Rule's, rule's and more confounded rule's.

[Longmane]

I'm starting a separate thread for this, due not only to it's speciality by also the probable large size of each post.

Discipline in Camp and on the March
We need to examine the questions of discipline on the march and in camp: we are particularly well informed about these matters as regards the Knights Templar, and their Rule contains many interesting details. Since they had to fight constantly against the Moslems they drew up strict regulations as to how to prepare for battle, and how everything had to be done with the greatest circumspection.
On arrival in camp after a march the Templars provisionally chose a place round the chapel which, with tents for the Master and the local commander, formed the nucleus of the camp, and were therefore the first to be put up.  While the owners of these tents moved in the other knights awaited the order that would allow them to take their place within the ropes marking out the camp boundaries.  The marshal of the Order had the provisional right to each place until the order was given to set up the tents.

No knight could send members of his retinue to forage or fetch wood without permission.  One squire out of two might search for necessities close to the camp, but only close enough to be recalled by shouting.  In an emergency each unit leader had to have all his men on call.  The herald always had to lodge near the standardbearer, and his orders had to be strictly carried out  just as strictly as those of the leader in whose name he announced them.  The attention of the soldiers was first called by a shout or the tolling of a bell - this in contrast to knightly armies in which orders were also proclaimed by a herald, but in which trumpets were mostly used.  Food had to be fetched in close ranks by each man personally.  Two knights received the same rations as three turcopoles: two turcopoles got the same as three junior brothers of the Order or sergeants.   The Master and the sick men enjoyed a special diet.  Probably the horses and equipment were inside the circle formed by the knights' tents: this was prescribed in the Rule of the Teutonic Order, which derived from that of the Templars.  The regulations for the march emphasize that the same rules were valid for the Templars.

If an alarm were sounded in the camp it had to be dealt with in an orderly and disciplined manner.  The high command did not want everyone to rush at once to the danger spot, and sought above all to avoid panic.  On an alarm, the knights who were nearest had to go at once, armed with lance and shield.  The others had to report to the chapel and wait for orders there.  If the alarm sounded outside the camp no one was to go without permission, even if a lion or other ferocious beast paused in its tracks.  In such a case and also when the Templars were in quarters, the commander of the turcopoles, or native mounted troops, was ordered by the marshal to send one or two men on reconnaissance in order to decide what ought to be done.  When the Templars were in permanent camp or in quarters in time of war, the standard had to be brought out first and then the knights came as quickly as possible.  As in modern armies, a distinction was made in the Rule between a march in peacetime and one in war.  In the latter case the regulations were stricter, in that everyone had to act more quickly.

Strict discipline was imposed from the moment camp was broken until the units were on the move, undoubtedly because these minutes were critical for a cavalry army. When camp was broken horses could not be saddled, harnessed, mounted, or fetched from their places until the marshal gave the order.  The Templars could then attach a few articles to their horses: tent stakes, empty flasks, ropes, a pail and so on.  If a Templar wanted to ask a question of the Marshal before the march off he had to go to him on foot, and then return to his place.  He could not leave his place in camp for any other reason, but meanwhile he had his tent struck and folded and awaited the order to move.  As soon as the marshal gave the order to move, the brothers would take a quick look round to see that no equipment had been left behind.  Then they moved off well grouped together, in step, followed by their squires.  Each man took his place in the column.

Once they were all moving, the squire with the equipment and baggage was stationed in front of the knight.  At night they marched in complete silence.  Each man had to stay behind his armour, and ride calmly in his unit.  By day a knight might carry on a conversation with his companion.  If he rode alongside a column to do this, while his squire accompanied him with the equipment, this always had to take place on the leeward side, in order not to throw dust or sand into the faces of other men.  He then took a place temporarily in the unit of his companion, for it was forbidden to ride separately abreast of the column with two, three, four or more men.  If a knight or a squire lost his place in his unit during the night, he had to stay with the other unit till the morning.

