Topics

31

Background / An insight into the early evolution of the tourney.

« on: November 12, 2011, 07:58:06 PM »

(Taken from “Life in a Medieval Castle”  by Frances and Joseph, Gies,)

In the lean times of peace there remained one source of action and possible gain: the tournament.  Historically an outgrowth of old pagan games, taken over like so many other pagan institutions by the early Middle Ages and accorded a Christian coloration, the tournament had by the thirteenth century evolved its own rules and formalities.

Great lords and princes organized tournaments for their own entertainment and that of their friends, and to show off their wealth.  The principal feature was a mock battle between groups of knights from different regions.  Heralds were sent around the countryside to proclaim the tournament, and on the appointed day the knights donned their armor, mounted their horses, and lined up at opposite ends of a level meadow. At a flourish from a herald, the two bands of horsemen charged at each other. 

The field was open-ended, because when one team was defeated and sought to retreat, the other, exactly as in real war, pursued it through wood and dale to capture prisoners.  When it was all over, the defeated knights had to arrange with their captors for their ransom, usually the value of horse and armor, redeemed by a money payment.  William Marshal and another knight made a two-year tour of France attending tournaments, in one ten-month period capturing 103 knights and doing a profitable business in ransoms.

There were also prizes, sometimes for several categories of prowess.  William Marshal once won a fish, a pike of unusual size.  The knights who delivered it found William at the blacksmith’s, down on his knees, his head on the anvil, while the smith labored to release him from his helmet, which had gotten turned around backwards from a lance’s blow.

Until the latter part of the fourteenth century, there was little individual jousting.  The tournament was essentially training for war, and the mass melee intentionally resembled a real battle.  The combative ardor of the participants was often very akin to the spirit of genuine war, especially if knightly loyalties were enlisted.  Serious and even fatal injuries were common.
 
At one tournament William Marshal’s son Gilbert was exhibiting his skill at horsemanship when the bridle broke.  Gilbert was tumbled from the saddle and, catching one foot in the stirrup, was dragged across the field and fatally injured.   After the accident, the tournament degenerated into a brawl in which one of Gilbert’s retainers was killed and many knights and squires were badly wounded.
 
A decade later a tournament near Rochester ended with English squires belaboring the defeated French knights with sticks and clubs.  The earliest English tournaments had been licensed by the king, but Henry III consistently opposed them.   William Marshal forbade one in Henry’s name in 1217, and thereafter the prohibitions multiplied, but they were so ineffectual that according to the monastic chronicler of the Annals of Dunstable, “tourneyers, their aiders and abettors, and those who carried merchandise or provisions to tournaments were ordered to be excommunicated, all together, regularly every Sunday.”

The tournament at which Gilbert Marshal was killed had been forbidden by the king—a fact which Henry pointed out to Walter Marshal when the latter claimed his brother’s inheritance:  “And you too, Walter, who against my wish and notwithstanding my prohibition, and in contempt of me, were present at the tournament…on what grounds do you demand your inheritance?”  Walter’s protests that he could not leave his brother did not soften the king’s anger, but the intercession of the bishop of Durham finally brought about a reconciliation.

Aside from the fear that the king expressed when he canceled two tournaments in 1247 between knights of his own French province of Poitou and those of his English domain (he was afraid, in the words of Matthew Paris, that “after the spears were shivered, bloody swords might flash forth”), Henry III regarded tournaments as pretexts for conspiracy by the barons. 

In several cases these mock wars were closely connected with baronial uprisings.  On the occasion of an abortive rising at Stamford in 1229 after Henry’s coming of age, the barons involved rode off to Chepstow with William Marshal II for a tournament, only to be confronted with a writ by the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, forbidding the meeting.  Seventy-three more prohibitions were recorded in the ensuing three decades.  Several times knights holding tournaments had their lands seized. On one occasion the king’s brother, William de Valence, urged his knightly companions to defy the king’s order and hold a tournament, which was only prevented by a heavy fall of snow.   A little later William staged the tournament and succeeded in severely wounding a fellow knight.

The Church joined Henry in its opposition, not only because of the violence of the combats and the danger of sedition.  Besides such innocent auxiliary sports as wrestling, dart shooting, lance hurling, and stone throwing, the tournaments were famous for eating, drinking, and lovemaking.  Jacques de Vitry, the Paris preacher renowned for the acerbity of his sermons, liked to use the tournament to illustrate all seven of the deadly sins. 

