raided and then got out fast enough that no contemporary military force could muster an army fast enough to fight them in an open battle. Viking raiders therefore could strike at all the things necessary to keep and supply an army, without actually losing men to fighting actual armies.
The problem was that raiding and plunder is one thing, and permanently occupy and forcefully convert a population on a land to christianity is a completly other thing.
You cannot achieve the goals of the crusades with a seasonal viking army, because you need a military occupation force that stays on the land for a very long time.
Seven Proxies
The idea behind robbing the bank is to rob the bank, not to have a shootout with the police.
Anyone could raid. It's not hard to find a soft target, hit it quickly and run away. The reason the Vikings were so successful was their ships which were way ahead of their time. By the 11th century fortifications were more prevalent and advanced and so the Vikings were pretty much declawed.
The medieval ages is one of those periods that's really underrated and overlooked. More of that on your Vlog channel please.
I was struggling in my history class and this helped a lot, thank you^^
Glad it helped!
This reminds me of the battle of Toro during the Castilian civil war. Nobody wanted that battle and, tactically, nobody won (it was between two sides with similar forces and similar number of casualties), but strategically it benefited the Catholic Kings, since they had more reserves and the Portuguese king realised a war would be long, thus he retreated.
I was just starting to get interested in medieval warfare and this pops up haha
Adonissherlock go home
?
Technically Alfred the Great had one of the first standing armies (although he reigned around 900AD)
Paul S He also raised England's first navy to take on the Vikings. Alfred reigned from 871 to 899.
There are a couple of things about medieval warfare that still puzzle me: 1- I understand the importance of castles for defense of an area, what I don't understand is _why_ they were so effective. What prevented an invading army from simply ignoring the castles in the border and heading for their main target (the enemy capital, or whatever) or engaging in a medieval version of Sherman's March to the Sea? Yes, the enemy castle could disrupt supply lines but armies in this day and age weren't dependent on tons of food being shipped overland every day, they mostly carried supplies with them and foraged, no? And from what I understand castle garrisons were reasonably small, outside the protection of the walls they would be hard pressed to mount any sort of attack on a vastly superior enemy army that just passed by their castle. They would in fact be vulnerable to enemy units left behind precisely to catch such attempts.
2- why wasn't the use of incendiaries widespread? Seems to me that instead of spending months or years besieging a city they could simply set it on fire and move on, no? Buildings were wildly flammable, with wood and thatch being used extensively, no fire brigades, and limited access to water. Prime targets for the use of incendiary weaponry and yet we read about sieges that lasted years. Why did no one ever threaten that unless the city surrendered immediately it would be burned to the ground?
If you want to conquer and keep the city burning it doesn't seem like the best idea and were incendiaries common in Western Europe?
@@lukatomas9465 after you burn a couple the rest would open their doors. Mongol tactics, Europeans would be familiar with it.
And if they could lob rocks over the city walls they could lob a ball of hay soaked in pine resin. How many would it take before the defenders surrendered?
Countryside Castles were only important in feudal Europe where cities were still underdeveloped and thus not high priority targets. Controlling the countryside was more important as that's where you resupply your men. In the east the most fortified places were walled cities. This too would be the case in western europe as it emerges out of feudal age.
hey MHV! keep up the great work! could you do a video about the roman logistics when they for example were attacking brittania! it must have been very difficult to perform such a amphibious landing 2000 years ago!
Cheers and keep the good stuff coming ✌✌
A really interesting video! I am actually more interested in this period than ww2, but you actually brought up some points that I have not really considered before, so keep up the good work! Going to check out your patron stuff, you really should get something back for your good work! :)
Nice Video, always pleasant to read your sources. Will you also make videos about the 30-years-war?
Since my lecture this Semester at University I´m very interested to learn more about this important time period in both politics and military.
thank you! Yes at one point, there is good book out there, but right now I want to work through most.. uhm some of my books first ;)
ok, welches Buch hatten Sie den im Kopf? Vielleicht stellt sich ja als hilfreiche und spannende Lektüre für mich heraus.
UTB der dreißigjährige Krieg, hat super Struktur und ist auch sehr neu.
Danke für die Empfehlung.
Ich kann auch noch Ferdinand III. von Mark Hengerer empfehlen, welcher einer meiner Dozenten ist und gut eine der wichtigsten Personen des 30 jährigen Krieges nach 1635 beleuchtet, wobei auch Themen wie der Prager Frieden, Grundzüge des Militärs auf Habsburger/Kaiserlicher/"Katholischer" Seite behandelt werden.
