Is an electronic ticket a strict reporting form? - a question that...
I continue a series of video publications about the military history of the Middle Ages.
One of the founders of military-historical reconstruction, Associate Professor of the Institute of History, Ph.D. O.V. Sokolov and military historian, reenactor K.A. Zhukov about the battles of the Middle Ages. The latest data from field and experimental archeology and scientific research on medieval battles: Battle of Hastings 1066, Battle of Lipitsa 1216, Battle of Kalka 1223, Battle of Crecy 1346, Battle of Visby 1361, Battle of Vorskla 1399 and Novgorod-Livonian War 1443-1448. . The video lectures cover the following questions: the background and causes of the battles, the location of the battles, the number and composition of the parties, tactics, the results of the battles and the impact on the future. Many myths and misconceptions, known to historians and archaeologists, but wandering through films and history textbooks, have been debunked. Audio versions of the lectures are attached.
Battle of Hastings 14 October 1066- a battle that changed the history of not only England and Western Europe, but also had great significance for the history of Russia. The battle between the Anglo-Saxon army of King Harold Godwinson and the troops of the Norman Duke William ended in the defeat of the English and the conquest of England. The video lecture tells about the causes and course of the war, the course of the battle, the number and weapons of the participants in the battle, the outcome of the battle and the impact on the history of Europe and Russia. Lecturer - military historian, reenactor Klim Zhukov
Audio version of the Battle of Hastings
Some sources from the lecture:
1. Guy of Amiens. Song of the Battle of Hastings
2. Guillaume of Jumièges. Acts of the Dukes of Normandy
3. Guy de Poitiers. The Acts of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the Angles
4. William of Malmesbury. History of English Kings
6. Orderic Vitaly. Ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy
7. Robert Vas. Romance of Rollo
8. Planché J.R. The Conqueror and His Companions, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874
9. Florence of Worcester. Chronicle
10. Carpet from Bayo
11.
Battle of Lipitsa 1216- the apogee of the internecine war in North-Eastern Rus' for power in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality after the death of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest. The battle between the younger sons of Vsevolod the Big Nest and the Murom people, on the one hand, and the united army from the Smolensk and Novgorod lands, which supported the claims of the elder Vsevolodovich Konstantin to the Vladimir throne and led by Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny, on the other. One of the most brutal and bloody battles in Russian history and an example of the “wrong war” of the Middle Ages. Lecturer - military historian, reenactor Klim Zhukov
Audio version of the Battle of Lipitsa 1216
Battle of the Kalka River in 1223- a battle between the Russian-Polovtsian army and the Mongol corps, a harbinger of the Mongol conquest of the Russian principalities. It ended with the defeat of the Russian-Polovtsian army, with a large number of dead princes and the highest aristocracy. Military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov talks about the background and course of the battle, the number and weapons of participants, and the consequences of the battle.
Audio version of the Battle of Kalka 1223
"The Battle of Crecy or the Black Legend of Chivalry", lecture by one of the founders of military-historical reconstruction, associate professor of the Institute of History, Ph.D. Oleg Valerievich Sokolov. The Battle of Crecy on August 26, 1346 is one of the most important battles of the Hundred Years' War (the conflict between the Kingdom of England and its allies, on the one hand, and France and its allies, on the other). The Battle of Crecy immediately became overgrown with black myths in relation to the French army and knighthood. Oleg Sokolov analyzes the background, course and results of the battle, simultaneously debunking established myths
Audio version of the Battle of Crecy
Battle of Visby 1361- a battle between the army of the King of Denmark and the “peasants” of Gotland. A massacre that showed that poorly trained troops mean nothing against professional warriors. At the site of the battle, archaeologists found a mass grave of the dead, many in full gear. This find provided enormous material for military historians on medieval weapons. Military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov talks about the Battle of Visby and archaeological finds
Audio version of the Battle of Visby
Battle of Vorskla 1399- a battle between the united army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its Russian, Polish, German allies and the Tokhtamysh detachment under the command of Prince Vitovt, on the one hand, and the troops of the Golden Horde under the command of Khan Timur-Kutlug and Emir Edigei on the other. One of the largest battles of the Middle Ages ended with the victory of the Tatar army and the complete defeat of the Lithuanian army. The consequences of the battle were of great importance for Eastern Europe - the decline of the role of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and the collapse of claims to the unification of Russian lands), the final discreditation of Tokhtamysh and his inability to fight for the khan's throne, the death of many Russian-Lithuanian princes, etc. About the reasons, the course of the battle, The composition of the participants, weapons and possible location of the battle is told by military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov
Audio version of the Battle of Vorskla
Novgorod-Livonian War 1443-1448. Why is she interesting? Firstly, the longest war between Novgorod and the Livonian Order in the already complex history of their relationship. Secondly, this is the last war between Novgorod and the Livonian Order. And thirdly, this is the last private war in Western Europe - at least in the Holy Roman Empire. Military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov tells the story
Audio version of the Novgorod-Livonian War
To be continued...
More video lectures about battles and weapons:
The Middle Ages were an era of continuous wars and bloody battles. It was these battles that determined the fate of millions of people. Alexey Durnovo put together five battles that made Europe what it is.
Who is against whom? Yorkies vs Lancasters.
Generals. Richard III. Henry Tudor.
Before the battle. The Yorks won the War of the Roses and ruled England quite calmly. The throne was occupied by Richard III, the younger brother of the victorious king Edward IV. The problem was that Richard, under very dubious circumstances, deposed his nephew Edward V and more than once quarreled with prominent English aristocrats. Meanwhile, the Lancastrian party was led by Henry Tudor. His rights to this leadership, as well as his origin, were strongly doubted, but all other contenders for leadership had already been killed, so Tudor remained the only candidate. He took advantage of Richard's conflict with the feudal lords and attracted the latter to his side. Tudor was also supported by his stepfather Thomas Stanley, the High Lord Constable of England.