The Church’s strictures were not very effective.  Jocelin of Brakelond records how Abbot Samson of Bury St.Edmunds forbade a band of young knights to hold a tournament and went so far as to lock the town gates to keep them from the field.  Next day, on the Feast of Peter and Paul, the young men foreswore combat and came to dine with the abbot.  But after dinner, sending for more wine, they caroused, sang, ruined the abbot’s afternoon nap, and finally marched out, broke open the town gates, and held their tournament.  The abbot excommunicated the lot.

In the 1250s a milder form of combat, known in England as a Round Table (named after King Arthur’s assemblies), anticipated the tournaments of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, replacing the mass melee with adversaries in single combat with blunted weapons.   Such meetings were usually preceded by feasting and games. 

But even the Round Tables could be lethal.  In 1252 Matthew Paris recorded the death of Arnold de Montigny in a joust with Roger de Lemburn, which brought suspicion of murder because the iron point of Roger’s lance, when drawn from the dead man’s throat, was found not to have been blunted as it should have been.   Further, Roger had previously wounded Arnold in a tournament.  Matthew concluded, “But God only knows the truth of this, who alone
searches into the secrets of men’s hearts.”

At another Round Table in 1256, held at Blyth, the seventeen-year-old Prince Edward fought in armor of linen cloth and with light weapons; but the meeting, like the mass melees, ended in turmoil, with the participants beaten and trampled on.   According to Matthew Paris, a number of nobles, including Earl Marshal Roger Bigod of Chepstow, “never afterwards recovered their health.”  Prince Edward, as Edward I, sought to regulate rather than ban tournaments and Round Tables.  His statute of 1267 aimed at preventing riots by limiting the number of squires and specifying the weapons carried by knights, squires, grooms, footmen, heralds, and spectators.   At Edward’s own royal tourneys, there were no casualties. 

32

Background / A small piece on the use of surprise and treachery in medieval warfare.

« on: October 27, 2011, 10:12:12 PM »

Surprise and treachery

Despite formalities in siege warfare, some less then straightforward methods were employed to achieve success, such as the use of spies. 

Beggars in the siege lines around Ballon informed the garrison that Fulk of Anjou's men were at dinner, enabling the defenders to launch a highly successful sortie.

 In 1364 a monk who carried protection money to La Charit'e-sur-Loire heard the plan to attack Sancerre, the names of captains and strongholds round La Charite, strengths of contingents and the time they would cross the river.  He turned out to be the brother of Guichard Aubergeon, the captain of the garrison of Sancerre, and specially chosen.  The attackers were subsequently ambushed and cut to pieces.

 Despite the presence of sentries in castle towers there are a number of instances of castles being taken by surprise. 

There might be a logical explanation; William II seized Mantes in 1097 because the garrison had gone to asses the damage done to the corn and vines the previous day, and were caught as they re-entered.  Occasionally a straightforward trick was employed.  In 1271 Sultan Baibars forged a letter which ordered the Hospitallers to hand over Krac des Chevaliers.
 
Others were more daring; in 1364 Bascot de Maul'eon hid with six others in a haystack near Thurie and next morning, dressed as women, they mingled with those filling pitchers at the spring before walking in with kerchiefs over their faces and blowing a horn for their hidden comrades.  Similarly in 1401 the Tudor brothers sent a carpenter into Conway who, appearing to arrive for work, slew the two watchmen and seized the castle with 40 others.
 
However surprise was often the result of treachery.  Sometimes this took the form of a simple refusal to respect the code of chivalry,  as when the Anjevin count, Geoffrey Martel, was shot in the arm by a crossbowman on the wall as he discussed peace terms during a parley before Cand'e in 1106, a wound from which he subsequently died.   

Often though it was the result of a betrayal of one's lord, which to a knight of honour was a particularly base action.  The totally ruthless Robert of Belleme used the general confusion following the death of William I to change sides and so capture several castles whose garrisons thought him to be a supporter of the king. 

Henry I apparently could not support a long siege for fear of treachery, which always dogged conflicts between kinsmen.  At Bures he placed Breton and English mercenaries in the castle since he mistrusted many Normans. 

