Medieval warfare

[Severloh]

Hi guys, i'm making this topic just to ask a quick question about how western european feudal warfare really worked, we learn in school that the Church prays, the noble fights and the peasant works, but all armies had their infantry. Who is part of the infantry? Just peasants levied into armies, free land owners, people who lived a cities or they were all nobles? Because there can't be enough nobles to make an army, right (except for archers, I know they were peasants"

And one more thing, increase the difference between elite and standard units on the mod torn, make an elite unit really worth using, and make it really expensive

Also you could make "dismounted" units to be composed of just 60 men, and have the same price as their mounted counterparts, that would force players just to use dismounted units on sieges, because thats were they belong, if you had a horse, you would use it after all...

also make them stronger and more expensive, like they were trained since they were 7 and could fight on a horse in melee combat against a spear militia and SURVIVE...

So, just a couple of ideas

[mb.]

Or you could just make your own mod that does all that.

[tornnight]

It's not that easy to do such drastic things. Suffice to say, those have severe balancing consequences on the AI.

[Severloh]

how Stupid of me, I always forget the godamn AI , Thanks for the quick answer as always Torn

But anyway, does anyone knows my first question, about infantry on feudal age? And improving knights on melee really will change the game dramatically? Or this has been discussed before? If it has, don't worry about that.

[Grimmy]

Shooting in the dark here, not a historian or a studier so take this with a heavy dose of salt...

Feudal age was kind of a blending of older tribal traditions and a beginning of the nation/state concept. Feudal lords were given lands to administer by their king for many reasons and one was often for services rendered during battle.
Part of a feudal lord's responsibility was to ensure that there were sufficient men to be called up as needed by his king. This store of troops were farmers and workers on a day to day basis but could be called up on demand and had no choice but to obey.
These farmers were able to become soldiers on demand due largely to the remnants of tribal warrior ethic and beliefs. They would be raised on the stories of great warriors of the past and would learn the fight trade as handed down from father to son. They'd also, often, be equipped with either family heirloom items in armor and/or weaponry, or the local feudal lord might have a standing order as to what gear must be maintained by all men of specific age within his holdings.

It is hard to grasp how one is the other and back again when it comes to farmer/soldier because of our industrial age concepts of professional military that does nothing but military and professional civilians that do nothing but civilian work. Civilians can be called up or conscripted into service but for that time they do nothing but soldier work.

Feudal warriors were seasonal fighters that would usually only be called up during the slack time between planting and harvesting. This was often referred to as the "war season".

Anyhoo, that's my limited understanding on the issue. I may be totally wrong though so dont quote me on it.

[mb.]

Feudal age was kind of a blending of older tribal traditions and a beginning of the nation/state concept.

Teological.

[Grimmy]

mb.

You suggesting that religion and/or religious belief as an underpinning to society and/or culture was new to the medieval times?

[Nick_Ryder]

Well I try my best to give back what I am tought in the universary....

1st, there is the Noble. If he was no king, than he was a vasal and had to send troops when the king called to arms. But the type of troops could differ, form the wealth a noble had and, even when the king called, there were times when nobels refused to send troops (Like Henry the Lion refused to send Friedrich I Barbarossa his Armoured riders in Chiavenna (think that was in 1170/80). Nobels led thier troops into battle, and often stayed behind their lines to coordinate the attack.

2nd, the soldier. Well as everybuddy knows weapons and armour was and is expensive. As I learnd, to support a medival knight it would the 20 hektar (acres) of land to have such a knight on horse and ready. So, everybody kann see that peasants were more effective, when it comes to pure numbers. In the flow of time, ther were emerging kinds of professional fighters like Merceneries or "Elite" tropps, which were very expensive in supporting. So only rich Nobels like kings or the pope could afford raising such elite tropps.

So, hope this is a little help even in bad english

[Severloh]

right, then they were peasants that used to fight, but where does units such as "armoured sargents" (if they existed) came from? Since you had to pay for your equipments, and a sword and chainmail were pretty expensive, were those sergeants mercs or something like that? Or they were actually "professional soldiers" hired by feudal lors on times of need, or as a part of their standing army?