#MakeHistoryGreatAgain
Some standing armies definitely did exist at different points during this era. But this is mostly because the minimum size of an army is hard to define, these standing 'armies' often played the role of personal or official guards rather than military formations. But at the same time some kings and nobles did have many hundreds of knights under their command, which could technically pass for a standing army especially with their high skill, training and good equipment in mind.
There is a modest amount of popular information about medieval warfare between kingdoms. I'd like to know more about feudal warfare between lesser nobles. The Google has failed me.
Crusader Kings 2 needs me!
;)
Kingdom Come: Deliverance needs you too! :D
hey, thanks for dropping by!
The Preorder is real ;)
stronghold
I think all history lessons and courses should end on a heavy metal note.
Another problem with major battles is, that they were seen as gods trials. So if by chance you lose, even if you could retreat and safe your forces, your army will probably lose cohesion. Therefore everyone tried to avoid it unless you had no other chance.
Nice video awesome as always
Can you please do a video on supplying an army before industrialization would be armed with its weapons and equipment, rather then having a mass production of later eras.
Haters gonna hate...
But not here. 0 dislikes.
The exact resource and knowledge
I've got a really important question that needs answering. How profitable was war in the middle ages? It seems like waging war does not make sense if it isn't profitable. Yet there was constant war, indicating that it was highly profitable. Yet we hear many stories about the cost of war bankrupting kingdoms, like the peasants revolt in England 1380, protesting the taxes for the 100 years war. But as a King or ruler, if it isn't profitable, why would you want to wage war? How much is due to pride? The more land you own, the higher your tax base, so it appears they wage war to increase their tax base (war for profit.) Yet wars over all does not actually seem too profitable, like it's a contradiction.
Not a bad video, far from it. Yet without mentioning the late feudal social structures, crucial for understanding how the armies were actually raised, it's pretty sterile. I know that would be a longer video, but still the King calls his bannermen; barons etc, who in turn call their menies etc. What military responsibilities went with the various ranks as far as men-at-arms, trained specialists, what an individual knight was supposed to provide etc. I just think it would have fleshed it out. Also the time covered included the bulk of "The Crusades", so a mention of how Kings either responded with money or troops, how second and third sons often chose to go to win lands they wouldn't couldn't inherit at home... The effect of the plague on Europes wealth and agricultural production also vital for sustaining military forces, fewer farmers, less yields and fewer available levies. The time period is incredibly rich and dynamic and I'd like to see him do a series that examines the evolutionary aspects of Middle Age militaries. Good work, let's see more.
Don't forget the Teutonic Order knights. They where really good organized from 1230-1525 , they had the funds to field many knights etc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Teutonic_Order
and ofc don't forget the Britain's Archery Mandate during middle ages en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow and later en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181 just a few examples
0:30 Which may be why they used to say, "give battle," as if one was doing a favor.
Interesting video, but please leave the supplimental text on screen a bit longer. I read quickly and have a difficult time reading the text before it dissappears, others might not be able to read it in time.
Nice video dude
I've always wanted to know the effect of the cavalry charge impact on both horses and men alike. I understand warhorses were trained to be aggressive, but I'd really like to know how they prepared just before impact. When you see jumps racing or show jumping in the media, a horse can trip quite easily when failing to negotiate a barrier (which are generally collapsable, to prevent injury to the horse). Now, a man at arms, or even an archer, would present more mass than a jumps barrier, even when attacking the rear or flank of a formation of men. How did cavalry maintain formation on impact?
astrospud I think only front row of horses charged in the rest joined the melee at a slower speed with maybe melee weapons like Mace and sword drawn
Why do battles appear to be more common on the Roman period and more sought out than the medieval era?
centralized taxes vs. decentralized services is one aspect mention by Bachrach as the main differences, which could be a factor here. Yet, first we actually would have to look if it was really the case that the battles were more sought out or not. Not to mention that both timelines are very long.
I'm a fan of your content. Have you considered doing a history podcast in English?
;) soundcloud.com/military-history-visualized
I liked this video and everything
What do you think about the Tercios? The war tactics during the 1500 - 1600?
Yes, more Middle Ages!
Can we see a video about different types of troops? For example armored crossbowmen? Like in total war games?
maybe at some point, well, I did the Archer ages ago: th-cam.com/video/HD3uP_LNQ5g/w-d-xo.html
Lindybeige is better for medieval and ancient warfare (but worse for modern)
An interesting quote from Robert Fossier book "The people of the Middle Ages": [..."The tradicional historiography is wrong, once again: the infonity conflicts, being dynastic or not, the attacks from castle to castle, the raids of "damoiseux et gents dames" have led the Middle Ages to to a Ocean of brutal disorder, anarchic and imcomprehensible. That's a incorret interpretation of those wars. It's just the most usual and natural form of the "noble's" activity, the armed mans, which the ordinary life is of that genre. The "werra", will be know as "raid", and if it lasts and has some political dimension it will be a few days incursion, conducted by young Knights with some kinship level against a nearby castle, by reasons of honor, jealousy or just to have fun, gain a girl or maybe some money...."]