The royal garrison at the fortified manor of the Archbishops palace at Andely were caught of guard when it was betrayed to the French in 1119; soldiers hiding in the straw in a corn storehouse rushed out in the morning with English war cries only to change them to French ones once inside, allowing them to let French cavalry squadrons burst in and seize the town.

33

Background / Foot-soldiers versus Knights in Battle

« on: June 23, 2011, 09:58:52 PM »

Part of a sub-chapter on the role of foot soldiers in medieval warfare.

3 Foot-soldiers versus Knights in Battle

It is not easy nowadays to piece together an accurate picture of medieval warfare, and to re-create the atmosphere of battle, but this must be done if we are to form an idea of the value of the foot soldiers in battle.

Early in the morning, about 6 a.m., the men were called to arms, usually by trumpet.  Sometimes the  tents were first struck, huts were pulled down, and camp broken.  The men armed themselves, then attended mass or went to confession and took Holy Communion, for they never omitted spiritual preparation.  Franciscan friars usually served as chaplains in the Flemish communal armies.  The men were restless and nervous, thinking of the forthcoming battle: many of them had no appetite and ate almost no breakfast, often just bread dipped in wine.

The preparation of the troops, and getting them ready in battle order took a long time.  By 8 or 9 o'clock they would be ready for battle, drawn up in closely packed ranks, practically shoulder to shoulder, though the men with the goedendags had to have plenty of room to move so that they could strike and stab.  The pikemen with their pikes or long lances got ready to halt the cavalry attack.  A pikeman was stationed next to each man armed with a goedendag, or the pikemen formed the first rank, the men with the goedendags the second.

It is very rare to find a reliable description of the mental state of soldiers before a battle.  Nervousness, tension, fear and dread all create a psychological condition which may just as likely lead to a heroic and stubborn defence as to disgraceful and cowardly flight.  The feeling that defeat meant total ruin was often decisive in successful defence.  At Legnano in 1176, at Cortenuova in 1237, as at Courtrai in 1302, the foot-soldiers knew that they must win or die.  In each of these apparently hopeless situations they conquered their fear and beat off the attack of the armoured cavalrymen successfully.  Once this was done, they had the self-confidence to offer further resistance.

It is difficult for us to imagine how hard the foot-soldiers of those days were tested.  To stand up to the medieval heavy cavalry charge was no child's play, for in the thirteenth century cavalry could approach the foot-soldiers with impunity to within a hundred meters, and it was sufficiently well protected to stand up to the defenders' rain of arrows while covering that distance as quickly as possible. 

The iron-clad horsemen attacked in close formations, their horses flank to flank, which increased mutual confidence and swept the less brave along irresistibly.  In flat open country they came on at 250 meters a minute at a trot, and almost twice that speed at a gallop.  The defending crossbowmen thus had only 15–24 seconds in which to shoot, as the cavalry approached, and they were possibly so nervous that they shot too high or too low.  The cavalry came on in such force, with heavy horses and armoured riders, that the shock could easily break the wooden shafts of the pikes.  It has been calculated that ten riders were mechanically equal to a hundred foot-soldiers, and that a galloping rider was equal to ten foot-soldiers on the defensive.  This theoretical calculation is valid only in those cases where the knights carried the charge through to the final terrible clash.

If the ranks of the foot-soldiers wavered a bit, the cavalrymen could drive their horses between the pikes into any little gap, instead of riding up on them.  The physical strength of the foot-soldiers was not great enough to withstand the assault if it was carried through quickly and relentlessly, but the absolute immobility of the foot-soldiers made their front into a kind of hedgehog, and the cavalry only ventured between the pikes with the terrifying prospect of death. 


Instead of breaking the pikes in the shock of attack, it often happened that the horses were killed by the stout steel points of the long weapons.  The fall or death of the horse threw the knight hard to the ground, right in front of the foot-soldiers or even in their ranks.  Worse still, the rider was often pinned under his horse, or had to reckon with the long weapons of the foot-soldiers.  Nothing but the strength of the foot-soldiers' morale could stand up to the attackers' brute force.

