Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Have a read about the war of the roses. Very interesting

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Flails weren't used as anti-knight weapons by anyone other than Knights, and even then flails were incredibly rare. Almost all examples of them are from artwork (which is incredibly unreliable), and the physical examples are often Victorian reproductions.

Also, halberds, pikes, etc aren't the truly effective weapons. The one thing you'd want above all other weapons when fighting a knight is a poleaxe or crow's beak. They're capable of punching clean through plate armor with heavy strikes, spiking him much like using a pick to kill a crab.

So for single combat when fighting heavy infantry, a footman would want something like a shorter crow's beak or poleaxe so it can't be bashed aside for the charge. But on the battlefield in formations, pike blocks are scary. It's typically a giant spikey square of angry Germans or Swiss that have received some of the best training of the time and will almost never break formation.

Actually, flails were mostly used by farmers in peasant rebellions. Being farming equipment, they were easily available and one of the few weapons farmers had effective against armour.

Oh, I was talking about one-handed flails. Not the two handed ones.

 Bullockist wrote:
This knight has the right idea! Why stuff around weilding a poleaxe when you can two hand weild a knight with a poleaxe. That'll scare the living gak out of the pressed peasant.

Old fighting manuals often have some pictures dedicated to moves you don't expect after seeing Hollywood swordfights. When your big fancy weapon is tied up or dropped a quick kick to the shin or punch to the face can save the day. In this picture one knight has lost his weapon and tries to tie his opponent's arms so he can't use his weapon either. Even judicial duels were largely "anything goes", a battlefield much more of that. You can always tell a more heroic story later if you win and survive. ;-)

I don't think there are any hard and fast answers to those questions, with exact specifics/dates anyway - any new weapon design was a more natural progression I think, more based on trial and error than anything else. I saw several (what I thought to be) decent documentaries on youtube about medieval arms and armour a while ago:



There should be some books you can get hold of fairly cheaply but I don't have any specifics for you. Here would be a fair place to start as well:
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm

BeAfraid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Big question, too much to comprehensively answer.

Armour moved from chain to plate progressively, requiring more penetration.
You penetrate either by puncturing or compressing plate armour, or passing trauma shock through it.
Plate is easier to damage than chain but absorbs more trauma.
Both require padding.
Later armours had heavy plate with thin padding, basically just a lining designed to deflect bullets, eventually the cuirass and helmet was all that remained.

Wrong question.
I am not asking how the weapons work.
But WHEN they began to be used, and HOW they were used by groups of men (not individually, that is a pretty easy answer: you hit something with them).
I.e. When, where, and how they were adopted to be used against the Medieval Knight.
MB

I answered your question properly. There is no WHEN because technological progression in the medieval period was haphazard. a tech advance can occur locally, or even temporarily as a lone weaponsmith comes up with a solution. You are thinking about the problem with modern eyes.

As for the HOW that would be dependent on the weapon and is largely self evident, some were missile weapons, some infantry weapons and some cavalry and artillery. That dictates the HOW.

Your question was way too big to just answer, so I told you about armour progression and what was require to defeat armour, from that you can see the broad progression of arms and armour of the middle ages through your own sources and understand the answer yourself. The middle ages had no core design doctrines as we have today, this was prior to scientific method. You have to match what works. Think medieval and you understand medieval.

This was why my answer was as good and a comprehensive an answer as you will get without having to post a huge mass of raw data about medieval armaments, and there is too much to sift through frankly, and I dont have a spare year to type it up for you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It should also be mentioned that not all knights could afford horses, much less afford to risk such an expensive investment on the battlefield. Lots of knights fought on foot exclusively. Even among the nobility trained and expendable warhorses were a treasured posession.

I don't know about midieval times, but I know that in the Napoleonic era, the whole idea of a square formation was to have a full ring of sharp spear points, as the horses of that day would not finish a charge on a solid wall of bayonet armed troops.

Exalt, Orlanth.

Region plays a large role in weaponry and armor adoption as well. In Ireland, nothing heavier than chain ever really caught on, and inexplicably the bow was never popular.

In what would become Turkey, constant warring with nomadic tribes led to the favoring of crushing weapons, like the mace and flail because it was more effective than anything else against Mongolian lamellar armor.

Even the two evolutions of the bow, the composite bow and the English longbow followed this pattern. Weapons evolved to match the opponent and regional conditions of the time. Which still happens today. For specifics you need to choose a place and time.
.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It should also be mentioned that not all knights could afford horses, much less afford to risk such an expensive investment on the battlefield. Lots of knights fought on foot exclusively. Even among the nobility trained and expendable warhorses were a treasured posession.

