Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages Warfare

[c00ki3]

I can't find anything on warfare from 500 A.D - 700 A.D in Europe. Anything between that seems to be not in existence. Especially knights...

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I can't find anything on warfare from 500 A.D - 700 A.D in Europe. Anything between that seems to be not in existence. Especially knights...

You would have to be most specific in your searches.

There is a ton of material written about Byzantine/Eastern Roman armies and conflicts of that period. The time you want to know about is roughly between the reigns of Justin and Justinian II, and was one of the most active periods for the Byzantines militarily, to say the least.

Byzantine historians such as Procopius also chronicled the era very well.

Focusing on the Franks (the other major power in Europe in your selected era) would be a good idea as well. 500-700 was the heyday of the Merovingians.

The reason why you are seeing no references to knights is because there weren't any, yet. At least not in the type that you're probably thinking of.

The Merovingians fielded some fairly armored cavalry (here's a pic) but they were more like old Roman medium cavalry and less like the sterotypical medieval knight. Infantry was probably still the most important componet of Frankish armies of the early "Dark Ages".

The Byzantines of course had cataphracts, the real forerunner to knights, but not in the most important sense. Medieval knights were feudal landlords first and foremost while most of the Byzantine armies of that time would have been professional or semi-professional soldiers.

Feudalism was active but in it's infantcy around 500-700; really it's hard to have knights without the strong feudal bonds that would emerge later on as time progressed.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Feudalism was active but in it's infantcy around 500-700; really it's hard to have knights without the strong feudal bonds that would emerge later on as time progressed.

That's certainly contentious. Anything to do with 'feudalism' usually is.

[Father Jack]

That's certainly contentious. Anything to do with 'feudalism' usually is.

Yeah, I am very wary of terms like feudalism. It is one of those areas where historians have been debating it vigorously for the last 50 years.

The idea of feudalism in the traditional sense of King rewards lands/fiefs/feodum to vassals, vassals reward some land to retainers, peasants work this land for the lord of the feodum. In return the king gets soldiers. It is too simplistic, even in the hay day of feudalism that was simply not the case. I think it might have been J. Gillingham who argued that feudalism should be seen as being more horizontal rather than vertical/hierarchical.

I doubt feudalism existed in its traditional form (if that even ever existed) from 500-700AD. I know for a fact that it didn't in England, and Frankish land tenure seems to be different too.

Bodemloze - from Carolingian sources (Capitulary of Aachen, Capitulare Missorum, a letter from Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad) they mention that the infantry must provide a bow with 12 arrows, as well as the usual shield and spear. The letter to Abbot Fulrad mentions 'So that each horseman shall have a shield, lance, sword, dagger, bow and quivers with arrows;' It appears to be an army which some members could easily switch to the bow if necessary. Although bows of this period were not as powerful as later bows (i.e. Longbow) so it may not have been necessary to employ professional archers.
Letter from Charles to Fulrad (c.804-811)

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Charles, most serene, august, crowned by God, great pacific Emperor, and also, by God's mercy, King of the Franks and Lombards, to Abbot Fulrad.
Be it known to you that we have decided to hold our general assembly this year in the eastern part of Saxony, on the river Bode, at the place which is called Stassfurt. Therefore, we have commanded you to come to the aforesaid place, with all your men well armed and prepared, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of July, that is, seven days before the festival of St. John the Baptist. Come, accordingly, so equipped with your men to the aforesaid place that thence you may be able to go well prepared in any direction whither our summons shall direct; that is, with arms and gear also, and other equipment for war in food and clothing. So that each horseman shall have a shield, lance, sword, dagger, bow and quivers with arrows; and in your carts utensils of various kinds, that is, axes, planes, augers, boards, spades, iron shovels, and other utensils which are necessary in an army. In the carts also supplies of food for three months, dating from the time of the assembly, arms and clothing for a half-year. And we command this in general, that you cause it to be observed that you proceed peacefully to the aforesaid place, through whatever part of our realm your journey shall take you, that is, that you presume to take nothing except fodder, wood and water; and let the men of each one of your vassals march along with the carts and horsemen, and let the leader always be with them until they reach the aforesaid place, so that the absence of a lord may not give an opportunity to his men of doing evil.

Send your gifts, which you ought to present to us at our assembly in the middle of the month of May, to the place where we then shall be; if perchance yourjourney shall so shape itself that on your march you are able in person to present these gifts of yours to us, we greatly desire it. See that you show no negligence in the future if you desire to have our favor.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

The Merovingians fielded some fairly armored cavalry (here's a pic)

This pic also comes up a lot as a representation of the first real knights under Charlemagne, so it's either not really an example of purely Merovingian cavalry or him being a Carolingian soldier is just false.
The rest is correct, though.

[Watchman]

Well you know, gear-wise there was no meaningful difference between those...

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

This pic also comes up a lot as a representation of the first real knights under Charlemagne, so it's either not really an example of purely Merovingian cavalry or him being a Carolingian soldier is just false.
The rest is correct, though.