Progress of the battle. Richard III relied more on personal valor than on the courage of his soldiers. The battle was going in his favor, and he decided to finish the matter at once. The king and his knights attacked Henry Tudor's headquarters. It was a risk, but Richard believed that he would be able to personally deal with the pretender to the throne. He had every chance of this, but just at the key moment of the battle, Lord Stanley's men attacked the king from the rear. Richard received a spear in the eye, and it was this blow, as it turned out five hundred years after the battle, that became fatal for both him and the entire York dynasty.
Henry Tudor was crowned on the battlefield
Results. Henry Tudor was crowned right on the battlefield. His victory ended the 30-year civil war in England, allowing the country to return to peaceful life. Richard III is the last English king to fall on the battlefield. His grave was discovered only in 2013.
Who is against whom: England vs Normandy.
Generals: Harold Godwinson. William the Conqueror.
Before the battle. King Edward the Confessor of England died without leaving an heir. The Saxon nobility almost without hesitation chose the most powerful of their ranks, Harold Godwinson, as the new king. The problem is that there were other contenders for the English throne: the Norwegian king Harald the Severe, who dreamed of conquering England, and the Norman Duke William, to whom the throne seemed to have been promised by Edward the Confessor himself. The Saxon army dealt with the Vikings quite easily. At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, Harald the Severe was killed and his army put to flight. But before the Saxons had time to celebrate the victory, the Norman army of Duke William appeared from the south.
Progress of the battle. The Norman army was better armed than the enemy. Suffice it to say that the Saxons had almost no archers, let alone crossbowmen. However, neither William's archers nor his heavy knightly cavalry could do anything with Harold's army, which occupied positions on the hill. This height was impregnable for the Normans, and the Saxons would have won if they had not abandoned it themselves. As William's cavalry retreated, Harold's army gave chase. This pursuit arose spontaneously; the Normans managed to hold the line, stop the attackers and go on the offensive themselves. But the Saxons’ battle formation was disrupted, the height was unprotected, and therefore finishing off the enemy was a matter of technique. Harold Godwinson fell on the battlefield along with most of his army.
The Norman conquerors considered the Saxons to be something like pigs
Results. Saxony and England were conquered by the much more advanced Normans, which led to dramatic changes in the life of the kingdom and its subjects. Suffice it to say that power was held by people who did not speak English and considered the Saxons, even the most noble ones, to be something like pigs. Nevertheless, the years spent together led to the formation of a single nation, and only a few words in the English language now remind us of the difference between the Saxons and the Normans.
Who is against whom: Kingdom of the Franks vs Umayyad Caliphate.
Generals: Charles Martell. Abdur-Rahman ibn Abdallah.
Before the battle. This was a time when the Arab states were constantly expanding their possessions, moving from the very west of Europe to the east. North Africa, as well as modern Portugal and Spain, were already under their rule. The troops of the Umayyad Caliphate invaded the Kingdom of the Franks and reached the banks of the Loire. A little more, and this obstacle in their path would also be swept away. But Abdur-Rahman was opposed by the experienced commander Charles Martell, who was not a king in fact, but was one in essence. Martell had experienced, battle-hardened soldiers at his disposal, but the basis of his army was infantry, while the Arabs relied on cavalry.
Progress of the battle. Martell managed to take a more advantageous position on a hill, but the outcome of the battle was decided by the cunning he used. The Frankish infantry took on the frontal attack of the Arab cavalry. She managed to withstand it, but the horsemen still broke through her ranks. At this moment, the Arabs became aware that the Franks were attacking from the rear, and the cavalry hurried to the aid of their own. In fact, only Martell’s scouts approached the rear of the Umayyad army, but the retreat of the cavalry caused panic in the army of Abdur-Rahman and quickly developed into a real flight. The Arab commander tried to stop him, but was killed.
Charles Martell, by and large, saved Europe
Results. The Arab invasion of Europe was stopped. The Umayyad Caliphate no longer threatened the borders of the Kingdom of the Franks. The grandson of Charles Martell, Charlemagne, waged war in enemy territory.
Who is against whom: England vs France.
Generals: Henry V. Charles d'Albret.
Before the battle. France might have already forgotten that it was at war with England. The Hundred Years' War then entered an era of long pause. But the young English king Henry V remembered this conflict and his rights to the French throne. The invasion of his troops took France by surprise, and the further course of the campaign was to be determined by the general battle that took place near Agincourt in 1415.
Progress of the battle. As it turned out, the previous defeats did not teach the French commanders anything. They again relied on knightly cavalry and again allowed the British to thoroughly strengthen their positions before the battle. As a result, the formidable English archers once again shot the flower of French chivalry, the frontal attack crashed against simple fortifications, and the counter-offensive turned into a massacre of the defenseless subjects of King Charles VI.
At the beginning of the 15th century, the British again shot the flower of French chivalry
Results. Henry successfully completed the conquest of France and achieved his goal. He was proclaimed heir to the mad King Charles VI. France, of course, would have become part of England if not for Henry's early death. The throne eventually went to his son Henry VI, who was crowned king of both England and France. But the two crowns were too heavy for the little boy's head. As a result, he lost both, and France was saved by the triumphant appearance of Joan of Arc and the insidious cunning of the Dauphin Charles.
Who is against whom: Ayyubids vs Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Generals: Saladin. Guy de Lusignan.
Before the battle. The ruler of Egypt, Saladin, successfully united all the Muslim states of the Holy Land under his rule. His state included North Africa, Syria, part of the Arabian Peninsula and, of course, Egypt. All this created a serious threat to the existence of Christian states founded about a hundred years earlier, after the First Crusade. Saladin was approaching Jerusalem, and Christian leaders were trying to decide how exactly to give him battle. The original plan - to keep a siege in Jerusalem - was not accepted due to the tough position of Gerard de Ridfort, Grand Master of the Templar Order. It was he who insisted that the battle must be fought in an open field. The nominal king of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan, supported Ridefort, not yet knowing that he was signing a death warrant for the kingdom of Jerusalem.