I don't know about midieval times, but I know that in the Napoleonic era, the whole idea of a square formation was to have a full ring of sharp spear points, as the horses of that day would not finish a charge on a solid wall of bayonet armed troops.

More importantly the square made troops far less unlikely to break . No open flanks, tight as possible and the inability for many soldiers to scatter (due to being back to back) made it ideal as an anchor that horses would only break if a horse was shot and fell into the square which apparently happened.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It should also be mentioned that not all knights could afford horses, much less afford to risk such an expensive investment on the battlefield. Lots of knights fought on foot exclusively. Even among the nobility trained and expendable warhorses were a treasured posession.

I don't know about medieval times, but I know that in the Napoleonic era, the whole idea of a square formation was to have a full ring of sharp spear points, as the horses of that day would not finish a charge on a solid wall of bayonet armed troops.

More importantly the square made troops far less unlikely to break . No open flanks, tight as possible and the inability for many soldiers to scatter (due to being back to back) made it ideal as an anchor that horses would only break if a horse was shot and fell into the square which apparently happened.

Cavalry can and did charge pike formations, it just wasn't healthy for them. As stated a pike square or later musket square had no rear or flank, but equally importantly it had short sides. Any square is also a diamond, horses naturally try to port round obstacles they can see past. Schiltrons and squares are kept small for this purpose, horses thing of small squares as human rocks and tr to bypass them, this steals the impetus.

Cavalry charges can break square, but it was a very rare ocurance. So long as the square held of itself. When the Russian filmed Waterloo they had a lot of extras for the battle scenes. During filming the extras dressed as British troops in square kept breaking against the 10000 extras dressed as French horse. Even though they were just filming having that many horsemen charge was an unsettling thing.

@Grey Templar. This is true but a knight was still a knight, the real cost was in the armour. A knight or knightly youth who could not afford his wargear would normally attach himself to a noble household and gain wargear from his patron lord. Loss of a horse was itself easier than loss of armour though and for reason of casualties and illness knights lost their steeds. Most knights would own three, plus any for retainers. Normally one for himself, one for his armour and one for his squire, an servant would jog alongside or ride an ass. Most knights could not afford this much.
However even so a knight with three horses might fight on foot. English knights commonly did, as the English beleived their army strength was in dismounted knights, bowmen and billmen. French knights fought mounted because that was where their strength lay. France was also a far richer and pasturable realm. Even so the French had many foot knights, and those foot knights would often have horses.
In all in the later medieval period only a portion of knights were mounted in combat, though they almost all rode for the march, not for shortage of horses, but shortage of warhorses. Any knight wothy of the name can get a riding horse from his Lord of King, obtaining a destrier is another thing entirely.

Norman and Frankish knights were almost exclusively mounted unless they dismounted for tactical reasons or difference in battle. Cavalry horses able to take a mail armoured man are not uncommon, however a destrier able to carry a man in full plate an heavy lance, and carry barding for itself, was an uncommon thing and progressively for the rich.

Meanwhile a number of dedicated foot troops became increasingly mounted. Longbowmen for instance, as they drew six pennies a day, compared to a knights ten and a trained armsmans two. Earned enough to buy horses and commonly about a third of the longbowmen were mounted troops. This in turn granted them elite status and double pay, eclipsing a knights wage. Swiss foot earned alomost as much, due to their own well deserved reputation, and in turn were mounted for the march more often than not. Late medieval elite mounted infantry were expected to use their mounts tactically, to make forward position and late medieval armies often maneuvered with a dynamic more indicative of armies of the Napoleonic era, though admittedly on a much smaller scale.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Exalt, Orlanth. .

Thanks.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

Region plays a large role in weaponry and armor adoption as well. In Ireland, nothing heavier than chain ever really caught on, and inexplicably the bow was never popular. .

I will hazard a guess as to what happened regarding weapon development in Ireland. Though this is just as stated an educated guess based on the evidence below. So it might be wrong on reflection.

Ireland was mostly a celt/norse tradition until Henry II invaded. Neither the celts nor the norse placed much emphasis on missile weaponry for cultural reasons. Bows were used to hunt and for dealing damage to flanking units in war, but a shieldwall is resistant to most bowfire.

I think the main differences however were that Ireland have very little cavalry until Edmund Ironsides was invited over to become one of the six Kings of Ireland. The topography in large parts of Ireland also discouraged mounted combat.