Actually I've seen paintings from the era of Merovingian cavalry (wearing scale armor and that strange-shaped helmet) that are very similar to that modern depiction I posted. Only less colorful, I think the Merovingians in the painting were wearing green and brown, more earth-toned colors.

I couldn't find the painting itself, so I posted the next best thing.

But still, the cavalry were less important...at the Battle of Tours under Charles Martel, the Merovingian Franks dismounted to fight the invading Moors, for example. This was a pretty common practice for Germanic cavalry during the Dark Ages.

Well, what would be the military types in Italy? Any links on Byzantine/Italian fighting?

The "Italians" the Byzantines would have been fighting at this stage would have first been the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths, the Gothic branch that supplanted Odacer after he deposed Romulus Augustus, the last Western Emperor.

The famous general Belisarius bloodied the Ostrogoths signifigantly (read about the Siege of Rome if you want to read of an epic confrontation...the link is to an excellent article) but was recalled to Constantinople. Another Roman general, Narses, finished off the Ostrogothic Kingdom...the last Ostrogoth king was KIA at the Battle of Mons Lactarius near Naples.

However, the Lombards would soon invade, looking for greener pastures, and Italy was once again thrown into war. The Lombards would prove to be a far more lasting presence than the Ostrogoths, and by the mid-8th century they had captured a lot of Roman-controlled cities in north Italy, such as Ravenna.

I found a decent, brief run-down of events here....

http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Article/714268

[intel]

But still, the cavalry were less important...at the Battle of Tours under Charles Martel, the Merovingian Franks dismounted to fight the invading Moors, for example.

Which is some of the poorest choices possible to show lesser importance of the cavalry. Franks were defending a fortified position from behind shieldwall formation - there's no use of cavalry in such situation.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Which is some of the poorest choices possible to show lesser importance of the cavalry. Franks were defending a fortified position from behind shieldwall formation - there's no use of cavalry in such situation.

Yes, but simply using horses for mobility and raiding and not actually on the battlefield itself was pretty common for the Frankish and Germanic tribes (especially in the early Dark Ages)...and later the Vikings, as well as the Saxons.

The Franks would eventually start to fight mounted more and more, and pass on their cavalry techniques to the Normans.

[Manco]

This pic also comes up a lot as a representation of the first real knights under Charlemagne, so it's either not really an example of purely Merovingian cavalry or him being a Carolingian soldier is just false.
The rest is correct, though.

Well, the Merovingian cavalry and Carolingian knights (if knights is the correct word for them, what we know as knights only came to be after the turn of the millennium) are basically the same guys. The Frankish nobility, their sons and their closest retainers; using roughly the same equipment. Lesser retainers, mercenaries and so on wouldn't have the funds to afford that armour and horse.
You've got to keep in mind that the Carolingian scola didn't just suddenly decide to use horses, the process was more organic.

Anyways, Frankish/Merovingian infantry would be based on the Roman legions. Its early core would probably even have been former Roman soldiers, Franks being notable suppliers of manpower in the Western Empire's later years.

[rrgg]

Dark age society can sort of be thought of as a more simple form of feudalism. With order sort of falling apart it was necessary for every free man to have his own arms and be able to defend his land. Thus societies began to focus on the best fighters and those who could afford the best equipment/largest professional retinue.

'Knights' in the medieval sense had their start here as either wealthy landowners who pledged loyalty to a higher lord in exchange for more protection or professional warriors who were given land in exchange for loyalty.

[c00ki3]

Well, what would be the military types in Italy? Any links on Byzantine/Italian fighting?

[Father Jack]

I can't find anything on warfare from 500 A.D - 700 A.D in Europe. Anything between that seems to be not in existence. Especially knights...

Sources prior to 700 are quite rare. And the usage of what we would consider 'knights' really doesn't come about until the 11th century, although the origins of the knight as a professional and well armed warrior have their origins in the late Merovingian and Carolingian cavalry.

Think of warfare in the early Middle Ages as being small scale and often (but not always) only involving the upper echelons of society. You would need a decent income to afford the weaponry and armour, which for your average peasant was often too expensive. The Carolingian Capitulary of Aachen (802/803) stated that infantry in the army must bring with them a shield, spear, a bow, 12 arrows and a replacement bowstring - clearly equipment only available to more economically better off free peasantry.

It is also a period where on the continent, and in the Frankish Empire in particular, cavalry is beginning to become the most prominent 'unit' in armies and for conducting warfare. Cavalry allowed you maneuverability, which was particularly useful for raiding enemy territory, and for responding the internal and external threats rapidly. This increased use of cavalry comes at the beginning of the 700s during the reign of Charles Martel and is often referred to as the 'cavalry revolution'. By 800s Charlemagne is predominantly using his cavalry (Scarae/Scola) to great effect in ensuring the Saxons and Avars are kept in check as they can rapidly react to flash-points.