Such a charge took place amid deafening noise.  The enemy blew trumpets to herald the attack and to encourage the troops.  The horses became excited and whinnied.  The shrill notes of the trumpets demoralized the foot-soldiers: many of them felt their heart beat faster, and almost everyone at such a moment would have preferred to be anywhere but on that terrible field of battle.  Only the most experienced could remain unmoved by the hellish din.  In the words of the French foot-soldier Guiart: 'Drums and trumpets boom, if you are not used to these things, you would soon be frightened.' 

The enemy knights shouted their battle cry to terrify their opponents and to bolster up their own courage, hoping up to the very last moment that the foot-soldiers would abandon their position and take to their heels in panic.  The horses were naturally not at all willing to break into the ranks of the foot-soldiers and ride them down.  But out of a sense of duty, from courage, a high concept of personal or corporate honour, or simply because the others were doing it and one had to behave like a brave man, the cavalry forced their warhorses to charge.  This was best done in a group at a quick trot, or rather more slowly if there was any hesitation, and the horses, who immediately sensed it, had slackened their pace.

In any case, even if some of the knights did not carry on the charge to the utmost, a terrible shock followed.  This came with a hellish din when the armoured formations charged a wall of foot soldiers, exactly as when two knightly armies met each other. 'Four hundred carpenters would not have made so much noise.'  'They closed in with such force that the clash of weapons and the din of blows made the air ring, just as though trees in the forest were being cut down with innumerable axes.'  'The fighters were like woodcutters, chopping down the trees of a forest.'  'The din was so frightful that one could not have heard even God's thunder.'  'It was as if all the smiths in Brussels and Bruges were striking their anvils.'

Yet the frightful noise of the battle was merely a minor part of the atmosphere.  Far more terrible was the fact that men saw their comrades fall, trampled by enemy warhorses, or felled by the lances of the knights.  Some men fell dying, others were more or less seriously wounded and their blood stained the ground or the grass on which they fought.  Fighting with heavy weapons was extremely fatiguing.  The men wore very heavy clothing or some kind of protective equipment, and had to lift the pike or goedendag with both hands in order to bring the iron head down on the warhorses, aiming at the legs, head, or belly of the animals.  The tremendous blows resounded fiercely on the helmets or metal plates of the knights.  Every man was put through a terrible trial.

In the most favourable situation—that is when the foot-soldiers were greater in number than the cavalry, and in the mêlée two or three foot-soldiers could tackle each knight—the knights who had broken into the ranks were mercilessly slaughtered.  Horses were brought down, the riders fell, and before they could get up again, or could scramble free from under their chargers, it was often too late.  In such a case the fighting might go on for a long time, but the knights' fate was sealed: they were doomed.

This was not always the case however.  Sometimes the knights entrusted the task of holding the enemy in check in front to their own foot-soldiers, perhaps reinforced by dismounted noblemen, as happened at Westrozebeke in 1382.   Then heavy cavalry units attacked the enemy foot-soldiers on the flanks and in the rear, so that the flanks of the foot-soldiers were hurled back, and they lost a great deal of their room to manoeuvre.  The men who were attacked on their unprotected flank had to form a new front hastily, which was not always an easy thing to do. If the cavalry were successful in keeping up the attacks, they pressed the men on the flanks up against those in the centre.  They then had too little room to move, and could not easily use their weapons.  The more successful the cavalry were, the more they went on charging, and the more tightly they crushed the foot-soldiers together.

After the battle of Westrozebeke the body of Philip van Artevelde was found, and it showed no wound.  He had been crushed in the tightly packed mass of the men of Ghent.  The same thing occurred in the Scottish army at the battle of Dupplin Moor in 1332, when their foot-soldiers had gone out to attack, but were held in check in front and then were attacked on both flanks by English archers.  The Scots on the flanks were driven in toward the centre to such an extent that more men perished by being crushed to death than were killed by arms.

This general picture of a fight between foot-soldiers and armoured cavalry would naturally show different features from battle to battle.  As remarkable examples of pure tactics of foot-soldiers, let us now turn to a brief discussion of the two important battles of Courtrai and Mons-en-Pévèle, and a less important but nevertheless interesting battle of Arques.  They give an excellent picture of the possibilities and limitations of the tactics of the Flemish foot-soldiers.


NB I'll attempt cover one of those in a later post.