As for bows the major factor IMHO was that Ireland was poor and completely beyond most trade routes. England only got trade because it had the rep as the centre for the wool trade. English wool meant quality in the opinions of merchants across Europe and the wool trade was thus important. Other than that England had a rep of being backwards and poor and with nothing else worth trading for. Ireland was almost completely off the map and got negligible trade at all.
This was important because most bowstaves were imported from southern Europe. The longbowmen might make arrows of English ash, but the bows themselves were from imported Spanish yew, not English, and often overlooked historical fact.
I once tried to make a bowstave from English yew, it was a mistake, the sapwood was inferior. You need hot climes to make bowstaves for warbows, Little short bows you can do ok with, but they are only good for hunting and will not penetrate chain easily.
Frankly I don't believe Ireland could have made an archery corps even if the Irish wanted to, they didn't have the right sort of trees, nor a cultural history of archery. Besides the Kerns did well enough with javelins, just not good enough to match mounted knights. Irish troops excelled as skirmishers, skirmish archery works on horseback, or for the lightly armoured troops of the middle east, but the heavy archers developed by the Welsh make for very poor skirmishers, they were strictly line troops.

 Orlanth wrote:
[
@Grey Templar. This is true but a knight was still a knight, the real cost was in the armour. A knight or knightly youth who could not afford his wargear would normally attach himself to a noble household and gain wargear from his patron lord. Loss of a horse was itself easier than loss of armour though and for reason of casualties and illness knights lost their steeds. Most knights would own three, plus any for retainers. Normally one for himself, one for his armour and one for his squire, an servant would jog alongside or ride an ass. Most knights could not afford this much.

The knights didn't own three horses for war though. One of my books on the Agincourt campaign talks about Henry V's horse train (seriously, of the large number of ships used to cross his army across the channel, one was devoted to carrying something like 38 of his personal horses). Obviously, as the king, he's gonna have more horses than anyone, but the more "typical" breakdown for a knight was to have his destrier or warhorse that he rode into battle. He'd have a "tournament horse" used for jousting and then he'd have somewhere around 1-3 "riding" horses which he'd use for traveling over some distance, without wearing his armor. In addition, some would have at least one pack horse to carry the gear and the like.


I think that for some knights, the loss of a horse may have been a "blessing" because like modern tanks and military vehicles, they require money for the upkeep (feed, saddle maintenance, etc)

Spetulhu wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
This knight has the right idea! Why stuff around weilding a poleaxe when you can two hand weild a knight with a poleaxe. That'll scare the living gak out of the pressed peasant.

Old fighting manuals often have some pictures dedicated to moves you don't expect after seeing Hollywood swordfights. When your big fancy weapon is tied up or dropped a quick kick to the shin or punch to the face can save the day. In this picture one knight has lost his weapon and tries to tie his opponent's arms so he can't use his weapon either. Even judicial duels were largely "anything goes", a battlefield much more of that. You can always tell a more heroic story later if you win and survive. ;-)

It's lucky that the fighters can make up a story later as the position of the grappling knights left hand it looks likes he's distracting the other knight with a handjob to the codpiece - the medieval version of throwing sand in the face.

On bows in Ireland I would have assumed that keeping bowstrings dry and unstretched would have been an even bigger nightmare than in England

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
[
@Grey Templar. This is true but a knight was still a knight, the real cost was in the armour. A knight or knightly youth who could not afford his wargear would normally attach himself to a noble household and gain wargear from his patron lord. Loss of a horse was itself easier than loss of armour though and for reason of casualties and illness knights lost their steeds. Most knights would own three, plus any for retainers. Normally one for himself, one for his armour and one for his squire, an servant would jog alongside or ride an ass. Most knights could not afford this much.

The knights didn't own three horses for war though. One of my books on the Agincourt campaign talks about Henry V's horse train (seriously, of the large number of ships used to cross his army across the channel, one was devoted to carrying something like 38 of his personal horses). Obviously, as the king, he's gonna have more horses than anyone, but the more "typical" breakdown for a knight was to have his destrier or warhorse that he rode into battle. He'd have a "tournament horse" used for jousting and then he'd have somewhere around 1-3 "riding" horses which he'd use for traveling over some distance, without wearing his armor. In addition, some would have at least one pack horse to carry the gear and the like.


I think that for some knights, the loss of a horse may have been a "blessing" because like modern tanks and military vehicles, they require money for the upkeep (feed, saddle maintenance, etc)

Depends on the horse. Losing a pack horse isn't that bad, but your war horse dropping dead is crippling, as those steeds had to be specially trained to follow directions from the rider's heels sans reins. In order for a knight ti function properly, the horse has to act like an extension of his body, and it takes time to develop such a bond.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Depends on the horse. Losing a pack horse isn't that bad, but your war horse dropping dead is crippling, as those steeds had to be specially trained to follow directions from the rider's heels sans reins. In order for a knight ti function properly, the horse has to act like an extension of his body, and it takes time to develop such a bond.