Progress of the battle. One need not even mention the fact that there was no unity among the heads of the Christian army. The Masters of the Templars and Hospitallers were not very willing to carry out Lusignan's orders, and Raymond, Count of Tripoli, himself claimed the supreme command. But this simplified Saladin's victory rather than determined it. Heat and thirst turned out to be much more important factors. Lusignan's army was marching through the sultry desert and by sunset did not have time to reach the water. The camp was set up in an open, unprotected area, and Saladin ordered dry bushes to be burned, causing the Christian headquarters to be covered in acrid smoke. Lusignan ordered his troops to form up, but Saladin beat him to the punch and attacked first. It was a rout.
Before the battle, the crusaders almost died of thirst
Results. Since the main forces of three crusader states and two knightly orders were destroyed in the battle, the Christians were simply bled dry. Saladin captured Jerusalem and launched an offensive. Undoubtedly, he would have driven the Christians out of the Holy Land decisively and irrevocably if Richard the Lionheart had not intervened, leading the Third Crusade. His appearance saved the crusaders from immediate defeat, but it was after the Battle of Hattin that it became clear that the defeat of the crusaders was a matter of time.
Medieval Battles
Regardless of whether the commanders sought open and decisive confrontation or not, battles were a characteristic feature of the wars of the Middle Ages. Contemporaries always wrote enthusiastically about them. In these descriptions one can feel the exciting drama of knightly duels; the heroic deeds and courage of the warriors are noted with special delight. The role of knights in battles is the subject of scientific debate. Revisionist historians in the 1980s–1990s. downplayed the role of heavy cavalry while emphasizing the importance of infantry, long ignored because most chroniclers focused on the valor of generals and princes. The “crusade” against the revisionists was led by John France, convincingly showing that many of them went too far, so undeservedly belittling the importance of cavalry, the strength of which, he claims, always lay in its mobility. Naturally, despite all the turmoil associated with the "military revolution" of the Late Middle Ages, the mounted knight continued to be an essential component of armies throughout the period. When Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494, half of his army was heavy cavalry. The enormous funds spent on the maintenance of such an army were associated with the honor that was still accorded to the knights.
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle - both infantry and cavalry were vital components of any army. In the history of wars of the Middle Ages, many victories of cavalry over infantry, and vice versa, were noted. Thus, heavy cavalry decided the outcome of the Battle of Hastings in 1066; at Jaffa in 1192 it took only a dozen knights to drive away the Muslims; and it was the Muslim heavy cavalry that influenced the outcome of the Battle of Nikopol in Bulgaria in 1396, leading to mass French surrenders. The “military revolution” thesis is supported by the increasing victories of infantrymen over mounted warriors in the 13th–14th centuries. This happened at Courtray in 1302, at Crecy in 1346 and Murten (Switzerland) in 1476, when the cavalry of Charles the Bold could not prevent the beating of his troops by Swiss pikemen. But infantry defeated cavalry much earlier. In 1176, long before any “revolution,” the cavalry of Emperor Frederick the Great was routed by foot troops of the Lombard League at Legnano, near Milan. A decade later, in 1188, in the battle of Gisors in Normandy, English foot soldiers repelled two attacks by the French cavalry, considered the elite of Europe. The History of William Marshall notes how the French " rushed to attack"and were met by Angevin infantry, " which did not run away from the mad onslaught, but met them with spears" Apparently, there were no casualties among the infantrymen at all.
Perhaps even more instructive are the battles of the early 12th century, such as at Bremuhl in 1119, when Henry I ordered his knights to dismount and, merging with the infantry, was able to defeat the French cavalry. William of Tire reports that during the second crusade in the late 1140s. German knights, out of habit, dismounted during battle. The chronicles write that the Franks fought on foot back in 891, at the Battle of Dyle in Belgium. The thing is that knights were universal warriors; they were formidable, professional killing machines that could adapt to fighting both on foot and on horseback.
The debate over the superiority of infantry over cavalry and vice versa can be misleading. Only a few battles can be characterized as pure clashes between horse and foot. In the vast majority of battles, including those mentioned above, the outcome (if one could be accurately determined in the end) was decided by the tactical formation and combat abilities of cavalry, infantry and archers, as well as their ability to interact with each other. Various units in the troops performed corresponding functions, which could change depending on the circumstances. Heavy cavalry were intended to deliver a powerful charge that could split the enemy's ranks, or, as at the Battle of Hastings, to feign a rout in order to lure out infantry. But, as mentioned above, knights could also defend on foot. Archers and spearmen fired at the enemy, thereby making the task of the cavalry easier, and, of course, they were also used to defeat the enemy's cavalry. The infantry provided a shield wall for the cavalry, but the infantry was also used for attack, advancing in second echelon after the cavalry. Knights could also advance on foot (something the French did not really learn to do until 1415, as Agincourt demonstrated). One cannot discount a lot of other factors that determine the outcome of a battle: the commander’s leadership talent, morale, skillful positioning on the ground, troop training and discipline, and so on.
The last factor mentioned, discipline, deserves special attention because command structure and its violations have often influenced modern understanding of atrocities committed during warfare. Effectiveness in combat often depends on discipline and strict adherence to orders. Yes, there is some truth in the fact that medieval armies were partly composed of fearful peasants ready to flee, and the knights were eager to get to the enemy. Yet Charles Oman's view that the knights were simply young amateur aristocrats who randomly rushed into the fray as soon as they smelled blood is a mere travesty that, unfortunately, still lives on today. In a recently published essay on the quest for fame, Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg writes about " recklessness on a scale that even a medieval knight would find incredible" For the cavalry, it was vital to maintain battle order: a successful attack depended on the enormous weight and power of the cavalry, moving in close formation. The importance of this was recognized by both commanders and writers. Young Edward III, during the Weardale Campaign in 1327, told his subjects that he would kill anyone who dared attack without orders. Joinville gives an example from the beginning of the 13th century: during Saint Louis’s first campaign in Egypt, Gautier D’Autreche disobeyed strict orders, broke formation and was mortally wounded. Neither the chronicler nor the king felt much sympathy for him.