34

Background / Getting orders across via Trumpets and Banners ect

« on: May 11, 2011, 08:14:57 PM »

Signalling with trumpets has been noted as early as their use by the Merovingian armies.  Their use in the ninth century is briefly mentioned: Louis the Pious ordered a trumpet signal for breaking camp.  These were also used elsewhere, for example in the Middle East, where orders were given as follows: at the first trumpet blast each man had to arm himself, at the second blast the banners or units had to be formed, and at the third blast the whole army had to be assembled.   At Worringen the trumpets sounded the calls 'to arms' and 'take arms' before the battle.  They sounded again to start the attack, as in tournaments.   When the duke's standard was brought down however, the trumpeters were so distraught over the outcome of the struggle that they stopped blowing the trumpets, which shook the soldiers' morale.   As soon as the banner was raised again, the trumpets sounded once more, and after the victory they were used to summon the men for supper.   In the battles of Arsuf, Bouvines, Courtrai and Mons-en-Pévèle, trumpets were frequently mentioned, but the use of them was so general that the chroniclers thought it superfluous to speak of them, or to explain for what purpose the instruments were used.

During the retreat of the Flemings at Mons-en-Pévèle they were used to re-assemble the troops, a use that may be frequently noted in the chansons de geste.   In the Chanson de Roland camp was broken at the sound of the trumpets; they were also used to herald the assault and to give the soldiers the order to take arms.   During the battle the scattered troops were collected again at the sound of the trumpet or horn.    Jean le Bel described the same custom in the English army of Edward III: at the first blast the horses had to be saddled, at the second the troops had to put on their arms, and at the third they had to mount and get into formation.   The same usage was codified by Charles the Bold in the Grande Ordonnance of 1473.  It was thus a general usage which was also common in the Flemish cities, where trumpeters are found in every expedition.

Banners were also used to give orders.  To take a banner forward was the sign to begin the attack, and it was also used to halt it, and to direct the setting up of camp.  Men rallied round the banner in hand-to-hand fighting to re-form a compact unit.

Commands and Evolutions: a Comparison with Byzantium

In order to form a clear idea of the training of knightly units it is very important to know what movements the knights could perform, with or without orders.  Fortunately excellent material is available for comparison in the cavalry orders as they existed in Byzantium, where the classical tradition lingered on for a long time in the army.  These orders were derived from the Strategikon. They are the exercises of the tagma, the basic tactical unit, consisting of about 300 horsemen.

In this unit the standard was placed in front of the first rank or in it, which coincided with knightly custom, for the banners were brought forward before the attack, and the attack was started with the standard in the front rank by the Templars among others.   The mandator, one of the commanders, then called out: 'Silentium! Nemo demittat, nemo antecedat', which agrees with the prohibition against leaving the  ranks during a charge, which we have also seen in the tournaments. 'And he gave strict orders that no one should move in front of the banners, nor move at all until commanded to do so', said Jean le Bel of the order given by Edward III in 1327.

The march was begun at the sound of the buccina or boukinon—a trumpet-like instrument that was also used among the knights—, or at the command of a leader who shouted: 'Move'.  This order, 'Mouvez', was given at Courtrai by Artois.353 Sometimes the signal was given by the banner, as in the case of the Templars.

The signal to halt was given by striking a shield, by a hand sign, by a trumpet-signal on the tuba, as in many cases in knightly armies, or by the order 'Stop' (Sta). In the Chanson de Roland Roland halts the column by a banner signal.

In order to march off properly lined up, the leader gave the order 'Aequaliter ambula', which is the same thing as 'ordinata aequaliter acies', in which Henry I's men marched against the Hungarians in 933.  It was the general rule to march in perfectly aligned formations: 'nobody dared, by the fear of losing his head, to ride before the banners, except the marshals'.

In order to draw up the cavalry units in thinner lines and thus to encompass a broader front, the command was given 'Largiter ambula'.  This is immediately reminiscent of the advice given by Raas of Liedekerke to the men of Brabant at Worringen:

'I look at their line and see
That it is broad and long;
They could against our will
Encircle us before we knew it:
So make our ranks long and thin,
Before they attack us.'

To get the men into closely packed ranks Liebrecht of Dormael shouted:

'Thick and tight! thick and tight!
Let every man bravely press as
Close as he can to his comrade'.

And then they all shouted:
'Stick together, thick! Thick!'