I guess that in reality, it would be like a warrior version of Mark Cuban wrecking his prized Ferrari... Yes, it's expensive as gak. Yes the horse is actually quite difficult to breed, train and bond with. But at the same time, this fictitious Medieval Mark Cuban, for the time being doesn't have to pay for feed, doesn't have to maintain a saddle, etc.

And remember, knights on foot were just as dangerous as mounted knights, in their own way. These guys trained pretty much every day of their lives that weren't spent actually in battle. They trained in unmounted as well as mounted warfare, and as has been discussed earlier, they would quite often fight on foot as battle plans dictated.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Depends on the horse. Losing a pack horse isn't that bad, but your war horse dropping dead is crippling, as those steeds had to be specially trained to follow directions from the rider's heels sans reins. In order for a knight ti function properly, the horse has to act like an extension of his body, and it takes time to develop such a bond.

I guess that in reality, it would be like a warrior version of Mark Cuban wrecking his prized Ferrari... Yes, it's expensive as gak. Yes the horse is actually quite difficult to breed, train and bond with. But at the same time, this fictitious Medieval Mark Cuban, for the time being doesn't have to pay for feed, doesn't have to maintain a saddle, etc.

And remember, knights on foot were just as dangerous as mounted knights, in their own way. These guys trained pretty much every day of their lives that weren't spent actually in battle. They trained in unmounted as well as mounted warfare, and as has been discussed earlier, they would quite often fight on foot as battle plans dictated.

Depends on the era. Early Middle Ages Knights aren't going to be that dramatically better than the enemy infantry they fight until the introduction of plated maille IIRC in the 11th century. It's past that point that the role of the Knight and his power as both cavalry and infantry comes into play with the introduction of quality plate armor- be it a coat of plate or a full breastplate.

There is a big difference between a dismounted Norman Knight at Hastings and a dismounted English Knight during the middle of the Hundred Year's War wielding a warhammer and a shield.

Use this


And make a knight in heavy armor trip, then go for the soft parts!

 Orlanth wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Big question, too much to comprehensively answer.

Armour moved from chain to plate progressively, requiring more penetration.
You penetrate either by puncturing or compressing plate armour, or passing trauma shock through it.
Plate is easier to damage than chain but absorbs more trauma.
Both require padding.
Later armours had heavy plate with thin padding, basically just a lining designed to deflect bullets, eventually the cuirass and helmet was all that remained.

Wrong question.
I am not asking how the weapons work.
But WHEN they began to be used, and HOW they were used by groups of men (not individually, that is a pretty easy answer: you hit something with them).
I.e. When, where, and how they were adopted to be used against the Medieval Knight.
MB

I answered your question properly. There is no WHEN because technological progression in the medieval period was haphazard. a tech advance can occur locally, or even temporarily as a lone weaponsmith comes up with a solution. You are thinking about the problem with modern eyes.

As for the HOW that would be dependent on the weapon and is largely self evident, some were missile weapons, some infantry weapons and some cavalry and artillery. That dictates the HOW.

Your question was way too big to just answer, so I told you about armour progression and what was require to defeat armour, from that you can see the broad progression of arms and armour of the middle ages through your own sources and understand the answer yourself. The middle ages had no core design doctrines as we have today, this was prior to scientific method. You have to match what works. Think medieval and you understand medieval.

This was why my answer was as good and a comprehensive an answer as you will get without having to post a huge mass of raw data about medieval armaments, and there is too much to sift through frankly, and I dont have a spare year to type it up for you.

I think the issue here is semantic, but I see the point you are making.

I do not need raw data about medieval armaments so much as their history, and how they were used by large numbers of people in units, rather than individually (which is rather straightforward: Hit the guy on the horse very hard with the sharp parts).

I am looking to see who it was (as a population) who first began to use these weapons, and when. Not so much how they were used at their height, which would be beyond what I am trying to investigate.

I am trying to see if these weapons have any sort of evolution from earlier weapons, such as the Anglo-Dane, or Viking two-handed axes (some of which could be quite broad-headed, nearly like a halberd - although most halberd heads I have seen tend to be much smaller than they are depicted on miniatures).

There is an actual application to a game that I am looking for.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Exalt, Orlanth.

Region plays a large role in weaponry and armor adoption as well. In Ireland, nothing heavier than chain ever really caught on, and inexplicably the bow was never popular.