No one might leave his unit without permission to water animals, or for any reason, but if the line of march passed through flowing water in a peaceful region, the beasts might be allowed to drink if it did not slow up the advance.  In a danger area the march had to go on at all costs, but if the standardbearer let his horse drink, all the others could do so too.  If the alarm was sounded on the march, the knights closest to the source of the alarm had to mount their chargers and take their lance and shield, and then wait quietly for the marshal's orders, while all the other Templars gathered round the marshal to hear his orders too.  When the Templars were lying in ambush or were protecting foraging squires, were travelling from one place to another or found themselves in a dangerous place, they could not unbridle or unsaddle their horses, or feed them, without permission from their commander.  On the march the standardbearer rode at the head of the whole column of march, under the marshal's orders and followed by the banner borne by a squire.  In time of war, when the knights were advancing in their eschieles at the ready, the banner of the Order was borne by a turcopole, and the standard-bearer was in command of the Templars' squires.

When battle was imminent, the Templars were divided into eschieles.  Once a knight had taken his place in the unit, he was not allowed to leave it again: he was also forbidden to mount or take up his shield and lance without permission.  When the Templars were fully armed and were moving off, their squires had to ride in front of them with the lances, while the other squires came behind with spare horses.  All this was done on the orders of the Marshal, or his deputy.

As the knights rode out in their formation they were not allowed to turn their horses aside to fight or to answer an alarm.  At that point the Templars were permitted to ride their horses, in order to find out whether the saddle was secure and the coverings were properly attached.  After this short ride they returned quietly to their unit.  If they wanted to take shield and lance with them on this test ride they had to ask permission: if they wanted to put on the mail cap worn under the helmet, it might be put on, but not taken off again.  Above all, it was strictly forbidden to dash on ahead and leave the ranks without permission.  If it nevertheless happened that a Christian recklessly went on and was set upon by a Turk so that his life was in danger, then a Templar might leave the ranks to help him, if conscience prompted him to do so.  Afterwards he had to return quietly to his unit.  But if a knight of the Order undertook an attack on his own in other circumstances or left the ranks, his infringement of the regulations was investigated, and he was punished: he might for example have to return to camp on foot, but he was not deprived of the dress of the Order for such a breach. 

This summary of the Rules of the Order of the Templars pertaining to discipline in camp and during the march to battle makes it clear that all eventualities were provided for, plainly as the result of long experience.  The German historian von Frauenholz, who could boast of twenty years' experience as a cavalry officer, wrote on this subject: 'The regulations for the march, as well as those for the camp, show that those moments of danger in which confusion may easily arise, were clearly anticipated, and that every effort was made to avoid possible defeat.  In purely cavalry formations nothing has been altered to this very day that deals with these regulations or the moments of danger.

It cannot be assumed that the knights of the religious Orders alone acquired this war experience: secular knights too knew and feared such moments'.   Naturally there were not nearly so many regulations to hedge round the march of an ordinary knightly army.  On the march, the marshals rode ahead with their banners, as happened in the royal French army in 1304 and 1328, and in the English army in 1327.  Edward III strictly forbade anyone to leave the unit.  Each knight remained in his lord's formation and might not leave the ranks nor ride in front of the banner, though exceptions were made for attending to natural necessities, or for adjusting girths or other parts of the harness.  At the sound of the alarm or whenever the vanguard was thought to have made contact with the enemy, each unit hastened forward to help.  The march of Edward III's army went on briskly over the rough terrain and was very exhausting.  Yet knights and squires were manifestly capable of great physical exertion on very little food, and with nothing to drink but water from streams and rivers.