Two commands used by the Byzantine armies were not common among the knights.  They were primarily intended for units in deep formation: 'ad latus stringe', close in on the flank, and 'iunge', to close ranks from back to front, so that the last lines came closer to the first.  It is quite possible that this is what is meant by the 'thick and tight' of the Brabançons at Worringen, however.

 In order to speed up the cavalry advance, the order was given: 'cursu mina', which might be translated as 'Spur your horses'.  It is obvious that such an order was also used among the knights: in the struggle for the capture of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, Robert de Clari explains it in these words: 'Two of the bravest and wisest men were selected from each bataille, and whatever they commanded was done.  If the command 'Poingniès' (spur!) was given, we spurred our horses; if the order 'Alès le pas' (go on step), we stepped slowly.'.  The knights' formation advanced slowly at first, and then charged when they reached a suitable distance from the enemy.

Another command was used in the Byzantine armies: 'cum ordine seque', given as soon as the skirmishing cavalry came within a mile of the enemy.  To lead them back the order 'cede' was given, to make them attack again: 'torna mina'. Other orders, such as 'depone sinistra, depone dextra' meant that the cavalry had to move left or right.  In case of an attack on the rear, the order was given to make a new front in that direction, but without making the original front move its position.  There is no reference to these orders in the chronicles, but the knights were able to execute them.  This was indispensable for fighting and manoeuvring with foot-soldiers on the battlefield, in close cooperation.

Finally, it was foreseen that the front line of cavalry might give ground and move back to the second line or the reserve.  Then the standard-bearer (bandophoros) of the formation shouted: 'Suscipe', 'take them up'.  It was thus that Villehardouin hastened to give help after the defeat of Baldwin I at Adrianople.   At Arsuf the reserve twice let attacking units withdraw in order to regroup.  This was another reason why a reserve unit was held back during a pursuit.  At the end of the battle of Hastings, during the pursuit of the defeated enemy, Count Eustace, at the head of fifty knights, wished to sound the retreat: receptui signa canere.  Duke William arrived there and ordered the pursuit to be continued.

Finally, the Byzantine army had yet another custom: a bowshot from the enemy a soldier cried out 'Parati!'  Another answered 'Adiuta' and then they all shouted 'Deus'.  It was taken over very early by the French knights, and we find it in the Chanson de Roland as 'diex aie'.   It was also used by the Crusaders before Jerusalem: it was especially used by the Normans.

The cantator was an important figure in both the Byzantine and knightly armies.  It was his duty to urge on the troops by harangues and especially by martial songs.   This was the role of Taillefer in the battle of Hastings.

35

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

« on: April 30, 2011, 06:39:10 PM »

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 
Battle Discipline

36

Background / The Medieval military orders.

« on: April 28, 2011, 11:39:05 PM »