Naturally, such momentary prowess often manifested itself in battles. During the campaign against Jaffa in 1191, the crusader army led by Richard the Lionheart was repeatedly subjected to painful injections from Muslims. Richard sent out an order to maintain battle order at all costs, despite enemy provocations. The Knights Hospitaller, who, being in the rearguard of the army, bore the brunt of the Muslim attacks, suffered more casualties (mainly from enemy archers) and lost more horses than other units of the crusaders. Without waiting for a signal to counterattack, two knights - one of them, according to the chronicle, was called Marshal - spurred their horses and rushed at the enemy. The entire Hospitaller cavalry immediately rushed after them. Seeing this, Richard threw his own knights into the attack. If he had not done this, a disaster could have happened. The sudden counterattack, and most importantly, the number of knights participating in it, did its job, and the crusaders completely defeated the Muslims. Inspired by this success, Richard led his army further. (However, such bravado had its limits: the same Richard died in 1199 during the siege of a French fortress).
Orders were not only given verbally, where they could be misinterpreted. They were written down on parchment, and in great detail. Roger Howden cites the draconian rules established by the same Richard to maintain discipline on ships sailing to the Holy Land:
Anyone who kills someone will be tied to the dead man and, if this happens at sea, will be thrown overboard, and if on land, he will be buried alive along with the murdered person. If legal witnesses confirm that someone drew a knife against a comrade, then his hand should be cut off. If someone hits a comrade without shedding his blood, then he must be dipped into the sea three times. Swearing or blasphemy is punishable by fines according to the number of offenses. Anyone convicted of theft must be shaved, coated with tar, rolled in feathers and put ashore at the first opportunity.
It was not only Richard who issued such decrees. Any crusader soldier found gambling was to be flogged, stripped naked, for three days in a military camp. The sailors got off with a lighter punishment: in the morning they were dipped into the sea.
Rules on conduct in war were typical of the Middle Ages: Richard II issued his regulations in 1385 in Durham; Henry V - in 1415 in Harfleur. These decrees were aimed at protecting civilians and the clergy; they prohibited destruction and looting. As for Henry, he wanted to enlist the support of the inhabitants of Normandy as loyal and reliable subjects. But not all such directives were well thought out. Twenty years later, Sir John Falstaff gave orders for an emergency, unrestricted war - guerre mortelle, wars of extermination. He sought to brutally suppress the actions of the French rebels. The massacre and violence had to be officially sanctioned, as well as the complete breakdown of discipline in the military ranks.
Loss of discipline on the battlefield could provoke defeat. During any battle, there was a danger of cavalrymen turning into ruthless killers, trampling and finishing off fleeing infantry. The following is William of Poitiers' account of the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings.
[The English] fled as soon as they had the opportunity, some on horses taken from their comrades, many on foot. Those who fought did not have enough strength to escape; they lay in pools of their own blood. The desire to be saved gave strength to the others. Many died in the thicket of the forest, many on the path of their pursuers. The Normans pursued them and killed them, bringing the whole matter to a proper conclusion, at the same time trampling under the hooves of their horses, both living and dead.
We have already seen that knighthood provided the holders of this status with significant protection and security, and it was the poor infantry who got the most. But this was not always the case: the very nature of the war, attitude towards the enemy, class hatred, religious beliefs, ethnicity and nationality - all this could have a very serious impact on the level of losses. Philippe Contamine explores this degree of risk in his classic War in the Middle Ages. In the West, he notes, intra-communal war, even with the participation of the nobility, could be especially merciless - in such cases, prisoners were taken for ransom very rarely. The great chronicler-historian Froissart writes disapprovingly of the Frisians who openly resisted the troops of the British, French and Flemings in 1396: they refused to surrender, preferring to die free, and did not take prisoners for ransom. As for the few prisoners they captured, they were not handed over to the enemy in exchange for their own. The Frisians left them " die one by one in prison" "A if they consider that none of their people were captured by the enemy, then all the prisoners will certainly be put to death" It is not surprising then that " according to the general rule,- as Froissart states, - The defeated side suffers the greatest losses».
Finding out detailed lists of losses is not easy, often impossible, especially when the level of losses is very high, and confirming the data of one or another chronicle source is also quite difficult. Thus, those killed in the Scottish battle of Dunbar in 1296, according to the statements of four chroniclers - contemporaries of those events, were estimated at 22,000, 30,000 and 100,000 people (two agreed on the most modest figure). Once again, it must be said that among the fallen, it was usually the nobles who deserved the most attention, and for this reason the level of casualties among the nobility is much better known. The combination of a knightly code of honor and strong armor usually helped keep knight casualties low, so when almost forty English knights died at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, it was considered quite an event. By the beginning of the 14th century, losses among knights and foot soldiers began to increase. In the defeat of the French at Poitiers in 1356, nineteen members of the leading noble families were killed, in addition to 2,000 ordinary soldiers; In the massacre at Agincourt, almost a hundred representatives of the nobility (including three dukes), one and a half thousand knights and almost 4,000 ordinary soldiers died. In both cases the casualty rate for the French cavalry was approximately forty percent. It is enough to compare these losses with the result of the Battle of Bremuhl in 1119, during which Orderic Vitaliy counted only three killed out of 900 knights participating in the battle. According to general estimates, in the Middle Ages, defeated armies suffered losses ranging from twenty to fifty percent of their manpower.