The French royal army in 1328 provided a good example of the march and arrival in camp of a knightly army.  When it reached Cassel, the units advanced in the following order: the first bataille was led by the two marshals and the master of the crossbowmen, it consisted of six banners.  All the foot-soldiers and baggage followed these units.  As soon as the marshals had reached the camp site, they showed the quartermaster-sergeants (fouriers) the place for their masters.  Then came the second 'battle', under the count of Alençon, made up of twenty-one banners: these took up a position facing the city of Cassel, in order to make it possible to set up camp and to afford protection for the troops against a possible attack by the insurgents.  The third formation was made up of thirteen banners, and was led by the master of the Knights Hospitaller from overseas, and by lord Guichard de Beaujeu.   
This unit also included all the troops from the region of Languedoc.  The constable Gautier de Châtillon led the fourth 'battle', consisting of eight banners; the fifth was the royal formation, in which the king commanded thirty-nine banners; it included the king of Navarre, the duke of Lorraine, and the count of Bar, and was protected by a wing under Miles de Noyers, standard-bearer of the oriflamme, that was made up of six banners.  The duke of Burgundy commanded the sixth formation, eighteen banners strong.  The seventh was led by the dauphin of Vienne, who commanded twelve banners.  The eighth formation, of seventeen banners, was led by the count of Hainault.  There was also a wing under John, brother of the count, with the troops of the king of Bohemia.  The ninth unit, of fifteen banners, was under the duke of Brittany.  All these units took their places in the camp under the direction of the two marshals.  Then, when everyone was in place, the rear-guard arrived.  This was the tenth 'battle' under Robert d'Artois, consisting of twenty-one banners.  It advanced towards the hill on which Cassel stands and went on right through the camp, past the king's tent, in the direction of an abbey, where it encamped.  The next day the duke of Bourbon came with reinforcements, consisting of an additional 'battle' of fourteen banners.  Finally the royal army was further strengthened by five banners commanded by Robert of Cassel.  In all the army consisted of 196 banners.   According to this eyewitness description, the various camp-sites were occupied in accordance with the directions of the marshals, who marched in with their standards in the first formation.  The second formation protected them while the camp sites were being allocated.
Of course camps were guarded at night, but on some occasions the guard was inadequate: Edward III's army in 1327 was surprised by a night raid carried out by the Scots.  After that incident the night guard was never relaxed, and appears to have been effective.  Guard was also carefully mounted in the camp of St Louis at Mansurah in Egypt.  Before and after the battle of Mons-en-Pévèle, the king of France had his camp carefully guarded by armoured cavalry.  After a victorious battle it sometimes happened that the camp was not guarded that night, because of a general feeling that the enemy had been utterly crushed.  Jan van Heelu mentions this after the battle of Worringen, and it happened elsewhere too.  Some commanders fortified their camp during the siege of a fortress, as Raymond of Toulouse did several times during his struggle against Simon de Montfort in the crusade against the Albigensians, and Simon copied him.  During the siege of Acre, king Guy of Lusignan fortified the crusaders' camp to protect it against Saladin and his relief army.  The crusaders did the same thing at Constantinople in 1203 and at Damietta in 1218.  During the siege of Lille in 1304 Philip the Fair had ditches dug to protect his men against sorties from the garrison, while the river Marcq later served to protect his camp in the direction from which the Flemish relief force appeared. 

Though we do not know much about camp regulations of medieval armies, we have some good examples of their marches.  One of the best is from the Holy Land of the march of the Crusaders from Acre to Jaffa under Richard I.  There is another one of a well-disciplined march before the battle of Bouvines by the army of Philip Augustus, while on the other hand the army of Otto set about the pursuit far too hastily, with the result that it was defeated.  There is another good example in the difficult journey of the army of young Baldwin III from the kingdom of Jerusalem to Bosra in 1147.  The army was carefully protected: it was alert and well disciplined, and it was forbidden to make sorties.  But at a certain moment the king's strict rule about attacking the enemy was broken by a Saracen cavalryman in his army.  It is puzzling why this rule was broken, and why the cavalryman was apparently not punished.

We must now examine this question of discipline on the march and during battle.

Coming soon  ;D
Battle Discipline

[Hossenfeffer]

How about the rules of usage (cruelly abused in your post) of the humble apostrophe?

[Foundation]

Mind if I recommend a few line breaks here and there? 8)

[Longmane]

Methinks need take that up with the scoundrel whom wrote the book, either that or it's printers, as I myself only copied and pasted from it  :)

[Longmane]

Mind you saying that it could really do with a bit of selective editing and I'll attempt do it when get chance.

[Zakilevo]

Wow.. How can you write so much lol Interesting :)

[Haerthorne]

Wow.. How can you write so much lol Interesting :)

He's copying and pasting. That said it is very interesting.