Infantry in the Middle Ages
Despite the rise of knightly cavalry in the 11th century, infantry played an important role throughout the Middle Ages on both the battlefield and in sieges. From the 14th century onwards, it has been argued that there was a rise in the prominence of infantry forces, sometimes referred to as an "infantry revolution", but this view is strongly contested by some military historians.
Cost and recruitment: the growth of infantry
The rising costs of war
In the medieval period, the mounted warrior held sway for an extended time. Typically heavily
Recruitment
By the 11th century, much of the infantry fighting was conducted by high-ranking nobles, middle-class freemen and peasants, who were expected to have a certain standard of equipment, often including helmet, spear, shield and secondary weapons in the form of an axe, long knife or sword. Peasants were also used for the role of archers and skirmishers, providing missile cover for the heavy infantry and cavalry. The High Medieval period also saw the expansion of mercenary forces, unbound to any medieval lord.
The rising importance of foot troops, thus, brought not only the opportunity but also the need to expand armies substantially. Thus as early as the late 13th century, we can observe Edward I campaigning at the head of armies incorporating tens of thousands of paid archers and spearmen. This represented a major change in approaches to recruitment, organization, and above all pay.[3]
Organisation and deployment
Organization
The importance of good order was well understood in medieval warfare:
Two great evils .... can follow from a disordered formation: one is that enemies can easily break into it; the other is that the formations may be so compressed that they cannot fight. Thus it is important to keep the formation in ranks and tight and joined together like a wall
Militia forces were often organised by guilds or districts, with their officers and banners.[5] Swiss muster rolls show officers and standard bearers being appointed, and men being assigned to particular positions in the formation.[6] Various accounts show that it was the role of commanders to make sure their men knew their position in the formation, knew which banners they fought under and who stood around them.[7]
Infantry formations
Philippe Contamine identifies three basic infantry formations in the Middle Ages; the wall, the circle or crescent and the deep solid formation, either rectangular or triangular.[8]
The wall
Linear formations existed throughout the medieval period. In the early Middle Ages, infantry used the
The circle
This formation, called the crown by J. F. Verbruggen, was used by infantry to form an all round defence against cavalry.[11] It is recorded as having been used by Flemings, Swiss, Scots and Scandinavians.[12][13]
Deep formations
Deep columns were favoured by the Swiss. A reconstruction of the deployment of
Triangular formations were also used, this sometimes being described as "in the manner of a shield" (L. in modum scuti).
The nature of infantry combat
Infantry versus cavalry
Tactically there were only two ways for infantry to beat cavalry in an open field battle: firepower and mass. Firepower could be provided by swarms of
The Crusades offer an illustration of the growing recognition of the need for infantry. Against the mounted Islamic foes of European armies, infantry forces were of vital importance. Archers, for example, were essential in holding the fast-moving Muslim cavalry at bay—suppressing their firepower, and allowing the armoured knights to mount successful counter-attacks. Pikemen were important in screening the flanks of the Christian forces, always vulnerable to assault by the Turkish horsemen.