In examining the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo, Wellington addressed the human cost of war, stating that " After a lost battle, the greatest misfortune is the battle won" Medieval chroniclers were not always inclined to such reflections, as the pictorial passage below demonstrates. It was written by an Arab chronicler who witnessed the Battle of Hattin in 1187, when Saladin defeated the Crusader army. These words would easily fit the description of any battle scene of the Middle Ages:
The hills and valleys were strewn with the dead... Hattin got rid of their souls, and the aroma of victory mixed thickly with the stench of decaying corpses. I walked past them and saw everywhere bloody body parts, split skulls, mutilated noses, cut off ears, severed necks, gouged out eyes, ripped open bellies, spilled entrails, blood-stained hair, striped torsos, severed fingers... Bodies chopped in half, foreheads pierced by arrows , protruding ribs... lifeless faces, gaping wounds, the last breaths of the dying... rivers of blood... Oh, sweet rivers of victory! Oh, long-awaited consolation!
As we will see below, this is not the worst massacre yet! Even rivers of shed blood sometimes did not satisfy the victors.
author Polo de Beaulieu Marie-AnneMiddle Ages Man
From the book Medieval France author Polo de Beaulieu Marie-AnneDwellings of the Middle Ages From a peasant house to a feudal castle The term “house” denotes the unity of buildings and the free space around them, where members of the same family, and the family group itself, lived and worked. Our circle of interests includes only the first
From the book Medieval France author Polo de Beaulieu Marie-AnneGhosts of the Middle Ages The image of medieval France, bristling with countless castles inhabited by ghosts, created in our imagination by the popular prints of Epinal, has not yet lost its vitality, judging by many novels and albums with drawings.
From the book History of Rome. Volume 1 by Mommsen TheodorCHAPTER VI THE WAR WITH HANNIBAL FROM THE BATTLE OF CANNA TO THE BATTLE OF ZAME. By undertaking a campaign in Italy, Hannibal set himself the goal of causing the collapse of the Italian union; after three campaigns this goal had been achieved to the extent feasible. It was clear from everything that they
From the book Legalized Cruelty: The Truth about Medieval Warfare by McGlynn SeanSieges of the Middle Ages The routes of armies on campaign were usually dictated by the location of castles. The troops moved from one castle to another in order to free them from siege by the enemy, or to besiege them themselves. Depending on the goals, it was planned to replenish the number
From the book Individual and Society in the Medieval West author Gurevich Aron YakovlevichAt the end of the Middle Ages
From the book Mysteries of the Kulikov Field author Zvyagin Yuri YurievichTrotsky of the Middle Ages So, as we see, for Oleg in the conditions of 1380 the choice was obvious. To advocate for Muscovites against the Tatars? But Moscow has shown itself to be an irreconcilable adversary. The main thing is that it is further from the Horde, so if something goes wrong, Ryazan will have to pay again, as it was
From the book World History of Piracy author Blagoveshchensky GlebPirates of the Middle Ages Awilda, or Alfilda (4?? – 4??), ScandinaviaAwilda grew up in the royal family in Scandinavia. King Siward, her father, always dreamed of finding a worthy match for his daughter. In the end, his choice settled on Alpha, Crown Prince of Denmark. What is it like
From the book The Book of Anchors author Skryagin Lev Nikolaevich From the book History of Austria. Culture, society, politics author Votselka KarlThe world of medieval people /65/ The idea of the “dark and gloomy” Middle Ages, despite many studies breaking this stereotype, is still characteristic of the popular image of this era and hinders understanding of the uniqueness of medieval culture. Of course, in
From the book Requests of the Flesh. Food and sex in people's lives author Reznikov Kirill YurievichIn defense of the Middle Ages With the light hand of Petrarch, supported by the humanists of the Renaissance and the philosophers of the Enlightenment, the Early Middle Ages (476 - 1000) are usually called the “Dark Ages” and described in gloomy colors, as a time of the collapse of culture and savagery. Yes and to the High
From the book From Empires to Imperialism [The State and the Emergence of Bourgeois Civilization] author Kagarlitsky Boris YulievichBONAPARTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES As is known, Bonapartist, or “Caesarist” regimes arise at the decline of the revolution, when the new elite, on the one hand, seeks to normalize the situation, bringing the raging masses under control, and, on the other hand, to consolidate some
From the book 500 Great Journeys author Nizovsky Andrey YurievichTravelers of the Middle Ages
From the book History of World and Domestic Culture: Lecture Notes author Konstantinova S V4. Painting of the Middle Ages Since the barbarian tribes were constantly nomadic, their early art is represented mainly by: 1) weapons; 2) jewelry; 3) various utensils. Barbarian craftsmen preferred bright colors and expensive materials, while not
From the book Anchors author Skryagin Lev Nikolaevich From the book Tsarist Rome between the Oka and Volga rivers. author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich15. Another reflection of the Battle of Kulikovo in “ancient” Roman history as the battle of Clusia and Sentina. Apparently, the battle of Clusia and Sentina allegedly took place in 295 BC. e. is a duplicate of the Second Latin War of Rome, which we have already described above, allegedly 341–340 BC. e. Exactly
WARS OF THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES
After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, its eastern counterpart in Byzantium continued to exist, and its struggle for survival with the Arabs, and then with the Turks and Bulgarians, is a fascinating story. In 622, Muhammad led his followers from Mecca to Medina, marking the beginning of Arabian and Islamic expansion. The first military victory was won by the prophet himself, but the most prominent leaders of the Islamic campaign were to become Khalid ibn al-Walid and Amr ibn al-As. Within a hundred years, the Islamic empire stretched from the Aral Sea to the headwaters of the Nile and from the borders of China to the Bay of Biscay. Only one power, Byzantium, could resist the Arabs in that century, and even it lost the southeastern part of its empire. Then, when the Arab offensive, having reached southern France, fizzled out, the Franks again took a prominent place. And finally, in the 8th century. Viking raids began on Britain and Western Europe. A notable phenomenon in the military history of Western Europe in the 7th – 11th centuries was the steady development of cavalry.
