Whenever people talk about the military content of the Middle Ages, it is easy to fall into the "wrong way for the blind to touch the elephant."
Either they scorn it because they know nothing, or they throw their romantic flavor into the ancients. After all, the Middle Ages were a special phase with a span of a thousand years. If one only looks at a certain part of the period, it is inevitable to draw contradictory conclusions that are completely opposite.
Therefore, we may wish to list the views of several historical masters and open up a broader observation horizon for ourselves.
The military class of Western European countries
First of all, in terms of social characteristics, medieval soldiers can be divided into 2 categories
1 The will to fight is higher, the equipment is better, and it is usually a wealthy warrior with a higher social status.
Except for those peoples whose culture of horseback warfare was not widespread, such as the early Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and later Ireland and Scotland, they often fought as heavy cavalry. These soldiers usually make up a small proportion of the total army, but they are often able to determine the outcome of the war. Once this group of people suffered heavy casualties or simply fled, the outcome of the war could be basically decided.
2 Will to fight, equipment. Warriors of lower social status and related skills.
They usually have no armor or only simple armor, and in war they mainly serve as an adjunct to the former. Despite occupying the majority of the army numerically, it is often impossible to face the elite of the enemy alone, even if it has a clear numerical advantage.
This situation in Western Europe was often a continuation of the Germanic/Celtic warrior tradition in the Middle Ages, where it was difficult for the properteer to maintain his position and property if he was not brave enough to take up arms. And the braver poor who are willing to take on combat tasks,
Even if they did not belong to the original samurai class, they had the opportunity to obtain higher social status and wealth:
According to the Liplyan Code, the Merovingian dynasty imposed high fines for non-compliance with enlistment obligations.
The Franks paid 60 solidi, and the Romans, freed slaves, or ecclesiasticals also paid 30 solidi. In an era when a cow was worth 1 Soridi and a horse was worth 6 Soridi, a number like this was enough to crush poor families, even for rich families. ”
In both the Salic Code and the Liplian Code, the compensation for the killing of a Frankish freedman is 200 Soridi.
However, the Salic Code specifically refers to the special treatment of those who fought for the king. Anyone who breaks into the house of a free man trusted by the king and kills him is fined 1800 solidi; anyone who breaks into the home of a Roman or freed slave trusted by the king and kills him is paid 900 solidi.
In Anglo-Saxon England, if they could fight for the king, the landless nobles could get shelter, food, hay, and war horses from the king.
They provide for twice as much compensation as a civilian in the Code. After the mobilization order was issued, if the nobles in possession ignored the order, their land was confiscated and a fine of 120 shillings was also paid. The fine paid by the proletarian nobles for such disobedience was 80 shillings, and the commoners were 30 shillings.
The Edict of Aachen of 805 AD, undoubtedly a supplement to the Edict of 803, required all those who possessed 12 possessions of land to wear armor while serving.
Anyone who possesses armor but does not bring it with him during service is punished by confiscation of the armor and all privileges conferred by the king. Those who evaded military service or were not included in those groups stipulated in 803 were subject to the confiscation of half of their property. Anyone who owns land or the rest of the property is valued at six pounds of gold is subject to a fine of three pounds of gold, and those whose property is three pounds of gold are subject to a $30 sorridi.
The warriors of the early Middle Ages were the free men, and the free men were the warriors.
Thus, in the 5th-6th centuries, the authors used the word "miles" to denote the social class as opposed to the clergy. By the late Middle Ages, in the legal terms of the Anjou, the meaning of "franchir" (to cross, to transcend) was still anobir (to become aristocratic). The naturally warrior Germanics were grafted onto the dying Roman system, producing a unique, self-sufficient class of warriors who continued with the spirit of martial arts.
- The Art of Medieval War, Charles William Auman
The ambiguous state of the countries of the East
In countries of the more East, such as Byzantium and Egypt, there are long-standing differences in agricultural and urban lifestyles.
As a result, the thinking of the citizens and peasants replaced the warrior spirit, and the class that could have served as a warrior became an ordinary property owner in a civilized atmosphere, and no longer had military value. So in terms of military power, there is a great reliance on foreign mercenaries and a small number of people who are still willing to fight for salaries and looting opportunities. Once these men failed, the native troops, who lacked a militant spirit and a samurai class, could easily scatter.
The Greek regions, which were mostly populous but reluctant to fight, usually tended to pay what was later called by Western Europeans
"Exemption from military service"
Tribute. However, the Armenians, Cappadociaians, Isuridians, and Thracians of Europe who lived in Asia Minor would be considered the best soldiers in the army.
Despite having significant commonalities with the West, the East never developed a fully feudal hierarchy.
There were warrior families, but there was no true knightly class, nor did they have the Germanic conception of absolute dominance of the soul or personal allegiance of the Western feudal system. For a time, the Byzantine military system was very close to the Norman-English system. Certain elements of feudalism were associated with and integrated into the tax bureaucracy. Soldiers were recruited, and, as in England, personal service was replaced by paid service.
Despite the migration of barbarians into the settlement, the inland areas of the empire were inland people who too quickly lost their martial spirit.