In what would become Turkey, constant warring with nomadic tribes led to the favoring of crushing weapons, like the mace and flail because it was more effective than anything else against Mongolian lamellar armor.

Even the two evolutions of the bow, the composite bow and the English longbow followed this pattern. Weapons evolved to match the opponent and regional conditions of the time. Which still happens today. For specifics you need to choose a place and time.
.

In the case I am looking for, the "region" would be a place that is entirely fictional, yet based loosely upon historical analogues (a sort of cross between Byzantium and Saxon England).

And it had a very slow and conservative culture that tended to change very little across thousands of years (although changes did occur).

I am trying to discover if it could be expected to see the development of any of the anti-knight heavy weapons among the enemies of this culture, and what sort they would be.

The fictional region would have a martial culture more akin to the 900 - 1200 period than to the later 1300 - 1400 period when these weapons became fully developed and deployed.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
[
@Grey Templar. This is true but a knight was still a knight, the real cost was in the armour. A knight or knightly youth who could not afford his wargear would normally attach himself to a noble household and gain wargear from his patron lord. Loss of a horse was itself easier than loss of armour though and for reason of casualties and illness knights lost their steeds. Most knights would own three, plus any for retainers. Normally one for himself, one for his armour and one for his squire, an servant would jog alongside or ride an ass. Most knights could not afford this much.

The knights didn't own three horses for war though. One of my books on the Agincourt campaign talks about Henry V's horse train (seriously, of the large number of ships used to cross his army across the channel, one was devoted to carrying something like 38 of his personal horses). Obviously, as the king, he's gonna have more horses than anyone, but the more "typical" breakdown for a knight was to have his destrier or warhorse that he rode into battle. He'd have a "tournament horse" used for jousting and then he'd have somewhere around 1-3 "riding" horses which he'd use for traveling over some distance, without wearing his armor. In addition, some would have at least one pack horse to carry the gear and the like.


I think that for some knights, the loss of a horse may have been a "blessing" because like modern tanks and military vehicles, they require money for the upkeep (feed, saddle maintenance, etc)

It is suggested in the book Medieval Knighthood V: Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference 1994 By Stephen Church, Ruth Harvey that medieval knights DID OWN not just one or two warhorses, but as many as they could afford the upkeep on, and that on any one campaign they would bring two to four such horses with them (not riding them, but probably traveling on a horse specifically for the purpose of getting to the battlefield, while the warhorses were either traveling in train, or on a cart specifically for the purpose, as modern show-horses tend to travel). They have later conferences, but this one had papers delivered that dealt specifically with the warhorse, which later conferences have not put forward anything to alter.

It seems that much of a medieval knight's time was spent in the maintenance and training of his martial skills, much of which would be the training of warhorses, which required incredibly specific skills in terms of gait-change, and charge.

It seems that they did train the horses to charge into walls of spears (at least if we are to believe the many sources of the period, such as Ana Komnena's Alexiad or the accounts of Nithard, Nephew of Charlemagne).

The types and uses of warhorses were varied, and not all mounted men rode the large Warhorses of the Knight (many rode a lighter horse, intended more for the role of scouting, or simply delivering men rapidly to a portion of the battlefield, where they would then fight on foot).

So... This issue does have some bearing on what I am trying to investigate (how the evolution of the mounted knight affected the evolution of weapons to counter the Heavy Mounted Knight).

It also affects the camps one would find accompanying a medieval army, and what sort of spoils would be available to the enemy if they were to sack, or simply attack the camp, with the intent of destroying the logistical and strategic assets of an army (capturing or killing the extra mounts of the Knights would severely hamper their abilities. As would burning the feed needed for these mounts).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:


I do not need raw data about medieval armaments so much as their history, and how they were used by large numbers of people in units, rather than individually (which is rather straightforward: Hit the guy on the horse very hard with the sharp parts).

I am looking to see who it was (as a population) who first began to use these weapons, and when. Not so much how they were used at their height, which would be beyond what I am trying to investigate.

I am trying to see if these weapons have any sort of evolution from earlier weapons, such as the Anglo-Dane, or Viking two-handed axes (some of which could be quite broad-headed, nearly like a halberd - although most halberd heads I have seen tend to be much smaller than they are depicted on miniatures).

It is suggested in the book Medieval Knighthood V: Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference 1994 By Stephen Church, Ruth Harvey that medieval knights DID OWN not just one or two warhorses, but as many as they could afford the upkeep on, and that on any one campaign they would bring two to four such horses with them (not riding them, but probably traveling on a horse specifically for the purpose of getting to the battlefield, while the warhorses were either traveling in train, or on a cart specifically for the purpose, as modern show-horses tend to travel). They have later conferences, but this one had papers delivered that dealt specifically with the warhorse, which later conferences have not put forward anything to alter.