Infantry versus infantry
The essential elements of success in infantry combat were seen as good order and a tight formation, not impetus. During the Hundred Years' War, it was considered disadvantageous for infantry to be forced to attack. If infantry were forced to advance to the attack, it should be at a slow, steady pace and without turning.[20] The actual mechanics of impact are not, however, fully understood. In his reconstruction of the infantry fight at Agincourt, John Keegan describes the French as running to contact over the final yards but the English stepping back to "wrong foot" them. The English gave back a "spear's length", leaving the two bodies spear fencing at a distance of 10–15 ft.[21] This idea of a space between the battlelines in which combat takes place also features in some reconstructions of shield wall combat.[22] Others see the clash of shield walls as involving the physical impact of one line with the other.[23]
While it was known for a poorly arrayed line to disintegrate on contact with the enemy, it was more usual for a static battle to ensue and last for some time. Combat was not constant, the two sides parting to rest and reorganise. This could happen several times during combat. When it wasn't possible, an infantry force could become compressed and disordered with disastrous consequences, as happened at Agincourt and Westrozebeke.[24]
The role of archery
The traditional role of archery on the medieval battlefield was to begin the action, advancing in front of the main body of the army, as occurred at the
Later in the Middle Ages, massed archery techniques were developed. English and Welsh
The role of infantry in sieges
A large number of sieges during the medieval era called for huge numbers of infantry in the field, both in defence and in the attack. Aside from labour units to construct defensive or offensive works, several specialists were deployed such as artillerymen, engineers and miners. Strongly fortified castles were hard to overcome. The simplest, most effective method was blockade and starvation. Artillery in the form of catapult, siege engines and later gunpowder weapons played an important role in reducing fortified positions. Mining beneath walls, shoring up the tunnel then collapsing it was also used. Defenders employed counter-tactics- using their artillery, missile weapons, and countermines against attacking forces. Against sieges, cavalrymen were not as valuable as footmen, and a large number of such troops was also used in the construction of fortifications. Free mercenary forces such as the Condottiere generally attempted to defeat their foes in open field battle or manoeuvre, but also participated in sieges, adding to the specialist ranks that bolstered the growing dominance of infantry.[29]
Notable infantry of the Middle Ages
Swiss pikemen
The use of long
Morale, mobility and motivation
Rather than reluctant peasant levies dragooned into service by the local lords, the Swiss often fought as volunteer
Weapons and equipment
The Swiss initially started with mid-length polearms such as the halberds and the lucerne hammer, but eventually adopted the pike to fight more effectively in open terrain during the 15th century, after facing difficulties with dismounted gendarmes.[32] These were excellent for dealing with mounted assaults. Rather than simply meet a lance on equal terms, a cavalryman facing the Swiss could expect to deal with sharp points and slashing blows that could certainly not cleave his armour, but could easily break his bones. Some polearms had hooks that could drag an enemy horseman from his mount. Pole weapons were mixed in combat, with pikemen in the front ranks and halberdiers deployed further back to break the deadlock of the "push of pike" after the former had delivered the initial shock treatment. The Swiss wore little armour, unlike the ancient phalanx warriors of old, dispensing with greaves or shield, and donning only a helmet and a relatively light reinforced corselet.[33]
Manoeuvre and formations
In numerous battles before the rise of the Swiss, it was not uncommon for pikemen to group and await a mounted attack. Such an approach is sensible in certain circumstances, particularly if the phalanx occupies a strong position secured by terrain features. The downside is that it allows the attacking force more initiative. At the
When fighting on their own the Swiss often conducted complicated pre-battle manoeuvres through rough terrain to outflank their opponents, the different pike columns attacking from different directions. This was seen at the battles of Grandson, Morat, Nancy, and Novara. On the other hand, when employed in mercenary service they often showed a surprising stubbornness in clinging to frontal assaults (Bicocca, Cerignola), trusting that their reputation for ferocity and unflinching resolve would overcome any opposition.[34]
A typical pike force was divided into three sections or columns. The Swiss were flexible in their dispositions – each section could operate independently or combine with others for mutual support. They could form a hollow square for all-round defence. They could advance in echelon or a triangular "wedge" assault. They could manoeuvre to mount wing attacks – with one column pinning the foe centrally, while a second echelon struck the flanks.[35] They could group in-depth on a strong natural position like a hill. Even more disconcerting to their opponents, the Swiss attacked and manoeuvred aggressively. They did not await the mounted men, but themselves took the initiative, forcing their opponents to respond to their moves. It was a formula that brought them much battlefield success.