The Arabs carried out their conquests thanks to the skillful use of camel and horse troops in convenient terrain, the open spaces of North Africa and Western Asia. But their battle formations and battle tactics were very primitive, and their means of defense were rather meager. Usually they were built in one, sometimes in two or three dense rows, units were formed from different tribes. Fear was caused by the number of Arabs and their appearance. As one Byzantine military leader noted, “they are very brave when they are confident of victory: they firmly hold the line and boldly resist the most furious attacks. Feeling that the enemy is weakening, with their joint desperate efforts they deliver the final blow.” The foot troops were mostly incapable of combat and poorly armed; the Arabs' strength was the cavalry. At the beginning of the 7th century. cavalry was lightly armed and extremely mobile, but in subsequent centuries the Arabs learned much from their most stubborn opponents, the Byzantines, and increasingly relied on mounted archers and spearmen protected by chain mail, helmets, shields and greaves.
Defensive structures of Constantinople, practically preserved before the capture by the Turks in 1453.
But the best qualities of the armies of Islam were not in equipment and organization, but in the moral principles generated by religion, mobility thanks to camel transport and endurance developed by difficult living conditions in the desert. The faithful followers of Muhammad were extremely close to the idea of jihad, a holy war. There was also an economic reason for Arab aggression, the old history of overpopulation in the Arabian Peninsula. Over the centuries, South Arabia became drier and its inhabitants moved north. Arab population explosion in the 7th century. was the fourth, final, and largest Semitic migration. As before, migrants naturally first flocked to the fertile crescent of the Middle East with its fertile lands, and only then spilled out beyond the Euphrates and Nile valleys. They went far beyond the territories they conquered in ancient times, not only because of their numbers, but also because almost everywhere the conquered peoples greeted them as deliverers. Their tolerance, humanity and impressive civilization converted almost as many people as they conquered by force. With the exception of Spain, they conquered in the 7th century. The areas have preserved the Islamic religion and culture to this day.
The first obstacle for the Arabs was Byzantium. In the VIII – XI centuries. The Byzantine army and navy, in essence, were the most combat-ready force in the European and Mediterranean space. In 668, and then every year from 672 to 677, the Arabs attacked the Byzantine Empire at various points. They invaded its borders, but each time the Byzantine fleet ultimately defeated the invaders. Arab and Byzantine galleys were more or less identical. The large battle dromon had a hundred oarsmen placed on two rows of benches. The rowers in the top rank were armed, and the crew was supplemented by marines. But the ships of the Byzantines were better equipped, armed with “Greek fire” - an incendiary mixture that was shot through a pipe on the bow or thrown into ballistas in pots.
The high point and turning point in the war between the Arabs and the Byzantines was the siege of Constantinople in 717–718. When the Arabs conquered Asia Minor, Emperor Theodosius III entered a monastery, but at this critical moment the professional military man Leo the Isaurian (Syrian) took over leadership. He quickly restored and strengthened the impressive fortifications of Constantinople - before the use of gunpowder, such walls were impregnable for the attackers and the city could only be taken by siege. Since Constantinople was surrounded on three sides by water, everything seemed to depend on the balance of power of the opposing fleets, and the Arabs had a huge numerical superiority here. However, Leo bravely and resourcefully led the twelve-month defense of the city, and when the siege was lifted, the Byzantine fleet pursued the enemy to the Hellespont, where the Arabs were caught in a storm and only a small fraction of their forces survived. For the Arabs this proved to be an unforgettable disaster. Thanks to the subsequent victory at Akroin in 739, Leo forced the Arabs to finally abandon the western part of Asia Minor.
The successes of Leo the Isaurian were achieved thanks to the combat capability of the army and navy that had been building up over a long period of time. Since the time of Belisarius, the main force of the Byzantine troops was heavy cavalry. The warrior was protected by long chain mail from the neck to the hips, a medium-sized round shield, a steel helmet, plate gauntlets and steel boots. The horses in the front row were also protected by steel breastplates. All the horses were under large, comfortable saddles with iron stirrups. The armament consisted of a broad sword, a dagger, a small bow with a quiver of arrows, and a long spear. Sometimes a battle ax was attached to the saddle. Like their Roman predecessors and unlike other Western armies, until the 16th century. Byzantine troops wore a set uniform: the cape over the armor, the pennant at the end of the spear and the plume of the helmet were of a certain color, distinguishing a particular military unit. To afford such equipment, the horseman had to have significant wealth. All commanders and every four to five soldiers were assigned an orderly. This was also expensive, but it made sense so that the soldiers could concentrate on purely military duties and, through good nutrition, maintain good physical shape. The history of the wealthy Byzantine Empire shows that a little comfort does not harm the requirements of combat effectiveness.
The functions of foot troops were limited to the defense of mountainous terrain and garrison service in fortresses and important cities. Most of the light infantry were archers, while the heavily armed infantry carried a spear, sword and battle axe. Each unit of 16 people was entitled to two carts for transporting weapons, food, kitchen utensils and entrenching tools. The Byzantines retained the classical Roman practice of building fortified camps at regular intervals, and the engineering troops were invariably at the forefront of the army. For each unit of 400 people there was a medical officer and six to eight porters. For each person carried from the battlefield, the porters received a reward - not so much for humanitarian reasons, but rather because the state was interested in the speedy restoration of the wounded's combat capability.
The cornerstone of the Byzantine military system was operational-tactical training: the Byzantines won with cunning and skill. They rightly believed that methods of combat should vary depending on the enemy's tactics, and carefully studied the techniques of a potential enemy. The most important military works of that time are the “Strategikon” of Mauritius (c. 580), “Tactics” of Leo the Wise (c. 900) and instructions on the conduct of border warfare by Nikephoros Phocas (who conquered Crete and Cilicia from the Arabs, in 963 - 969 gg. former emperor).