A–Z OF THE LEADING MEDIEVAL MILITARY ORDERS
Alcántara, Calatrava, Hospitallers, Santiago, Sword Brothers, Templars, Teutonic
Knights.
OUTLINE HISTORY
The medieval military orders originated in the Holy Land with the establishment of thekingdom of Jerusalem. There were two main inspirations, firstly the need to protectChristian pilgrims in a hostile environment, and secondly the desire of many Christianknights to live a monastic existence. The orders were given their distinctive form through the efforts of St Bernard, who encouraged them, wrote a rule for the Templars andpersuaded the papacy to grant the rule. The other orders followed a similar patternthereafter, a monastic communal life with military duties in the outside world. The Templars began by protecting pilgrims wishing to bathe in the Jordan. The Hospitallers started by offering hospital and medical services to pilgrims. They were then organised as orders, which soon won respect and support from the west. They were granted lands andcastles and garrisoned some of the most significant crusader castles. Through the history of the crusading kingdom they became something like a regular army always on call. They also developed houses in the west. The end of the kingdom of Jerusalem, with the taking of Acre, led to the orders needing a new raison d’être, which they did not always succeed in finding. The Templars became guardians of royal treasure in their temples in France but attracted the acquisitive interest of Philip IV. He levelled grossly distorted charges against them, persuading his people and the papacy to support him. The Templars were dissolved. The Hospitallers fared better. They made gains from the fall of the Templars. Their medical role stood them in good stead. They moved to new bases, in Crete and then zv3 14 more permanently in Rhodes. Here they withstood two major sieges by Muslims and held on until 1522 when they were forced out to Malta. The third major order, the Teutonic Knights, though claiming early origins, became an order at the end of the 12th century. They had castles in the Holy Land but their major significance was elsewhere. With the fall of Acre they moved their headquarters to Venice and then to Marienburg. They received support from the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Hungary. They spearheaded the Baltic crusade against pagans. The Sword Brothers were founded in the Baltic area using the Templar rule. After defeat in 1237 the remnants of the order were absorbed by the Teutonic Knights. The Knights came into conflict with neighbouring powers. At first they attracted wide western interest but after the conversion of the pagan peoples received less support. After defeat at Tannenberg in 1410 the order went into decline. Protestant and Russian opposition led to the break-up of the order in the 16th century. Iberia was another major centre for military orders. As the home of the Christian Reconquista it attracted members from the main orders. It also saw the development of home-grown orders, those of Santiago, Alcántara and Calatrava in particular. The Knights at first protected Christians rather as in the Holy Land, including pilgrims going to St James (Santiago) de Compostela. They were more committed to religious war than
some of their secular counterparts, were opposed to treating with Muslims and carried out raids and even atrocities, such as decapitating Muslim prisoners. As in the Holy Land they provided a permanent and useful army. The privileges and independence of the orders were apt to be resented by secular rulers. In the Holy Land they had often acted independently of royal wishes, and they did much the same in Spain. Once the Reconquista had been achieved the Christian monarchs were unwilling to allow them the  same freedoms and their power declined.

ALCÁNTARA, ORDER OF
The Knights of San Julián de Pereiro (the Sanjulianistas), as they began, established a base on the León border by 1170. They were granted lands and recognised as an order in 1176. They were connected to the Order of Calatrava. They wore a white habit. Like all the other Iberian orders, they gained through the Reconquista, taking over half of Extremadura. At the completion of the conquest the order was subjected to royal control, its property seized in 1523.

CALATRAVA, ORDER OF
Calatrava or Qalat Rawaah (the castle of war) was on the banks of the River Guadiana, captured by Alfonso VII in 1147. It was handed to the Templars. When they planned to abandon it, a group of Cistercian monks took over, intent on defending it. They were recognised as an order in 1164. They wore a hooded white or grey tunic. The order expanded with the Reconquista. The order was reformed in the 14th century.

HOSPITALLERS
Otherwise the Knights of St John of the Hospital. Their origins are in the founding of a hospital in Jerusalem for pilgrims. There is mention of a hospital of St John the Almonereven before the First Crusade. In c.1150 the Knights of St John were founded as an order to tend the sick. It took on military aspects similar to the Templars. By 1187 it held 20 castles in the Holy Land, including Krak des Chevaliers, and spread in Europe. The monks wore a black mantle with a white cross. One of their officers was a Turcopolier who commanded native zv3 15 troops. Grand master Garnier de Nablus, against orders, led the charge at Arsuf that led to victory. After the fall of Acre, the Hospitallers found a new base in Rhodes from 1306. They built houses for the various member nations in RhodesTown, which may still be seen. They became a Mediterranean naval power. Rhodes held off Muslim sieges in 1444–6 and 1480. The Knights were forced out in 1522, going to Malta, where they survived until the time of Napoleon.

SANTIAGO, ORDER OF
The order of Santiago, or St James of the Sword, emulated in Spain the activities of theTemplars in the Holy Land. They began by protecting pilgrims going to St James of Compostela (Santiago de Compostela). St James was said to have miraculously returned to lead Christians against the Muslims. They received a rule in 1171 from the papal legate, recognised by Pope Alexander III in 1175. It was based on the Augustinian rule. It allowed the acceptance of married knights. They wore a white habit with a red cross. They became defenders of the Christian frontier in the Reconquista. They gained land in Portugal, Spain and elsewhere in Europe including Hungary. Alfonso IX el Baboso (the slobberer) granted them a tenth of the value of all money coined in León. After the completion of the conquest they declined. Their property was taken over by Charles V in 1523, though this was not the end of the order.