The famous Swiss hollow square provided for a vanguard group of blademen using slashing halberds or two-handed swords to break the front of cavalry formations. Bowmen and crossbowmen sometimes preceded the main body also as to provide missile cover, and similar contingents protected the flanks. The main force of pikemen advanced behind this screen. Battle was bloody and direct, and the Swiss killed any opponent regardless of knightly status. At the battle of Murten in 1477, the Swiss demonstrated that the square was not a static formation but could be used aggressively. Deployment of the vanguard, main body and rearguard were staggered in echelon, massing 10,000 men in a very small area (60 by 60 meters). The opposition was liquidated.[36]
Effectiveness of the Swiss
The Swiss won a series of spectacular victories throughout Europe, helping to bring down the feudal order over the time, including victories at Morgarten, Laupen, Sempach, and Grandson. In some engagements the Swiss phalanx included crossbowmen, giving the formation a missile stand-off capability. Such was their effectiveness, that between 1450 and 1550 every leading prince in Europe either hired Swiss pikemen or emulated their tactics and weapons (such as the German Landsknecht). Even the Swiss, however, were not invincible; they could be beaten when confronted with a foe with absolute superiority in numbers, weaponry and armour (as almost happened at Arbedo in 1422, and at St Jakob in 1444) and the advent of firearms and field fortifications made the Swiss frontal steamroller attack extremely risky (as shown by the battles of Cerignola and Bicocca).[37]
English and Welsh longbowmen
The English longbowman brought new effectiveness to European battlefields, not hitherto known widely for native archery. Also unusual was the type of bow used. Whereas Asian forces typically relied on the powerful multi-piece, multi-layered composite bow, the English relied on the single-piece longbow which delivered a stinging warhead of respectable range and punch.
Longbows and archers
In the British Isles, bows have been known from ancient times, but it was among the tribal Welsh that proficiency in use and construction became highly developed. Using their bows, the Welsh forces inflicted a heavy toll on the English invaders of their lands. Adapted by the English, the longbow was nevertheless a difficult weapon to master, requiring long years of use and practice. Even bow construction was extended, sometimes taking as much as four years for seasoned staves to be prepared and shaped for final deployment. A skilled longbowman could shoot 12 arrows a minute, a rate of fire superior to competing weapons like the crossbow or early gunpowder weapons. The nearest competitor to the longbow was the much more expensive crossbow or Arbalest, used often by urban militias and mercenary forces. It required less training but lacked the range of the longbow. A cheap "low class" weapon, considered "unchivalrous" by those unlucky enough to face it, the longbow outperformed the crossbow in the hands of skilled archers, and was to transform several battlefields in Europe.[38]
The longbow on the battlefield
Longbowmen were used to great effect on the continent of Europe, as assorted kings and leaders clashed with their enemies on the battlefields of France. The most famous of these battles were
The widespread use of the crossbow
While the famous English longbowman is better known in the popular imagination, the missile troops that caused the most damage in the medieval era were the crossbowmen. The Catholic Church tried to outlaw the crossbow and all other ranged weapons at the
Genoese crossbowmen
The best crossbowmen were considered to be Genoese crossbowmen from Italy,[41] and their counterparts from the Iberian peninsula, such as Barcelona. In Spain crossbowmen were considered in rank equivalent to a cavalryman.[38] The 14th century chronicler Ramon Muntaner believed the Catalans to be the best crossbowmen, because they were capable of maintaining their own weapons.[42]
Crossbow guilds were common in many cities across Europe and crossbow competitions were held. These not only provided a pool of skilled crossbowmen but also reflect the social standing of the crossbowmen. Records of the Guild of St. George in Ghent show an organisation of some sophistication, fielding uniformed crossbowmen organised in companies under officers and standard-bearers, with support services such as pavise carriers (targedragers) and surgeons.[43] Similarly organised co-fraternities of crossbowmen were present in French towns and cities in the 15th. century.[44] Crossbowmen made up a significant proportion of Italian militias in the 13th and 14th century, again organised into units with officers, standards and pavise bearers. In some cities, such as Lucca, they were organised into elite and ordinary classes.[45]
The crossbow on the battlefield
Crossbowmen generally opened a battle by skirmishing ahead of the army, as at the
Infantry and the Medieval military revolution
Ayton and Price identify three components to the so-called "military revolution" occurring at the end of the Middle Ages; a rise in the importance of infantry to the detriment of heavy cavalry, increasing use of gunpowder weapons on the battlefield and sieges, as well as social, political, and fiscal changes allowing the growth of larger armies.
