Medium Aevum

oh my mistake... still... I can't stand it and I meant to say anachronistic.

Guys, I saw fantastic medieval book yesterday..had I around 40 euros I would have bought them...a fat book about Ottokar II's rule in Austria, one about the "Staufer Reich" also fat and cool...
German book publishers wanna have our money...

Thats a lot of us dollars too... who says you can't put a price on knowledge

Would've buy the book about Ottokar in a heartbeat.
Waiting for this one. It has been delayed for a couple of years, now it's somehow "out of stock" for quite a long time too (the freaking book isn't published yet).

Would've buy the book about Ottokar in a heartbeat.

That speaks volumes about your wealth
That books seems interesting but hundred years war is just an overtalked topic for me, sry

Hey everyone let's give Rufats a nice Medieval style b-day wish!

wait what is a medieval style b-day?

Nah, it doesn't say anything about my wealth (or lack of it, hehe). It's just the fact that a good history book is a rarity this days.
About Sumption. His research is the best, in my opinion. So, I wouldn't miss it. Ever.

Ok enough talk! This is a day of celebration!

Yeah she is m favorite too...lets make a medieval party! Happy birthday, Rufats!

Thank you, guys. Happy, it's over.

Let me pose this thought...

Just how much was the medieval battle largely a show of strength or brute force yet not necessarily which resulted in death?

'Shock & Awe' the crashing of mounted men at arms against the mass of foot soldiers. Certainly death would have accompanied quite a fair portion of the facing men of the front ranks. Though thinking upon this, death itself a 'factor' may only be reserved for the few and most valiant. I think the instant realization of the 'real' and 'now' possibility of loosing ones life is a choice that is made upon the experience of subjection to Shock & Awe.

No men are so invincible to escape death even at the hand of a poorly equipped peasant they are simply harder to kill...

How do you think you would fare facing an onslaught of impending pain and uncertainty of life?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An invite and here I am. I think there will be a bit of catch up reading since I am certain ever post on every page should be savored.

@Armatus -- did you just accidentally run into the The charge of the French knights at the Battle of Creçy?


To answer a bit of your musings -- Most were not professionals -- not in the sense that we view the military today. Crecy was important not just for what happened, but also for the rarity of an event of that magnitude. The nobles themselves were simply a bit better trained, but mainly had more to lose if they ran. Also remember, conflict and battles were not an everyday affair. Many famous knights fought only a handful of times at most throughout their lives. The life of a peasant was clearly inferior, but I would never change places where I sit for even the wealthy of the Medieval era.

Actually, it isn't a very realistic depiction neither of Battle of Crecy, nor Longbowmen' positioning and formation.
As far as the English are concerned, Archers on the wings (a little cloer to the enemy), protected by stakes/ditches/carts. If this picture had any credence, then the whole line of Archers would be dead in seconds, after direct heavy cavalry charge.

As for heavy casualties during Medieval, the most occured after the battle, i.e. one army turns and runs and the other kills them in pursuit.
Also, cavalry charge doesn't advance symmetrically after initial clash, more of a /\---/\_____/\__/\--------/\ kind. That's when heavy armor proved to be a life saviour, for man-at-arms was absorbing blows and stabs practically from every direction. While less protected infantry was chopped down in far greater numbers. Becasue fo the height advantage as well. If you'll look at medieval battle/after battle miniatures, you'll see that majority of the wounds are head wounds.
And let's not forget that a charger (horse) was another fighter that trampled, hit and bit everything in its reach.

@VP I saw your signature request

I mean how were battles mostly show rather than bloody massacres?

Sorry, Armatus. I don't understand. What you mean by show? They were bloody massacres. There's a great Castilian chronicle portrayal (I'll try to find it) of a border fight between Castilian and Aragonese knights. They were beating each other mercilessly and only because of the saddles they weren't falling from the horses, while blood ran under their armor and covering their chargers. In the end, both died from the wounds they received during a combat.
A magnified example of something like this would be the Battle of Verneuil. If you want more information about it, PM me.

I take everything I read with consideration no matter the source. One thing we do know is the middle ages was a advanced "show" in western Europe, now arising to a place above the old world, only the few a top the ladder carried on with education. Most didn't know a damn thing about anything let alone be trained enough to die in battle. So excluding any knights that may have beat eachother bloody; just how often when two armies engaged did it actually turn to a massacre where men had no choice but to fight or be killed.

Excuse any 'knowledgeable tone' in my voice I was just stressing some points

There were bloody battles no doubt. But how often are accounts of one side winning out of pure intimidation?

Well, you might be forgetting about all those professional soldiers (mercenaries) that knew nothing but how to kill and loot. And run too, when needed. Germany was especially notorious for the robber bands (small armies, I'd say). Even German nobility didn't flinch from it. I bet that you are familiar with the term Raubritter.
As for nobles not being taught to fight, I beg to differ. That's the only thing that they learned - fighting. And hunting, which was accepted as training to the fighting. Even the smallest nobility, for it was the only way to make yourself a name. You're speaking of battles. And I assume big battles (which was a rarity in Medieval). What we have a vague idea about, is the numbers of small battles, like the one where Sir John Chandos was slained. Only briefly, if at all. For example, HYW was mostly fought by the detachments of 40 to 200 men. Also, let's not forget that war was making a profit (for the winner, of course). How could you make a profit if you don't catch any prisoners or their train? And I'm pretty sure, that the other side wasn't thrilled of being caught either.

Yes but to catch them you can't kill them

Ok next musing... "the saddle" to be continued...