Medieval Warfare

So i made a long post in 30K because its long and not many can read it i will post it here just to share all i know about medieval warfare and at least get some value out off it, i spend 2 hours making this straight from my head, so enjoy.

The medieval era are split into three periods: the early, high and late periods. I'm going to talk about each one, how they fought, and what advancement they bring at the time.

-Medieval Warfare

warfare in the Middle Ages are similar to the way Romans wage wars, in fact warfare stayed the same, it was improved upon and adapted to answer the military problems at the time, in essence the Middle Ages are split in three different periods the early medieval period, the high medieval period, and the late medieval period, these three periods have there own fair share of military and technological advancement, I will cover the military of these three periods, what they develop, tactics, and other manners of military.

-Warfare in the early medieval period

warfare In this period is characterize by heavy use of infantry and missile troops like archers, but the significant military development of the time is to develop the cavalry into an effective "shock troop". The idea to use cavalry as shock troops came because other armies like the Romans, Visigoths, Turks, Arabs, Mongols, and the French have a large force of cavalry, the role of cavalry of these named armies is to break the enemy formation with the Mongols an exception as mounted archers. The first advancement of the cavalry is to be heavily armed and armored as possible, the stirup was not invented at this period preventing the rider to use his entire weight in the charge, the cavalry of this period is more mounted infantry than actual cavalry but mounted cavalry also called light cavalry gives more mobility to outflank the enemy positions, the over value of Europe in their cavalry will later give rise to the "knight".

-Armour and weapons

weapons and bodily protection in this period is quite simple then those of the late medieval period. Because steel is expensive for Armour infantry and cavalry wear leather Armour with a chain mail mesh underneath, the simple Armour give the wearer protection from slashing blades and the chain mail protect them from arrows which is very common at the time. as far as weapons go the most common weapon are hand axes, much of the infantry are conscripted from various location throughout their territory and the axe is more cheaper and easier for untrained men to use, swords are mostly reserved for trained professional troops which take the role of "heavy infantry" or mostly called "elite" infantry, the spear is another common weapon it is used to repel cavalry and engage infantry before getting too close, shields are made out of wood with an iron rim for all unit types which tells you how expensive iron is, the cavalry is armed with swords, axes, and a wooden shield, and archers are armed with standard bows.

-order of battle

the common strategy in practice for most early medieval armies is as follow: 1)rain the enemy with arrows until the enemy formation become disorganized, 2)as the enemy positions become chaotic the infantry will move in to engage the opposing enemy infantry, 3) as the battle wage on the cavalry will attempt to attack the enemy rear position taking out archers and outflanking block infantry formations.

victory will be based on how an army be able to break the enemies spirit, casualties, employment of cavalry, even shouting curses to the enemy. This is to attempt to demoralize the enemy forcing them to retreat, in fact in every medieval engagement more people die retreating than fighting because the cavalry can easily chase down the runners.

-Pitched battles

a pitched battle by definition "a military engagement where two opposing armies decide and agreed where to fight". mostly much medieval

fighting are pitched battles one way or another, two generals will agree to fight on a determined place even if one of the generals are in a terrain disadvantage just to face the enemy, the reason of this willingness to fight even at a disadvantage is because of how warfare is fought at the time, as long as the enemy army is still present in the area no one can claim victory, avoiding the enemy will not last forever and it is impossible to hide a large army from the enemy to draw them to a disadvantage.

pitched battle is similar to "pivotal battle" a battle that will decide the outcome of the entire war, examples of pivotal battle is the battle of midway of WW2, the battle of the bulge, the D-day invasion just to name a few, in medieval warfare when you manage to defeat the enemy you do not just win the battle you earn a victory, which can end the war. another reason for pitched battle is the timing, most soldiers are conscripts, farmers that need to reap the harvest to avoid famine, pitched battle are organized battle of two armies to immediately and decisively end a war, before winter strikes.

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

63 Replies

They are still separate countries that are not the UK so you are still wrong.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

Depends on how you want to view it, but anyway, Australia and New Zealand weren't superpowers, so it was as good as standing alone.

The past is a foreign country.