[mb.]

mb.

You suggesting that religion and/or religious belief as an underpinning to society and/or culture was new to the medieval times?

Etiological, excuse my spelling.

[Grimmy]

I would guess that the better units in the game represent those forces kept on hand by the various dukes and lords and whatnot. There were always security concerns... as in the duke or lord next door deciding you were too weak to deserve such a fine castle and estate... various brigands, rebels and anarchists stirring up troubles... villages that needed punishment for not paying up enough tax...etc etc.

Again, I would assume that much of what I put down here is either wrong or only partially correct. Those with better historical learning would serve the discussion better but none seem to be handy atm.

Also, remember that TW is a game and games need to make interesting play more of a consideration than hard historical accuracy... unless it's a game designed to teach, rather than entertain.

[Tulius Hostilius]

was three-functional: There are the nobles that fight, the priests that pray, and the people that work.
This is a model. Can’t be given full credit. There where priest that fight (one good sample are the military orders), and the people that fight (on foot and on horse).

Basically the infantry could be recruited by the nobles (and the king), in their lands, or by the municipally. This would be only for some days.

I know better the reality in the Iberian Peninsula that in the Northern Europe, but in Portugal, Castile, León, Aragon, and Catalonia the men from the towns where very important to the king, both for its number, and for their power against the nobles.

The "armoured sergeants" existed, at least, as far as I can recall, in the military orders, and I believe that they where a reality in some Central European Countries.

[Bene]

Fighting (by nobles (and especially priests) was frowned upon by the church right up until the first crusade, when the Pope (not the first one to do so by the way) connected remission of sins to fighting against the heathens.

Essentially it was now 'ok' to be a warrior and still have a shot at heaven. Even then priests who wanted to go no crusade had to ask the permission of their bishop. The military orders were holy warriors rather than priest who fought - big difference.

[Rex Inanimatus]

Armies in the early medieval period in Western Europe consisted mostly of soldiers called by the arriere-ban. These soldiers were levied, though they were far from the hilaric farmboys you can recruit as peasants. All wear steel helmets and most used weapons were lances and (cross) bows, for protection all had gambesons and if they could afford chainmail. As these times were quite dangerous, the need to learn how to fight was a necessity of life.

Later on when towns become places of economic importance, armies consisted mostly of professional armies paid by towns and cities to protect them. The richer the town the better equiped soldiers.

Though this is a game and not a history lesson.

[Tulius Hostilius]

I saw now that the first sentence is missing in my last post
But the essential is there.

The military orders were holy warriors rather than priest who fought - big difference.

A rhetoric question: is it so different?
Or are you a follower of the words of “de laude novae militiae”?

And are the military orders “this” (priests) or “that” (warriors)? One thing for sure, they didn’t fit in the three-functional society.

And secular priests, bishops (and archbishops) fought, had arms, and even commanded armies, at least in the Iberian Peninsula. The three-functional society is a model, not the final word about medieval society.

[Bene]

I saw now that the first sentence is missing in my last post
But the essential is there.


A rhetoric question: is it so different?
Or are you a follower of the words of “de laude novae militiae”?

And are the military orders “this” (priests) or “that” (warriors)? One thing for sure, they didn’t fit in the three-functional society.

And secular priests, bishops (and archbishops) fought, had arms, and even commanded armies, at least in the Iberian Peninsula. The three-functional society is a model, not the final word about medieval society.

I confess I had to google de l'aude - most of my knowledge is standard Runciman and the new Tyerman book. I think there is a difference - priests' occupations were all about tending to their flco, administering religious rituals etc - the holy orders were warriors with deep religious beliefs who initially swore to protect the pilgramages etc.

yes priests did fight, but my point was it was only after the Council of Clermont that they could do so without fear of eternal damnation. (afaik)

[Tulius Hostilius]

History of the Crusades from Runciman is a classic, in the positive sense.
Unfortunately I don’t know Tyerman. Hheehhe, I will google it…

I talked about the “laude” of Saint Bernard for the Templar because, if I recall correctly was the 1st time, or one of the first, that talked and defended the ideal of the holy warrior, but long before that, and even before the idea of the crusade (and the Council of Clermont) the clergy fought (at least in the Iberian Peninsula, let me say this again).