As a result, the Empire had to replenish its army again and again with the help of alien mercenaries. Various Germanic tribes, Slavs, Pechenegs, Magyars, Bulgarians and even Turks gathered in the barracks of the Byzantine Emperor.
The Varyags have played a very special and important role for a long time.
Born Swedish and Norman, they crossed Russia and the Black Sea to Byzantium. The word "Varyag" means "ally." Later, various characters were given this name. After William's conquest of England, the Varyags were also estimated to have included many Anglo-Saxons who had fled england.
The commander of the finest Isurean archers in the infantry approached Belisarius to complain that they were distressed by the fact that they had not been able to participate in most of the battle.
Thus, Belissa stayed in a later sortie and gave them an important position. There is no doubt that this arrangement was only to appease these brave soldiers, and in no way to think that putting them on the front line would be beneficial to the battle. The outcome of the battle was also bitter for these infantrymen. A small group of cavalry on his side fled with a hot head, rushing through the ranks of isurian archers, plunging them into chaos. Immediately afterward, the Gothic cavalry attacked the infantry unit and completely destroyed them. The two commanders in charge of the attack, Principius and Talmutus, were killed while trying to reorganize the collapsed forces.
Narsses, who was familiar with this tactic, prepared a terrible trap for the Franks.
He placed his riflemen and the rest of the infantry in the center, and had some of the selected Barbarian cavalry dismounted behind the infantry. At the same time, two wide flanks were formed by Roman native cavalry. After the Frankish column entered the center, it did not encounter much difficulty before it defeated the ordinary infantry of the first line and the infantry archers of the second line. The Franks then engaged the Heruli and the rest of the Barbarian forces, behind the lightly armed forces, forcing them to retreat.
Infantry weak Byzantium and Arabia
There is no doubt that even the Byzantine army, traditionally considered better equipped and better trained, was in a supporting position for native infantry.
It is difficult to face the enemy's elite troops. Although there were heavy infantry known as "Scutatus" in military manuals, at least the first four rows of helmets, armor sleeves and shin armor were required to fight with large shield spears and swords.
Referring to most of the Byzantine records and the view of Nikki Fluus-Phokas, a commander would be complete with only 5-6 thousand heavily armored cavalry and god's help. And nikiphorus-Potoniacz, in describing the formation of the Immortal Army by Emperor Mikhail III, mentioned that the main training content of the Immortal Army was the use of weapons and the art of riding horses.
It should be reasonable to think that the Byzantine infantry, although nominally more important and the emperor's attention, in fact usually served as a cover and auxiliary for the cavalry, and the real decision to win or lose the war was the performance of the cavalry. This should perhaps exclude the Varangian Guards, but the main factor is that people of greater status and wealth in the society from which the Varangian Guards are born are willing to fight as infantry.
Early Muslim soldiers generally provided themselves with weapons or used weapons captured from the battlefield.
After defeating enemy forces or breaching towns, enemy equipment is one of the most popular trophies. They didn't have uniform uniforms, and every soldier wore clothes they could find or afford.
The early Arabian sword was a short double-edged straight broadsword with a short hilt.
The existing Arabian swords of the late Sassanid Dynasty are about 1 meter long and require a certain amount of strength and flexibility to use. The best swords appear to have been imported from India, although Yemen and Khorasan are also known as centers for high-quality weapons manufacturing. Apparently, it was a valuable weapon, and they were often named, passed down from generation to generation in the family, and widely sung in poetry. The sword wielded in close combat is a weapon that only a true hero deserves to carry.
The Arabs also used spears.
The rumh spear, for example, is an infantry weapon with a wooden handle and a metal head. It can be used for both slashing and stabbing. There is also the Islpa spear, a weapon that may have been used on horseback. Some records indicate that Arab soldiers also fought with iron rods, hammers, sticks, stones, tent poles, and any weapon at their disposal.
The Bows of the Arabs are very skilled.
There are documents that describe the characteristics of "Arabic bows" and "Persian bows", and it is likely that The Arabic bows are thinner and lighter.
In 704 AD, throughout the vast province of Khorasan, 50,000 soldiers had only 350 pieces of armor.
These armors are often passed down from generation to generation, and the new, bright and shiny armor is extremely valuable. There are two types of head protection gear. One is the "mighfar", known in the history of Western weapons as the "aventail". It is a type of lock armor hood that extends from the back to the back to protect the neck. There is also a type of round helmet called the "Bayda Helmet", or "Oval Helmet".
- The Great Conquest: The Rise of the Arab Empire by Hugh Kennedy
By leo vi's time, the lack of protection among the Arabs may not have improved.
Their infantry often used a formation called "rectangular dense horizontal formations", plus lightly armed shooters with better marksmanship (Leo says they were almost only clothed). Leo believed that only the saracens were effective in cavalry, and that the infantry was nothing more than a group of bandits, unable to withstand the attack of the Byzantine army.
In this regard, it is possible that the infantry of the early Arab armies was not at least clever in terms of equipment and status, but was relatively strong in morale and hard work. With the end of the Great Conquest,
The growth of wealth and resources did not improve the equipment and wealth of the infantry, but reflected the upgrading and importance of the cavalry.