Mauritius reorganized the structure and recruitment system of the army. He developed a hierarchy of units and units from the simplest unit of 16 soldiers to the “meros”, a division consisting of 6 - 8 thousand soldiers. There was a corresponding hierarchy of commanders, with the appointment of all military commanders above the rank of centurion being in the hands of the central government. After the Justinian Wars, the number of Teutonic mercenaries in the Byzantine army was greatly reduced. The empire did not have universal conscription for men, but there was a system that required regions, if necessary, to send a certain number of men for military training and active service. The border regions were divided into districts called “klissurs”, which, for example, could consist of a mountain pass and a fortress. Command of a klissura often served as a stepping stone to a successful military career. In a poem of the 10th century. “Digenes Akritas” describes life on the border of Cappadocia, where the warlike feudal lords who ruled the country carried out endless raids on the Arab territories of Cilicia and Mesopotamia.
The Byzantine tactics were based on a series of heavy cavalry attacks. According to Leo the Wise, the cavalry had to be divided into a first, fighting echelon, a second echelon of support and a small reserve behind the second, as well as units pushed far forward on both flanks, with the task of overturning the opposing flank of the enemy or protecting their own. Up to half of the available forces were allocated to the first echelon; the rest, depending on the tactical situation, were distributed in depth and on the flanks.
Naturally, there was a wide variety of tactical battle formations. Against the Slavs and Franks, as well as during major Arab invasions, foot and horse troops often acted together. In such cases, foot troops were stationed in the center, and cavalry was on the flanks or in reserve. If the enemy was expected to begin the battle with a cavalry charge, the light troops hid behind the heavy infantry, “in the same way,” Oman notes, “as a thousand years later the musketeers of the 16th and 17th centuries hid behind their pikemen.” In the mountainous terrain and gorges, the foot troops were positioned in a crescent shape, the heavily armed units blocked the enemy in the center, and the light infantry showered the enemy with arrows and spears on the flanks.
The Byzantines were the best warriors of the early Middle Ages in Europe, but the least conspicuous. This is because their strategy was mainly defensive and they preferred to rely more on their heads than on their brawn. They never entered into battle until circumstances were clearly in their favor, and often resorted to such cunning and stratagems as spreading false information or inciting treason in the enemy ranks. They constantly had to resort to defensive actions: either to keep the Arabs out of Asia Minor, or to keep the Lombards and Franks from invading the Italian provinces, and to keep the Slavs, Bulgarians, Avars, Magyars and Pechenegs out of Greece and the Balkans. Thanks to constant combat readiness and vigilance, they were able to successfully hold the borders, this was their main task, and only very rarely did Byzantium act as an aggressive power.
The most formidable enemies of Byzantium were the Arabs. But the Arabs never appreciated organization and discipline. Although their armies were to be feared due to their numbers and mobility, they were largely a collection of aggressive and assertive savages who could not resist the systematic attacks of the orderly ranks of disciplined Byzantine warriors. The commanders of the Byzantine provinces also created an effective border security system. As soon as reports of Arab movements arrived, they gathered their forces. Foot troops blocked the paths, and the cavalry, gathered in the center, had to keep an eye on the invading forces, constantly attacking them. If the commander saw that he was inferior in strength, he had to avoid open battle, but create obstacles for the enemy by all other means - if possible, harass him with small raids, defend crossings and mountain passes, clog wells and put up roadblocks. In these cases, troops were recruited in distant provinces, and over time a well-trained army of, say, 30 thousand cavalry marched against the Arabs. After their defeat at Akroin in 739, the Arabs were more of a nuisance than a threat to the security of the Byzantine Empire.
After 950, the Byzantine emperors Nikephoros Phocas and Basil II launched an offensive against the Arabs and Bulgarians. In 1014, Vasily completely destroyed the Bulgarian army, receiving the title of Bulgarian Slayer. He blinded 15 thousand captives, leaving one one-eyed man out of every hundred to take them to their king.
In 1045 Armenia was annexed. However, in the middle of the 11th century. A new enemy, the Seljuk Turks, began to put pressure on the borders. The Turks in western Asia were considered natural horsemen. They formed numerous bands, armed mainly with bows, but often also with spears and scimitars. When attacking, they rushed in front of the enemy’s front, showering him with clouds of arrows and delivering short, painful blows. In the spring of 1071, Emperor Roman Diogenes with 60 thousand soldiers moved to Armenia, where he was met by 100 thousand Turks under the command of Alp Arslan. The novel recklessly discarded traditional Byzantine prudence and thoroughness. At Manzikert, the flower of the Byzantine army was destroyed, and the emperor himself was captured. The Turks poured into Asia Minor and in ten years turned it into a desert.
In Western Europe, the history of the Franks developed according to a model that differed little from the Byzantine one. With an increasingly cavalry-dominated army, they successfully stopped the Arab advance, but then, following a period of military and cultural superiority, were weakened by pressure from the barbarian Viking tribes.
For two centuries after Clovis's victory at Vougle in 507, which established their dominance over Gaul, the Franks did not change their military organization. Agathias describes the means of warfare of the Franks during the Merovingian dynasty (c. 450 - 750) as follows:
“The equipment of the Franks is very crude, they have neither chain mail nor greaves, their legs are protected only by strips of canvas or leather. There are almost no horsemen, but the foot soldiers are brave and know how to fight. They have swords and shields, but they never use bows. Throw battle axes and spears. The spears are not very long, they are thrown or simply struck with them.”
The throwing axes of the Franks, like the tomahawks of the Red Indians, were carefully hung in order to throw them with high accuracy or to use them in close combat. The armies of the Franks fought with precisely such weapons for two centuries, attacking in discordant ranks of foot soldiers. Most of the battles were fought between themselves. True, when we had to deal more often with various other armies, other means began to be used. At the end of the 6th century. wealthy warriors began to use metal armor.
In 732, Abd al-Rahman with an Arab army advanced north to Tours. Charles Martell gathered the forces of the Franks and moved towards the Arabs who were retreating with the booty. When Abd al-Rahman attacked, “the northerners stood like a wall, they seemed to be frozen together and struck the Arabs with swords. In the thick of the battle were the mighty Austrasians, it was they who sought out and defeated the Saracen king.”