It seems that much of a medieval knight's time was spent in the maintenance and training of his martial skills, much of which would be the training of warhorses, which required incredibly specific skills in terms of gait-change, and charge.

The types and uses of warhorses were varied, and not all mounted men rode the large Warhorses of the Knight (many rode a lighter horse, intended more for the role of scouting, or simply delivering men rapidly to a portion of the battlefield, where they would then fight on foot).

I think the problem here, as some have mentioned, is that this is an extremely broad question. Earlier, I mentioned Swiss Mercenaries, who commonly used pikes. Well, a Pike is basically another name for a spear, which has been used in some fashion since at least the Sumerians. While I haven't specifically done research on it, I think that looking for that evolution of a weapon, is similar to looking for the "missing link" as a species of weapon evolves, there may be a small number of transitional weapons, and we will have very little, or no evidence of them. The reason we know about the daneaxe, pole-axe, lance, longsword, flamberge, etc. is because there are so many examples that still remain today, both in physical form, as well as artwork form.



My point about ownership of warhorses was more that, how many knights could legitimately afford more than one? Particularly in the English setup, how many knights were "house-knights" precisely because they couldn't afford to arm themselves? I would venture to say that it's probably the majority of knights who would fit that category. So, I just pulled out one of my books (Agincourt; Henry V and the battle that made England. by, Juliet Barker) And she takes the time to outline the horse breakdown for the Agincourt campaign. The King of England actually had to supply the horses for his invasion, at least for the indentured soldiers (he took 3 dukes who were charged with calling up soldiers). a "simple" knight was allowed six horses on the campaign: generally, he would have his warhorse, which was known as a courser (or a rouncy if he couldn't afford it), his saddle/travelling horse (a palfrey), one or two more rouncies for his servants, and one or two more packhorses for his gear. As you move up in rank from those simple knights, the more horses allowed on the campaign.


I think that the "reason" for why cavalry became heavier and heavier, particularly after the 11th century, is due to the (inaccurate) rumor that still circulates that in 1066, when William conquered England, his knights had stirrups, which allowed them to hold onto their spears, instead of throwing them. Prior to the couched lance charge, the most common tactic in European cavalry, was that the horses would use their speed and stamina to circle around infantry formations, and basically chuck spears into the mass of bodies. For whatever reason, this appears to have not happened at Hastings in 1066, and instead, William's soldiers held onto their spears throughout much of the fight, instead of throwing them. The one thing we do know is that certain forms of stirrup allow for the rider to brace against the impact better, though IIRC, those stirrups came later on.



as for the combination formations that used both pike and halberd, near as I can tell from Germanic artwork, is that the pikes would be near the front (braced with a foot, like that Tercio picture earlier in thread) and the halberd wielders would be in the second and third rank, using the weight, and length of their ax-heads to strike either the rider or the horse. The follow-on evolution to this formation is that in time, some of these halberd would be switched out for the arquebus. The pikes and halberds forming a defensive wall around the shooters, allowing them time to reload.

Thank you for clarifying, now that is something we can certainly discuss! Byzantium had what were likely the best armored forces of the 10th century in the Varangian guard. At a time when maille was the height of most armor, they had already begun to incorprate splinted plates to supplement it. Many of them even sported full lamellar, a lighter and in many cases more protective style of linked small plates. Varangians would most certainly have held on to many of their Viking roots, and use a heavy leavening of axes and spears. The exact mix would alter gradually based on their opponent- in the case of an Anglo-Saxon analogue, it's likely the spears would come to the fore. They work very well against lightly armored troops, and Anglo-saxons had on average little armor, and smaller shields than continental armies. Byzantium is a kingdom at the height of its power, while Angle-Saxon England has been conquered and reconquered so many times that it is just a hot mess. You'd still be more likely to find hordes of conscripted peasants rather than anything like an organized army, unless it was one of the invaders still in the process of consolidating their territory.

Anglo-Saxons would probably bring spears primarily because they are dirt cheap, and as many heavy Dane axes as possible, because little else could defeat the armor of the Byzantians. Those Dane axes would likely be concentrated in the hands of mercenary units, something lke the gallowglass, imported because they were better in every respect than the local troops.

Pikes would be unlikely, because they were overkill against an unarmored and disorganized opponent. Likewise, you might find fewer formations and more of an emphasis on skirmishing, especially from the Anglo-Saxon forces. Ambush tactics, raids on unprotected areas, and perhaps reprisals by heavily armored, essentially invincible columns of Byzantium knights would be the general rule.

