Command and Control/Generalship of a European medieval army

[The Computer Illiterate]

How were medieval armies gathered, organized, and led (on and off the battle) in a medieval army in Europe? I'm interested in the early, high, and late eras (or however the medieval age is divided up). Books and other sources are welcome.

I've tried looking on the internet but my search didn't turn up anything good.

[Cyclops]

There were hereditary rulers who were expected to take command but sometimes didn't, royal officials with military roles like constables, admirals and marshals. Add to that civic militias with their officers (sometimes professional, sometimes honorific), military orders and mercenaries and you have a mishmash of systems, ranks and honours that are not always easy to decipher.

This changes across the medieval period as well. A rank like captain could mean the head of the entire army in some contexts, or just the head of a company (although it wasn't a formal title in the modern military sense). The role of Marshal in France evolves from stableboy to military role to honorific given to successful generals. Seneschals become constables, and the ERE has a myriad of terms that mutate over its long history: there's a tendency for military rank and profession to mutate into social status, not just in the explicit case of the feudal system but also demonstrated with the Scholae (where it became a fashionable noble club with tax breaks) a bit like what later happened with the Janissaries and Muscovite Streltsy: originally a military caste, they became a tax haven.

Hereditary rank and the system of honour meant it was hard for a duke to obey a mere baron: God forbid a mere commoner should command nobles. I believe this was a problem for some French commanders like Charles de Albret at Agincourt.

Using Agincourt as an example, the French were commanded by the Constable of France (Albret) with several nobles in charge of each of three broad divisions or battles: there were also attached cavalry forces under two more commanders, as well as Genoese crossbowmen under their own leaders (who were not listened to by their noble superiors at all). Note a confusion of ranks, with multiple named commanders for some units, as well as the overall commander also commanding a sub unit of the army.

The English likewise had three "battles" commanded by the King and two other high ranking nobles (I think the archers were commanded separately? by a lower ranking noble) so this seems to have been a typical late medieval array.

The French had great difficulty directing their forces effectively, focussing on the English centre (apparently nobles were keen on engaging English nobles for honourable combat or profitable prisoners). The smaller English force appears to have enjoyed greater command strength, keeping formation and executing effective tactics that allowed a tremendous victory.

The French commanders casualties with the three highest ranking leaders killed or captured (and many others also) because they typically lead their divisions on the field rather than directing from behind the line, which is another feature of medieval warfare.

So I would say medieval armies had a mishmash of command structures that suffered from confusion as well as social/political complications stemming from the feudal system. Some powerful or well organised leaders could straighten these problems out to the extent they could engage in effective warfare but there was a tendency to uncontrolled attacks and a breakdown of command once battle commenced as the leaders became engaged personally in combat.

[hellheaven1987]

The French had great difficulty directing their forces effectively, focussing on the English centre (apparently nobles were keen on engaging English nobles for honourable combat or profitable prisoners). The smaller English force appears to have enjoyed greater command strength, keeping formation and executing effective tactics that allowed a tremendous victory.

Na, it was probably because English was in a static, defensive and concentrated position that made command and communication much easier

[Marvzilla]

As was said, command was a complicated matter in which social rank mattered often more than competence, though many commanders of noble heritage were more than able.

If you are interested in literature on that matter, I would recommend Ian Heaths "Armies of the Dark Ages", "Armies of Feudal Europe", "Armies and Enemies of the Crusaders" and his two volumes of "Medieval Armies". Some of his work is partially outdated but still good for fundamentals. Else some Osprey Books are good, though they can differ a lot in qualitiy of content. If you want other more specific literature just ask.

[TWWolfe]

THe Crusade that led to the Battle of Nicopolis had a feature that was fairly common for Medieval armies, command by council. the problem was, the young hotheads in the council didn't want to listen to any of the advide the older, more experienced members had to offer, especially after Coucy won a small skirmish and they accused him of wanting to steal thier glory. so you had half of the command staff with almost no experience(and also the highest status nobility wise) who wouldn't hear anything the more esperienced member said or advised. this ended...

poorly to say the least.

this problem actually pops up again and again for the French, save for rare commanders like Charles IV, Eugerrand (VII) de Coucy, and De Vienne.

[KEA]

Think of Medieval armies as coalition forces. They were patched together by certain nobles and "their" men. The overall commander always was the one who has called them to arms, or someone he appointed to. Within this army the hierarchy was defined by social status, number of men provided and personal standing. Of these social status was the most important, that is a duke would hardly accept being commanded by a count. This problem BTW persisted well into the following centuries, for example during the conflict between Prussian generals Schwerin and Anhalt-Dessau during the Battle of Mollwitz, as late as 1741, partly caused by both social ranking not matching military rank (Schwerin was a rather low ranking count but field marshal, Anhalt-Dessau was an imperial lord but lieutenant general).