The colonies fought for England, there technically fighting with them but their alone in a sense their under a nation as a colony.

Why do people forget the colonies if your a Greek are you brit? An African are you Brit? An Aussie are you brit? Their British colonies, not a nation as a whole, just because their colonies dosent mean their not countries of their own and are considered as their parent country. The Philippines is a US colony, it's already a country before the US came, should I call myself an American? Wake up people.

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day

the colonies are not superpowers but that doesn't stop Greece beat Italy, without the colonies Britain is done for.

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day

Couldn't agree more!

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

There are plenty of examples when Great Britain didn't have help from it's colonies and beat a superior force

British=best. Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

You mean during the colonial period? Yeah the Brits do win from superior forces, but have the tendency to lose to a more inferior force

The American revolution...

Or how about 1066

The Brits of 80,000 lose to a force of 8,000

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day

In 1066 they had to force march half way up the country to fight off a Viking invasion then they had to run all the way back down, discarding heavy gear that weighed them down. The reason they lost is because they didn't have proper logistics for obvious reasons. I learnt this from the documentary Bullets, Boots and Bandages: The Real Way To Win A War I think it was called.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

True they have to march all the way back down, but there are other factors. The Brits were fighting on top of a hill againts mounted soldiers, with the height advantage they can easily push them, but because their tired and full of farmers as soldiers they never stand a chance againts trained profesionals. You can easily use archers on that position but they didint in large numbers anyway.

Also "heavy equipment" does not exist in that time period the only heavy equipment tha Saxons have are all light equipment padded leather armor, wooden shields and spears, and chain mail. Their already light to begin with.

PS. I learned it from a flash game "1066" it's quite fun, along with formal research of course, but still the flash game.

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

True they have to march all the way back down, but there are other factors. The Brits were fighting on top of a hill againts mounted soldiers, with the height advantage they can easily push them, but because their tired and full of farmers as soldiers they never stand a chance againts trained profesionals. You can easily use archers on that position but they didint in large numbers anyway.

Also "heavy equipment" does not exist in that time period the only heavy equipment tha Saxons have are all light equipment padded leather armor, wooden shields and spears, and chain mail. Their already light to begin with.

PS. I learned it from a flash game "1066" it's quite fun, along with formal research of course, but still the flash game.

The Brits had to march all the way back down, discarding men that had to go back to their farms. The Brits were farmers. The Normans were trained pros with cavalry. The Normans used false retreat tactics, meaning the went up the hill, and then back down again, but the Saxons followed them. Then the Normans turned back and slaughtered them. Harold Godwineson was fighting as a normal footsoldier, but William was on horseback at the back of his forces, giving orders. It was not a fair fight.
The past is a foreign country.

Wars are rarely fair.

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day

You are quite correct.

The past is a foreign country.

I should also mention you have heard of Rorke's Drift? The second battle of Lacolle mill? The first and second opium wars? Agincourt? Waterloo? Culloden? The battle of Plassey, which in fact secured British control over India and El Alamein.

British=best. Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

I read a little about the first opium war. I love it. I find it so funny that back then a country fought for something that is now illegal in their country(I think).

As for Hastings, the Brits would've won if they had listened to the king's mother, she said to rest and wait for the Normans to come to them. I also think that the Brits let the Normans cross the river because they said it wasn't fair that they kept getting slaughtered. I think, anyway.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

Chivalry never helped anyone I guess.

British=best. Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

Wrong, it helped the Normans :P

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

it really depends who you ask as to who it helps.

British=best. Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

But you said it never helped anyone, which was wrong.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

I can't help myself, reading this and I didn't put in a good argument towards this

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

The American revolution...
1812? I love the smell of burning Washington D.C in the morning.

Sorry it's late xD

British=best. Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

You mean during the colonial period? Yeah the Brits do win from superior forces, but have the tendency to lose to a more inferior force
Ehm, when fighting the Indians in India(hehe, lol) the Indians had rocket arty. The Brits copied it and called it the Congreave. That is the right period, right?

EDIT: Rockets are far superior to cannons, even basic rocket arty.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Off Topic
Quick Launch