A short blurb on weapon combinations (that also happen to be useful against knights).

 Gitzbitah wrote:

Thank you for clarifying, now that is something we can certainly discuss! Byzantium had what were likely the best armored forces of the 10th century in the Varangian guard. At a time when maille was the height of most armor, they had already begun to incorprate splinted plates to supplement it. Many of them even sported full lamellar, a lighter and in many cases more protective style of linked small plates. Varangians would most certainly have held on to many of their Viking roots, and use a heavy leavening of axes and spears. The exact mix would alter gradually based on their opponent- in the case of an Anglo-Saxon analogue, it's likely the spears would come to the fore. They work very well against lightly armored troops, and Anglo-saxons had on average little armor, and smaller shields than continental armies. Byzantium is a kingdom at the height of its power, while Angle-Saxon England has been conquered and reconquered so many times that it is just a hot mess. You'd still be more likely to find hordes of conscripted peasants rather than anything like an organized army, unless it was one of the invaders still in the process of consolidating their territory.

Anglo-Saxons would probably bring spears primarily because they are dirt cheap, and as many heavy Dane axes as possible, because little else could defeat the armor of the Byzantians. Those Dane axes would likely be concentrated in the hands of mercenary units, something lke the gallowglass, imported because they were better in every respect than the local troops.

Pikes would be unlikely, because they were overkill against an unarmored and disorganized opponent. Likewise, you might find fewer formations and more of an emphasis on skirmishing, especially from the Anglo-Saxon forces. Ambush tactics, raids on unprotected areas, and perhaps reprisals by heavily armored, essentially invincible columns of Byzantium knights would be the general rule.

Excellent! This is a good starting point, and it provides a wealth of information I am looking for.

Only, I was thinking more of if you had a sort of fictional region that was sort of like of Byzantium and Anglo-Saxon England had a child, and were fighting Knights or Mongols.

This is so hard to describe.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
A short blurb on weapon combinations (that also happen to be useful against knights).

Those are pretty decent videos, and contain some of what I am looking for as an end-point.

I need to find the beginning point, though.

MB

Alright, fighting knights or Mongols isn't too far off for Byzantium. To fight Mongols, you become Mongols, or hole up in your city. Anyone trying to out-calvary nomadic horsetribes men who can rain arrows upon you without ever engaging is in for trouble.

On the other hand, Mongolian can't besiege their way out of a wet paper sack.

Potentially, you might wind up with larger shield bearers, like the pavise, shielding bowmen who could outrange the Mongols. But you'd need some very sturdy folks to knock them off horses if they closed, perhaps interspersed bill users, or spearmen.

Actually, the tactics of the Hussite Rebellion might be applicable here. Essentially take poorly armored peasants and put them in circled fighting wagons with plenty of ammo.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Alright, fighting knights or Mongols isn't too far off for Byzantium. To fight Mongols, you become Mongols, or hole up in your city. Anyone trying to out-calvary nomadic horsetribes men who can rain arrows upon you without ever engaging is in for trouble.

On the other hand, Mongolian can't besiege their way out of a wet paper sack.

Potentially, you might wind up with larger shield bearers, like the pavise, shielding bowmen who could outrange the Mongols. But you'd need some very sturdy folks to knock them off horses if they closed, perhaps interspersed bill users, or spearmen.

Actually, the tactics of the Hussite Rebellion might be applicable here. Essentially take poorly armored peasants and put them in circled fighting wagons with plenty of ammo.

The Swedes used armored wagon laagers. This was also used by Chinese forces and, much later American and South African settlers.
Give them good crossbows and there you go.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

On the other hand, Mongolian can't besiege their way out of a wet paper sack.

This is not true.

From wiki, as I don;t have any other resources handy....

Catapults and machines[edit]
Mongols besieging Baghdad in 1258Technology was one of the important facets of Mongolian warfare. For instance, siege machines were an important part of Genghis Khan's warfare, especially in attacking fortified cities. The siege engines were not disassembled and carried by horses to be rebuilt at the site of the battle, as was the usual practice with European armies. Instead the Mongol horde would travel with skilled engineers who would build siege engines from materials on site.

The engineers building the machines were recruited among captives, mostly from China and Persia. When Mongols slaughtered whole populations, they often spared the engineers, swiftly assimilating them into the Mongol armies.