As noblemen of a certain standing those medieval "officers" had the right to be heard in the king's council, what also included the council of war. That is the commander not was able to make decisions of his own but had to ask his subordinates for their opinion. This sounds very chaotical but usually worked. It worked because a Medieval army did not have so many tactical options. A force focused on heavy lancers basically has not many choice but to attack the enemy. So the question usually was where and when to attack.

[TWWolfe]

but then when you have a council of war where theres no clear leader everything falls apart and they bicker right up until bad things start happening.

[Condottiere 40K]

1254
As for the English doctrine of picking a spot and setting up the longbow killing zones, you could compare it to the modern equivalent of football set pieces: everyone one has a fairly clear idea what's expected of them, and how the play will develop.

[hellheaven1987]

As for the English doctrine of picking a spot and setting up the longbow killing zones, you could compare it to the modern equivalent of football set pieces: everyone one has a fairly clear idea what's expected of them, and how the play will develop.

Na, it was more because English army was less battlefield mobile than French army, due to smaller number of mounted units.

[Condottiere 40K]

1320
The French had the home field advantage, and lots of expensive stars that all wanted to play forward.

[KEA]

1320
The French had the home field advantage, and lots of expensive stars that all wanted to play forward.

So, what would you suggest the French should have done with an army of heavy lancers versus an enemy who prefers to fight battles sitting on his butt? Medieval armies were rather limited in their tactical choices, not because of incompetence but because their shock combat, developed in the 11th and 12th Century, allowed them sweep away much larger traditional armies with their rather small forces of professional heavy cavalry. In return it took several centuries to develop proper counter-tactics, of which fielding an insane amount of archers was one approach, which only worked for English armies because of the archery tradition on the isles. The French failed when trying to field similar armies, while others didn't even bother to try that.

[Condottiere 40K]

1589
After Crecy, a Fabian strategy once the French had a taste of feathered shaft. The English supporters would have gone home once their allowances ran out and they couldn't locate either pubs nor ATMs.

[+Marius+]

THe Crusade that led to the Battle of Nicopolis had a feature that was fairly common for Medieval armies, command by council. the problem was, the young hotheads in the council didn't want to listen to any of the advide the older, more experienced members had to offer, especially after Coucy won a small skirmish and they accused him of wanting to steal thier glory. so you had half of the command staff with almost no experience(and also the highest status nobility wise) who wouldn't hear anything the more esperienced member said or advised. this ended...

poorly to say the least.

Well, they did cause a tremendous amount of casualties to a numerically superior Ottoman force though, regardless of all the poor decisions made that day.
Pretty much the exact story as in the battle of Varna.

Poor John Hunyadi, two decades of successful hard crusader work completely destroyed by a group of pompous nobles who refused to be covered by light cavalry

1589
After Crecy, a Fabian strategy once the French had a taste of feathered shaft. The English supporters would have gone home once their allowances ran out and they couldn't locate either pubs nor ATMs.

I would not say that was the only cause of the English leaving the continent.
The French had their share of victories once plate armor came into play in large quantities, those victories are just not known well enough because the English are far better at propagating their point of view to the world(by shaking spears and hollying the wood).

It's not like the English did not have equally embarrassing defeats;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ossini%C3%A8re

Poor John Le Roux, to be the only casualty in an army...must have been a hell of a death though.


Regarding the topic,

there were armies though, under certain leaders who did achieve at least some characteristics of a professional army.
Most notably the Black Army of Hungary, where the royal troops under Matthias Corvinus probably experienced the first rule of meritocracy in Europe since the Roman Empire.
For instance, Pál Kinizsi, who became one of the highest ranking officers and the Captain General of the Lower Parts, was a commoner peasant, a son of a miller and was a journeyman miller himself until he was recruited into the army and elevated himself up. He also married into one of the highest noble families of Hungary, unheard of for a commoner in "proper" western feudalism.

That kind of an army reformation is probably the reason that the army had over two dozen victories over the Ottomans in less than two decades and was victorious against both German and Bohemian troops in the wars against the Holy Roman Empire.
Shame it was completely dissolved after the death of Matthias, who knows where that kind of military organization could have led if left undisturbed and funded properly.

[Cyclops]

"Roi ne suis, ne Prince ne Duc ne Comte aussi/Je suis le sire de Coucy"

I enjoyed that book by Barbara Tuchman very much, sadly my copy was drowned in the great garage flood of 2002.

Think of Medieval armies as coalition forces. ...

Yes they certainly weren't operating under modern military discipline. It also helps to think of them as gangs.

"The Capet family congratulates the members of the other noble family and invites them to join an attack on the English mameluccos at Agincourt. They have been collecting protection money rents in our neighbourhoods and this shows a lack of respect. I have sent my trusted consiglieri Charles d'Albret to direct this opposition, you will obey him as you would obey me."