And later he distinguish the werra and the bellum: ["...Beyond the differences according to the centuries, that dangerous weather wasn't well seen by commom man, which with them lost its goods or even its life. These are rapid attacks, in which they exercise themselves for the battle, which have given to the Middle Ages its bad reputation. This judgment is therefore, hurried, and so much more unfortunate because there's also the "Bellum", the true one, public, framed and lasting, however absolutely rare. That is a subject for great characters, or at least when the King or the Eral didn't conduct it himself, its a subject of "ost, the feudal duties. In that case, the thing becomes very serious: some thousands of men, wagons, horses, and deaths, but preferably catches to gain a rescue tax. Its reasons are clear e very often serious: political questions and even economical questions by the Late Middle Ages. However the military operations are diffuse: sieges, surprise attacks, "razzias"; the battles are the exceptions and are rarely peremptory, unless there's too many human losses. By the other way, the duration of these engagements are long and end by the exhaustion. ..."] Note I have roughly translated a book written in Portuguese to English. And the Portuguese translation already many many problems with the french original text.
What I think is that first battles were not so uncommon. Many example for this. Second, geography was a problem. There no maps and there was NO IDEA about a thing similar to a map up to a certain point in time. But most importantly, one side in a given war was clearly weaker. This side avoided open battles and tried to just defend a castle or other forts. It is not like both armies were actively trying to avoid a battle. One one would. Castles were very useful.
And of course there was the "small" wars.
Also knights were very useful in an army as well. They had servants and lightly armed troops with them, that were helping with the supplies.
Should have mentioned the introduction of stirrups.
Before the 11th century warfare was actually pretty cheap as everyone just lived off the land. It wasn't until the Crusades and the rise of cities and commerce that things started getting expensive again.
What was the average distance between wooden fortifications?
Two strings.
I love you bruh
It´s funny. I read basically that in Delbrück's Geschichte der Kriegskunst. And in a biography of Richard Lionheart.
The end was kinda aprupt.
beware about Delbrück quite many of the stuff I read referred to Delbrück creating loads of myths etc.
I mean, he obviously has to be read with care and you have to treat him as a child of his time of course.
But the way he demonstrated that Xerxes could not by any means have had a Million men under his command and his analysis of Marathon were brilliant ideas, even though he is of course somewhat outdated by now.
What changed after 1300?
The turf of another historian ;)
And just 300 years later we had the capacity to destroy the planet.
If you do more medieval videos and you want to do a podcast or something, try and get the youtuber 'Metatron'. He's a well spoken Italian fellow with great content on the middle ages and the Roman Republic and Imperial eras.
Die warfare change significantly right before and right after this period, or why did you choose this specific period?
because people that study that stuff for life also use that "specific period"... *hint* look at the sources.
I wasn't criticising you, if that's how you interpeted my question.
The question simply crossed my mind. I mean obiviously later gun powder became more and more a thing and changed tactics and design of fortifications but I don't know if the fundamental principles of warfare changed the way they did - for example - during the industrial revolution.
LOL sorry my fault
you know what happend, you wrote "Die" which is "the" in German, so I read: "The warfare changeD significantly right before and after this period, or why did you choose this specific period?" Thus, I read statement + question, instead of question.
the period is basically called the "High Middle Ages", so its also due periodification, then yes, early medieval stuff basically only earth and timer works. Also no gunpowder etc.
No harm done. Also, I should have proof read my OP. Yes, I wanted to write "Did". Not die.
You said armies of the time were quite small. And I allready heard that from other sources. They got bigger again later during the late medieval period and renaissance, I heard.
Do you have any good information on how armies in this period (1000-1300) were composed?
You mentioned limited cavallry - I assume those were mostly young nobles who could afford a warhorse and wargear - and mostly levied pesants as line infantry. With the pesants providing the bulk of the force.
If I wanted to find out more - composition, tactics equipment ect., where should I look? Would one of the books you linked as sources have what I'm looking for?
yeah, I think it was around 14th century already, once the economy improved.
so far I haven't really looked into the composition, I think I read something that is rarely covered and in general the numbers are often off.
So far I haven't found a book that I was really happy with, the best of these was that from John France.