It would be wrong to assume that the infantry revolution swept heavy cavalry from the field. Improvements in armour for man and horse allowed cavalry to retain an important role into the 16th century.[50] Instead, the three components of revolution identified by Ayton and Price led to a rebalancing of the elements of the medieval tactical system, opening the way for an integrated arms approach in the 16th century.[51]
See also
Notes
- ^ Verbruggen 1997, pp. 46–7.
- ^ a b c Keen 1999, pp. 74–183.
- ^ Keen 1999, p. 148.
- ^ Rogers 2007, p. 179.
- ^ Nicholson 2004, p. 120.
- ^ Miller (1979), pp17, 24
- ^ Rogers 2007, p. 164.
- ^ Contamine 1984, pp. 231–32.
- ISBN 1-898281-10-6.
- ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 162–63.
- ^ Verbruggen 1997, pp. 184–85.
- ^ a b Contamine 1984, p. 231.
- ISBN 1-85367-208-4.
- ISBN 0-85045-334-8.
- ^ a b Contamine 1984, p. 232.
- ^ Griffiths(1995), p.189
- ^ James M. Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade: 1213-1221, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986
- ^ Creveld 1989, pp. 81–98.
- ^ Nicholson 2004, pp. 12–156.
- ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 167, 178.
- ISBN 0-14-004897-9.
- ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 179–80.
- ^ Pollington(1996), p.184
- ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 180–81.
- ^ Rogers 2007, p. 176.
- ^ Verbruggen 1997, p. 212.
- ^ Verbruggen 1997, p. 213.
- ^ DeVries & Smith 2012, pp. 37–38.
- ^ Santosuosso 2004, pp. 160–69.
- ^ See Caesar's Gallic Commentaries
- ^ Santosuosso 2004, pp. 201–216.
- ^ "The Swiss".
- ISBN 0-8014-9062-6
- ^ "The Swiss".
- ^ Santosuosso 2004, pp. 201–316.
- ^ Santosuosso 2004, p. 291.
- ^ Santosuosso 2004, pp. 213–291.
- ^ a b c Santosuosso 2004, pp. 130–36.
- ISBN 1-85367-081-2.
- ISBN 0-7524-1780-0.
- ^ Nicolle, David (2000) Failure of an Elite - The Genoese at Crécy Archived 2009-10-15 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Mott, L.V. : The battle of Malta 1283: Prelude to a disaster pp151-2 in Kagay Donald J. and Villalon L.J.Andrew (eds) The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-29. Retrieved 2010-12-29.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Claeys, Prosper (1885) The Guild of Saint George in "Local historical pages from Ghent"[1]
- ISBN 0-7509-3167-1.
- ISBN 1-85532-826-7.
- ^ Verbruggen 1997, p. 192.
- ISBN 0-370-10502-8.
- ISBN 1-86064-353-1. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
- JSTOR 2944058. Archived from the originalon 2011-06-05. Retrieved 2011-02-12.
- ^ Keen 1999, pp. 205–7.
- ISBN 978-1-84415-339-8. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2007-03-16.
References
- ISBN 978-0-631-13142-7.
- ISBN 978-0-02-933153-8.
- DeVries, Kelly; Smith, Robert Douglas (2012). Medieval Military Technology (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-0497-1.
- ISBN 978-0-19-820639-2.
- Nicholson, Helen J. (2004). Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300-1500. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-76330-8.
- ISBN 978-0-521-32607-0.
- ISBN 978-0-313-33350-7.
- ISBN 978-0-8133-9153-3.
- Verbruggen, J. F. (1997). The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages: From the Eighth Century to 1340. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press. ISBN 0-85115-630-4.