The Iberian Peninsula was a border society. The violence was all day evidence. It belonged to the lives of those populations. These where lawless territories between the frontiers of Christians and Muslims. To believe that the priests didn’t fought… or they didn’t touch in several women is a matter of faith. In early medieval times the pope was a distant and discussible figure.

And there was a difference between the religious laws and the day by day practice.


Edit:
Just saw it in Amazon:
Christopher Tyerman
The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions); 2006
God's War: A New History of the Crusades; 2005
Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades; 2005
Who's Who in Early Medieval England 1066-1272 (Who's Who in British History); 2001
England and the Crusades, 1095-1588; 1996
Invention of the Crusades: 1998
And others…
It seems to worth a good look.

[Severloh]

Well I guess this game shows only the war between nations, not between feuds, and thus, these small fightings are not shown in the game. As I know, kings didn't have much power on feudal age, so, an army like, for example, the French army, was composed of professional soldiers, peasants, nobles from different feuds and professional men from powerful cities?

And c'mon people I know this is just a game and not a histiry lesson , I'm just evolving this idea so we maybe can come up with some good stuff to help our good friend Torn to make this great mod even better

[Lord Condormanius]

A rhetoric question: is it so different?

No, it is not so different.

And are the military orders “this” (priests) or “that” (warriors)? One thing for sure, they didn’t fit in the three-functional society.

And secular priests, bishops (and archbishops) fought, had arms, and even commanded armies, at least in the Iberian Peninsula. The three-functional society is a model, not the final word about medieval society.

This is also true.

I confess I had to google de l'aude - most of my knowledge is standard Runciman and the new Tyerman book. I think there is a difference - priests' occupations were all about tending to their flco, administering religious rituals etc - the holy orders were warriors with deep religious beliefs who initially swore to protect the pilgramages etc.

yes priests did fight, but my point was it was only after the Council of Clermont that they could do so without fear of eternal damnation. (afaik)

This is not necessarily the case. In a large number of cases, priests were not always so "religious". Clerical appointments were very often political in nature. The priesthood was often viewed as an occupation rather than a "calling" from God. The Council of Clermont did not really say "ok priests, now you can fight and not go to hell." Basically, at Clermont, the Pope just reminded everyone that they were fighting against each other far too often. He recognized that they would be fighting regardless of what he told them, so his goal was to steel the violence out of Europe and into the Middle East, under the guise of a Holy Crusade against the "infidels".

Well I guess this game shows only the war between nations, not between feuds, and thus, these small fightings are not shown in the game. As I know, kings didn't have much power on feudal age, so, an army like, for example, the French army, was composed of professional soldiers, peasants, nobles from different feuds and professional men from powerful cities?

The other thing to understand is that feudal lords, more often than not, didn't bother coming in to work. That is, unless they felt directly threatened, they did not usually send the military service that they promised to their King. This was especially true in France, where by the close of the 11th century, the kingdom was so divided that the King was not safe to venture outside of Paris.

One result of this is that the armies were generally smaller than in prior eras. Pitched battle was not as common during the Middle Ages as it had been in prior eras. Much of the fighting was small, but no less violent, exchanges between local realms. Peasants would have been levied into the armies, since they had virtuallly no rights and had to do pretty much what their lord asked (commanded), but usually just as sword fodder. The real might was in the heavy cavalry, which more or less destroyed everything else.

The composition of Medieval armies would change as the years went by and political boundaries shifted. As Monarchs regained their lands and industry resumed, more money would become available (allowing for both the hiring of mercenaries and the later development of professional armies), making the feudal system less necessary.

[Irishmafia2020]

Good posts LC... what happened to Middle Ages total war? It doesn't seem to be hosted and that was a promising mod....