SWORD BROTHERS (SCHWERTBRÜDER)
Riga was founded by bishop Albrecht in 1201 and he established the Sword Brothers there shortly afterwards, using the Templar rule. They wore a white habit with a red sword and a red cross on the shoulder. They learned military techniques, including how to operate siege engines. The grand master was based at Riga. They built other castles,including Wenden. They invaded Estonia against pagans to establish Marienland. When invading Lithuania, they were defeated in 1237 at Siauliai by the Kurs in alliance with Mindaugas prince of Lithuania. The order dissolved and the survivors joined the Teutonic Knights.

TEMPLARS
The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, originally a group of monks to protect pilgrims wishing to bathe in the River Jordan. They attracted the interest of St Bernard in the European age of new monastic orders. He provided them with a rule and gained approval for it from the papacy. There is mention of a master of Knights of the Temple in 1123. The papacy recognised the rule in 1128. It became the model for further military orders. Templars spread through the Holy Land and Europe with their houses— preceptories or commanderies. They wore a hooded white mantle. Grand master Gerard de Ridefort persuaded King Guy to go to Tiberias, leading to the disaster at Hattin, after which the captured Knights were executed. The loss of the Holy Land was a blow to the Templars. They still had much property in the west but never really established a new justification for existence. Philip IV of France decided to destroy them. He arrested the French Templars in 1307. Charges were laid against them, including heretical and pagan practices, mostly distorted or even invented. Their grand master, Jacques de Molay, was burned at the stake in 1314. The papacy agreed to the dissolution of the order, whose possessions and wealth went to other orders and to the king.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS
Founded in 1198 as the Teutonic Knights of St Mary. They originated in the Holy Land with a base at Acre. They had a white habit with a black and gold cross. They gained land and castles, including Montfort. The order became exclusively German. It was given European lands by Frederick II and Andrew II of Hungary with commanderies in Germany, Prussia and the Baltic region where they led the crusades against pagans. zv3 16 In 1237 they absorbed the remnants of the order of the Sword Brothers. They suffered defeat against the Mongols at Liegnitz in 1241 when nine sacks of severed Knights’ ears were hauled before Khān Batu, and in 1242 at Lake Peipus by Alexander Nevsky. loss of the Holy Land was followed by the Knights moving their headquarters to Venice and then to Marienburg, now Malbork in Poland. It became the main base for the northern crusades, visited by among others Henry Bolingbroke. They built a hospital for elderly knights. Tannenberg in 1410 was a major disaster for the Knights at the hands of Poles and Lithuanians, when their grand master Von Juningen was killed and mutilated. They lost territories to Poland and Lithuania. After further defeats in the 15th century the order divided. Under Protestant criticism and Russian pressure the order disintegrated in the early 16th century.

NB There will be a wealth of militery information concerning the Templers in a tread I'll be starting soon concerning orders of march, camp discipline, standards etc.

37

Far East Island / Could the FEI realms unite against invasion?, a (sadly) hypothetical question.

« on: March 27, 2011, 03:42:18 PM »

I'm wondering just what the thoughts are concerning the scenario of the FEI being invaded, (and also how it would deal with taking part in a crusade come to that) and hope people look at it not just from the point of view of available manpower etc, but also taking into consideration all the myriad relationships existing on the continent, ie could this realm/family ever work with that realm/family because of long term issues etc.

38

Background / Medieval times, life, weaponry, warfare and "king of the Bean".

« on: March 08, 2011, 08:36:55 PM »

I suspect a lot others are like myself in not only using the web to obtain specific information useful for playing BM, ie medieval weaponry, warfare, history etc, but also attempt get a feel for medieval times in general, such as everyday things like food, clothes, games and lifestyles, and likewise enable you either add more "colour" to your char or a RP'd NPC's personality etc.

So to that end I've decided post a few of those sites I use myself, so that others can either try them themselves or/and add their own to the list.

I've only added posted nominally basic ones, as while have quite a few bookmarked a lot of them are "user specific" in a way,  ie perhaps a page (or even a paragraph) I've found while working towards a specific end, so not much use to anyone else.

All the sites are virus and clickjacking free etc, as likewise are their subsections.

http://www.medieval-life.net/life_main.htm

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/

http://www.medievalwarfare.info/

http://www.medieval-castles.org/index.php/medieval_warfare_reading

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/medieval-warfare/strategy-and-tactics.html

The meaning of "King of the Bean" can be found on the medival-life site in games