Besieging armies lost more to disease than to fighting. They did not understand hygiene.
I love your videos.
I'm not normally that guy, but you use the word a lot...
Garrison. GEHR-ə-sin. Stress on the first syllable, no sh. Not gar-ISH-in.
He's Austrian (right?). Schwarzenegger became governor of California doing not much better. Cut him some slack.
Give him time, his English skill got better since he first started TH-cam
We don't watch his videos for expert english pronounciation but his keen insight and knowledge into history of warfare.
As long as his english can be understood, I don't give a crap about how he pronounce it. Language is just a tool to make yourself understood, nothing more.
A personal reflection that struck me when I was reading about the crusades, was that stealing money from jews seems to have been a necessity for a succesful crusade. Both the 1st and the 3rd crusades involved large massacres and plunder on the jewish population so that huge armies could be raised and an extremely costly journey to Jerusalem could be paid for.
But the 2nd crusades didn't include so much anti-semitism and therefore lacked the funds needed to raise enough troops to accomplish anything.
The middle ages called and wanted their outdated beliefs back
Unfortunately edgy, immature right-wingtards rearing their virgin heads again!
Sheldon Robertson Sou you'd like to wear a dunce hat XD
Sheldon Robertson An intelligent person does not purposefully wear a dunce hat and parade him/herself with it you dunce!
Sheldon Robertson > "I'm such a brain dead pseudo-intellectual that I am taking an insult as a figurative badge of honor when in fact it figuratively means that I am wearing a dunce hat. And because I am a dunce I will not address the interlocutor's point and argue off tangentially with shitty comebacks. Also I have a dead brain of a five year for making a childish comment with reference to memes because I am a lifeless virgin residing in basement in my parent's house who never grew up. MOMMM TOILET!!!"
This isn't /pol/ you dunce. Gotta love pissing off a brain dead far right-whinger!!
Is it just me or does it sound like he's talking through a pipe? Maybe it's my headphones.
Misread the title. Thought this was about welfare in the Middle Ages.
Garishuns.
Huh. Kinda looks like Jaime Lannister..
quite often the cavalry is displayed as this complete supremacy unit? Every time they have a documentary about middle age warfare they use one hour to describe how easily uneducated peasant with a bow can kill thousands of knights without a problem. So would not agree with that cavalry from the modern viewpoint is seen as supremacy quite opposite they often showed as something easy to defat and handle with. Mostly because Agincourt is used as a reference for middle ages warfare when it comes to more popular history or just teve shows.
So basically the middle ages were clash of clans
First
11:08 I am sorry, what? Even Muslim sources during the Crusades speak about how the knightly formations were so tight that if you poured a basket of apples on top of it, no apple would fall to the ground. That does not happen without training as a group. During the very long training towards knighthood, which started as early as 6, with the dubbing being at around 21, you were most often together with other noble children also training to be knights. The courts of particularly skilled knights often became de facto military academies during this time, where people certainly trained formation warfare. Just because it was not standardised in a modern (or Roman) way of thinking does not mean that it did not exist. Also, for most of the High Middle Ages tournaments were in formation. The issues of command and control were on a larger level that was often prevelant during the Middle Ages was on a more operational and strategic level. It was not on the level of small-unit tactics.
I doubt your claim about the training process of a knight being an institutionalized one. In order to spend sufficient time drilling, the knight would have to leave his estate and attend an academy. Such system did not exist during feudal age. Apparently a tight ordered charge among crusader heavy cav was a rarity worth mentioning.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Things were definitely institutionalised, albeit culturally. It was seen as improper for a noble family to educate their own child above the age of 6, normally. Therefore they were sent off to other courts, and some courts had a reputation for having very high standards of martial training, i.e. not entirely unlike a military academy, as I mentioned. This could mean 15 years of training before being dubbed (all though the earliest years of the trainees life were not as martial on account of their young age). Modern schools barely existed during the Middle Ages, yet people learned their craft nonetheless, as in the vast majority of human history.
Most knights were not the magnates of the higher nobility, and did not manage a huge estate. Rather they spent a lot of time being professional warriors, belonging to the companies and banners of higher lords. That is how the majority of the nobility spent their time, albeit in history we often hear about super rich and important families. But they were a rarity for obvious reasons. Most knights were not lords. And lords were not sitting alone in their castles.
It was not a rarity to charge in proper formation, there were discussions during the Middle Ages about the differences between the French double-row cavalry formation and the German wedge cavalry formation. There were indeed battles were the lack of command & control among the knights meant loss, where units charged out of order. But it was UNITS that charged out of order to other units, not INDIVIDUAL knights.