[Father Jack]

It is also probably worth pointing out that battles during this period were extremely rare, whereas sieges and raids were the norm. Even when battles did occur, they were more comparable to skirmishes.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Well, the Merovingian cavalry and Carolingian knights (if knights is the correct word for them, what we know as knights only came to be after the turn of the millennium) are basically the same guys. The Frankish nobility, their sons and their closest retainers; using roughly the same equipment. Lesser retainers, mercenaries and so on wouldn't have the funds to afford that armour and horse.
You've got to keep in mind that the Carolingian scola didn't just suddenly decide to use horses, the process was more organic.

Anyways, Frankish/Merovingian infantry would be based on the Roman legions. Its early core would probably even have been former Roman soldiers, Franks being notable suppliers of manpower in the Western Empire's later years.

I know, I know. I've been pretty busy with the subject lately. My surprise came from the fact that I expected the arms and armour of Merovingian cavalry to be at least slightly different from Carolingian, but it seems it's not.
On the use of the term "knights": well, I guess you could say the true knights we know, with the couched lance and the pot helmet, came only after the turn of the millennium but in the strictest sense of the word "knight" just means a man who's granted land by his overlord in return for military service. Mostly as a mounted warrior, when talking about the Franks.

Edit: Now that we're on the subject of Early Middle Ages' Warfare, what would be the social position of archers in the Carolingian army? Considering the majority of the army was composed of professional warriors (the knights we're talking about), were the archers the same men but dismounted? Or were they of the same status as archers in other armies of the day: hunters and the likes? Was there even an - worth mentioning - archer component in the Carolingian armies?

[Watchman]

As an aside medieval Swedish laws also required militiamen to bring bows and arrows as part of their kit; which ought not have been a major issue, as Fennoscandians pretty universally had those and knew how to use them (lots of wilderness to hunt in and all).

Anyway, "feudalism" in the sense that applies to medieval chivalry only really developed after Charlemagne's empire came apart at the seams; the historians unsirprisingly debate the reasons, but I gather a general decline of central authority combined with the need to control and defend large regions against mobile enemies were major driving factors. Earlier "Frankish" armies were actually mainly made up of infantry militia; effective (they beat the Moors at Tours and won Charlemagne his empire) but slow to mobilize and concentrate, which didn't quite suit the new military challenges. The old Merovingian and Carolingian (largely the same thing, given that the latter dynasty mainly superceded the former with fairly little change in the rest of the realm) cavalry was AFAIK essentially made up of the kings' and other potentates' comitatus (personal armed retinue), and mostly provided a supplementary mobile striking arm for the infantry line. I recall reading an interpretation of Tours that suggested the heavy horse made repeated sorties from behind the bulwark of the infantry, for example.

[Father Jack]

The infantry militia theory has been questioned by more recent historians though.

[Watchman]

*shrug* Not familiar with that line of inquiry. Peasant-soldiers would seem like a pretty logical continuation of the old Germanic tribal system however, as well as rather better suited to the financial situation (since they are essentially free as far as the realm and the ruler are concerned, whereas professionals such as comitatus retainers are dreadfully expensive to maintain).

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Bodemloze - from Carolingian sources (Capitulary of Aachen, Capitulare Missorum, a letter from Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad) they mention that the infantry must provide a bow with 12 arrows, as well as the usual shield and spear. The letter to Abbot Fulrad mentions 'So that each horseman shall have a shield, lance, sword, dagger, bow and quivers with arrows;' It appears to be an army which some members could easily switch to the bow if necessary. Although bows of this period were not as powerful as later bows (i.e. Longbow) so it may not have been necessary to employ professional archers.
Letter from Charles to Fulrad (c.804-811)
Quote:
*cut*

Ah, of course. The letter; how could I have forgotten.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation of that. Have some rep.

The idea of feudalism in the traditional sense of King rewards lands/fiefs/feodum to vassals, vassals reward some land to retainers, peasants work this land for the lord of the feodum. In return the king gets soldiers. It is too simplistic, even in the hay day of feudalism that was simply not the case. I think it might have been J. Gillingham who argued that feudalism should be seen as being more horizontal rather than vertical/hierarchical.

True. If you look at feudalism in its hay day (which would be the 12th-13th century, I guess?) you can't really say that the one who theoratically had most power also had that power de facto (King of France, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire). Which basically undermines the whole idea of feudalism being "lord above lord above lord".

[Watchman]

The kind of decentralisation of legal authority and military power that generally gets termed "feudalism" had kind of an inherent problem - no matter what the titular overlord was in principle *supposed* to be, in practice he tended to end up a primus inter pares in regards to his titular vassals, or at least the greater among thereof. The delegation of military power also tended to make it very difficult, if not practically impossible, to coerce "rogue" ones back into the fold. Nevermind now that the nominal relations tended to get pretty convoluted and labyrinthine in very short order, often making it entirely possible for individual lords to pick and choose sides in a conflict perfectly legitimately. I understand the problematic summarised as "when my man is not my man" was first observed by High Medieval legal experts...

European monarchs went on to spend almost half a millenium reasserting their authority over the landed aristocracy (and some never succeeded).