Engineers in Mongol service displayed a considerable degree of ingenuity and planning; during a siege of a fortified Chinese city the defenders had taken care to remove all large rocks from the region to deny the Mongols an ammunition supply for their trebuchets, but the Mongol engineers resorted to cutting up logs which they soaked in water to make suitably heavy spheres. During the siege of the Assassins' fortress of Alamut the Mongols gathered large rocks from far and wide, piling them up in depots a day's journey from one another all the way to their siege lines so that a huge supply was available for the breaching batteries operating against the mighty citadel. The Mongols also scouted the hills around the city to find suitable higher ground on which to mount ballistas manned by Khitan engineers, allowing these to snipe into the interior of the fortress. The Mongols made effective use of the siege technologies developed by their subject peoples; Genghis Khan utilized the Chinese engineers and traction trebuchets he had gained from his victories over the Jurchens and Tanguts during his Khwarezmian campaign, while Kublai Khan later called upon Muslim engineers from his Ilkhanate cousins to build counterweight trebuchets that finally concluded the six year siege of Fancheng and Xiangyang

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Alright, fighting knights or Mongols isn't too far off for Byzantium. To fight Mongols, you become Mongols, or hole up in your city. Anyone trying to out-calvary nomadic horsetribes men who can rain arrows upon you without ever engaging is in for trouble.

On the other hand, Mongolian can't besiege their way out of a wet paper sack.

Potentially, you might wind up with larger shield bearers, like the pavise, shielding bowmen who could outrange the Mongols. But you'd need some very sturdy folks to knock them off horses if they closed, perhaps interspersed bill users, or spearmen.

Actually, the tactics of the Hussite Rebellion might be applicable here. Essentially take poorly armored peasants and put them in circled fighting wagons with plenty of ammo.

If you stay in your city against the Mongols you are as good as dead. Might as well kill yourself and save the Mongols some time. The Mongols were masters of siege warfare, they had more advanced technology and siege equipment than any other medieval power.

Only after conquering China.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Alright, fighting knights or Mongols isn't too far off for Byzantium. To fight Mongols, you become Mongols, or hole up in your city. Anyone trying to out-calvary nomadic horsetribes men who can rain arrows upon you without ever engaging is in for trouble.

On the other hand, Mongolian can't besiege their way out of a wet paper sack.

Potentially, you might wind up with larger shield bearers, like the pavise, shielding bowmen who could outrange the Mongols. But you'd need some very sturdy folks to knock them off horses if they closed, perhaps interspersed bill users, or spearmen.

Actually, the tactics of the Hussite Rebellion might be applicable here. Essentially take poorly armored peasants and put them in circled fighting wagons with plenty of ammo.

If you stay in your city against the Mongols you are as good as dead. Might as well kill yourself and save the Mongols some time. The Mongols were masters of siege warfare, they had more advanced technology and siege equipment than any other medieval power.

Hungary disagrees with you. That strategy worked well for them against the Golden Horde. Through use of terrain and lots of fortifications they prevailed.

And the laager is a time honored tradition that proved itself against against mobile opponents armed with repeating rifles.

My apologies, my focus is generally on personal arms and armor. I am quite wrong about the Mongolian siege capabilities! Thanks for educating me.

Did they do any protracted siege work? From some brief research of my own,
http://listverse.com/2014/01/21/10-of-the-deadliest-sieges-in-history/

it looks like Kiev and Baghdad were both over in less than 2 weeks.

For some interesting and extremely hyperbolic reading, here is the triumph of Vietnam over the Mongol Horde.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/tranhungdao.html

 Gitzbitah wrote:
My apologies, my focus is generally on personal arms and armor. I am quite wrong about the Mongolian siege capabilities! Thanks for educating me.

Did they do any protracted siege work? From some brief research of my own,
http://listverse.com/2014/01/21/10-of-the-deadliest-sieges-in-history/

it looks like Kiev and Baghdad were both over in less than 2 weeks.

For some interesting and extremely hyperbolic reading, here is the triumph of Vietnam over the Mongol Horde.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/tranhungdao.html

Well the mongols most obvious siege tactic was to kill everyone in a city except for a few, link and chain a bunch of people. Gouge out the eyes and tongues of almost everyone and send them in the direction of the nearest cities

We are talking about people who literally stuffed the Calpihate and people who made the Middle East what it is today. (AKA A Desert, they destroyed most of the aqueducts)

The Mongols were one of the most powerful armies in the ancient world.

So, then I would need to come up with an army that would be capable of standing up to Mongols.

One possibility is another cavalry army, different tactics, but the same emphasis upon mounted troops.

But there remains the other armies that would need to be capable of standing up to Mongol-like armies, AND against the typical Medieval Knight.

MB

You don't need to be cav focused to take out the mongols if you are in rough terrain. Like forests or hilly areas.