Something similar to Byzantium may have happened in terms of military sources.
After the 9th century, mercenaries replaced believers, especially the Seljuk Turks, who not only followed the teachings of the prophets, but also provided soldiers. The emirs and generals of the Seljuk Turks soon became masters, leaving only the caliphs of Baghdad with the honor of religious leader.
The same thing happened to Saladin.
Around 1181 AD, despite his nominally large infantry, the core strength of the army was still 6976 Ghulams. This included a large number of Kurds, as well as 1553 exiles from Khwarazm.
- Nine Hundred Years of the Knights, Desmond Seward
Tactical differences between Persia and nomads
Judging from the original texts of the two books "Strategy" and "Tactics",
The Persians and The Western Xuyans were also composed of heavier, heavier cavalry of higher status and less equipped archers. Once the former collapses, the latter is often powerless to return to heaven. However, the Persians were more accustomed to using civil work to cover shooting, and the nomads were pure light archers.
Persian cavalry wore armor and wielded bows and swords.
They can shoot arrows faster than other peoples, but their bows and arrows are not too powerful. They would fortify their camps during the war, dig trenches around them and erect sharpened wooden fences as they approached.
The Persians arranged the battle lines into 3 equally powerful sections, namely the center, the right wing, and the left wing.
Especially in the central part, there will be an additional four or five hundred carefully selected elite soldiers. The depth of the formation is not fixed, but whether they divide each unit into the first and second lines, or line up all the cavalry in a phalanx formation. They would keep the formation flush and dense enough that spare horses and luggage columns would be placed not far behind the main front. When dealing with lancers, they would quickly form fronts on rough terrain in order to take advantage of their bows and arrows. Because the charge of the lancers will be scattered and collapsed due to terrain reasons. Prior to a battle, the usual tactics included setting up camps in hilly terrain and delaying battles, especially when they knew their enemies were ready for battle.
The Persians were also extremely troubled by climates where cold, rain, and southerly winds could soften the bowstring.
In addition, they were very afraid of the well-organized infantry and the smooth and open terrain suitable for the Lancers to charge. The reason for this was that the Persian cavalry did not use mounted guns and shields, and the bow and arrow were useless in close-range white-knife warfare. A frontal charge against the Persians was very effective, as they fled quickly and did not know how to turn suddenly and attack the enemy as the Scythians did. Since the Persians did not know how to deploy flanks sufficient to withstand a large-scale flanking attack, attacks or roundabouts against the flanks and rear of their front could easily inflict heavy damage on them. If you are determined to engage the enemy on that day, do not delay and attack immediately. Immediately after entering the range of the bow and arrow, the charge was launched in a neat, dense conventional formation, for any delay in approaching the enemy meant that the Persians would pour more arrows at our soldiers and horses.
The Tolkes and Bulgarians fought in much the same way, if not exactly.
They deftly choose the timing and rely on deception, raids, and food cuts against the enemy, rather than brute force. They are armed with swords, bows and arrows and spears. In combat, most of them had two sets of weapons, holding bows and arrows, with long guns hanging over their shoulders. They were able to use both weapons when necessary, but their bows and arrows were most effective when pursued.
Not only do the eminents wear their own armor, but their horses also hang iron armor or fill armor in front of them.
They like to fight at a certain distance, launch ambushes, encircle, deceive, turn around, disperse operations, and so on. In combat, infantry in tight formations can inflict great damage on their cavalry. They refused to get off their horses, and they grew up on horseback and were not good at infantry combat. The unobstructed flat ground was also unfavorable to them, and they were also afraid of the large number of cavalry pursuing in close formations for melee combat.
- Strategy, Morris I
The Prussians and Lithuanians were the same
The Prussians were accustomed to being alone.
Early travelerSwoman Ibrahim ibn Jacob noticed that they rushed into the battlefield themselves without waiting for their friends to help during the battle, swinging their swords until they were defeated by the enemy. This kind of violent courage obviously appeared only in the nobility. For general evidence suggests that ordinary Prussian soldiers would sneak into the woods and abandon their comrades when they encountered strong enemies. But in this way, you can ensure that you can survive and fight again in the future. This is in line with basic human nature.
Ordinary militias only have sticks and stones, which are useful for ambush warfare or defending fortresses. But he did not have the confidence to confront a powerful enemy with horses, armor and swords.
It was the duty of the nobility, they were light cavalry armed with swords, spears, helmets, and chain armor. This set of equipment is not as good as that of Western knights, but it is very suitable for the terrain of Prussia. There were many swamps, tree-growing depressions and rugged, wooded hills that the Prussian nobility would not have adopted, if only it were easier to obtain Western weapons.
Lithuanians were adept at ambushing lands dotted with swamps and forests.
They equipped their cavalry with swords and chainmail captured or purchased from the Germans or Slavs, and equipped them with short shotguns. This army used Mongol tactics, but did not use arrows, but threw javelins at shorter distances. Infantry are often armed with spears and wooden bows or hand-thrown guns.
- The Teutonic Knights William Urban
(End of full text)