It was a defensive battle won by infantry. They did not pursue the enemy. It cannot be said that the Franks, like the Byzantines, stopped the Arabs. The Arabs simply advanced as far as their resources allowed.
In 768, the grandson of Charles Martel, known as Charlemagne, ascended the throne of the Frankish king. At first there was much dangerous unrest in the kingdom, and if aggressive neighbors did not respond to gentle treatment, the only course of action was complete subjugation. Charlemagne considered himself a world ruler, appointed by God to manage secular affairs on earth. His missionaries advanced alongside the troops, often directly acting as a psychological strike force. He wrote to the pope: “Our task is to defend the Holy Church of Christ by force of arms with the help of holy piety. Your task, Holy Father, is to raise your hands to the sky, like Moses, to pray for assistance for our troops.” Thanks to the high combat effectiveness of Charlemagne's troops and his tireless activity, peace and tranquility came to the west of Europe, which it had not seen since the time of the Antonine dynasty. Military successes were a condition for achievements in the economy, justice and culture.
However, Charlemagne often resorted to extremely cruel measures, such as the murder in 782 in Verdun of four and a half thousand rebellious Saxon pagans in one day. From 768 to 814, Charlemagne undertook military campaigns almost every year. His Holy Roman Empire eventually covered the territory now occupied by France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, West Germany, most of Italy, northern Spain and Corsica.
Charlemagne's army was very different from his grandfather's, the main difference being the transformation of heavy cavalry into a striking force. Cavalry was needed in long-distance, large-scale campaigns against enemies such as horse archers among the Avars or heavily armed spearmen in Lombardy. The importance of cavalry had long been recognized, but the cost of maintaining it was beyond the means of the Franks. In addition to expensive armor, the knight had to maintain an appropriate horse, strong enough to carry a knight in full armor, trained enough not to be frightened and carried away in battle, and fast enough for a swift attack. Such horses were specially bred and prepared. Even the costs of maintenance and food in winter were very significant. And the knight himself needed at least two servants: one to keep his weapons in order, the other to look after his horse; Moreover, the knight needed a lot of time for preparation and service itself. Under the Merovingian dynasty, no Frankish ruler was rich enough to maintain an army of heavy cavalry.
This and other problems were solved with the development of feudalism. The peculiarity of this system was that the lord, be it a king or a powerful person, gave land or protection to a vassal, receiving in return a sworn obligation to provide special services, often military. Charlemagne largely feudalized his kingdom. This arrangement appealed to those who were wealthy and those seeking protection in these troubled times. In the chaos that followed the death of Charlemagne in 814, when the empire fell apart, and Europe was plagued by attacks from the Magyars and Vikings, society turned into a kind of honeycomb, a system of cells based on mutual obligations: protection and service. The impact of feudalism on military affairs was twofold. On the one hand, the vassals who owned significant land could afford, and this was required of them, to equip knighthood. On the other hand, bonds of loyalty and mutual interest contributed to increased discipline in the army.
The core of the Frankish army was heavy cavalry. Not particularly numerous, it was highly professional. All knights had chain mail, helmets, shields, spears and battle axes. The old Frankish "militia" did not completely disappear, but the number of foot troops was reduced and combat effectiveness increased thanks to better weapons. At the Field of Mars, the annual gathering of the Frankish army, it was not allowed to appear with only a club - you had to have a bow. Charlemagne achieved a level of training, discipline and general organization not seen in the West since the barbarization of the Roman legions. An interesting document has survived in which Charlemagne in 806 summons one of the important vassals to the royal army:
“You will report to Stasfurt on the Bod by May 20th with your men, ready to perform military service in any part of our kingdom that we indicate. This means that you will come with weapons and equipment, full uniform and a supply of food. Each rider must have a shield, spear, sword, dagger, bow and quiver. The carts should have shovels, axes, picks, stakes with iron tips and everything necessary for the army. Take provisions for three months. On the way, do not cause harm to our subjects, do not touch anything except water, wood and grass. Take care that there are no omissions, since you appreciate our favor.”
Little is known with certainty about the Frankish battle formations. Probably, probing the enemy and the first skirmishes were entrusted to foot archers, and the cavalry delivered the decisive blow with all its might. Perhaps success was more likely to be accompanied by the good training and armament of the troops and the strategic insight of Charlemagne, rather than tactical skill. The solidity of his conquests was primarily ensured by the creation of a system of fortified points along the borders and in troubled areas, usually on hills near rivers.
In the 9th century. in the absence of kings knowledgeable in military affairs, the Frankish army loses its positive qualities. Leo the Wise describes the characteristics and weaknesses of the Franks as follows.
“Franks and pawnbrokers are overly fearless and daring. The slightest step back is considered disgraceful, and they will fight whenever you force a fight on them. When their knights are forced to dismount, they do not run, but stand back to back and fight against vastly superior enemy forces. Cavalry attacks are so terrible that, if you are not completely confident in your superiority, it is best to avoid a decisive battle. You should take advantage of their lack of discipline and organization. Both on foot and on horseback, they attack in a dense, clumsy mass, unable to maneuver because they are not organized and not trained. They are quickly thrown into confusion if they are unexpectedly attacked from the rear or from the flanks - this is easily achieved, since they are extremely careless and do not bother to set up patrols or conduct proper reconnaissance of the area. In addition, they camp as necessary and do not make fortifications, so they can be easily killed at night. They cannot stand hunger and thirst and after a few days of deprivation they leave the ranks. They have no respect for their commanders, and their superiors cannot resist the temptation of bribes. Therefore, in general, it is easier and cheaper to exhaust the Frankish army with small skirmishes, protracted operations in uninhabited areas, cutting supply lines, rather than trying to finish them off with one blow.”
Charlemagne's empire began to disintegrate soon after his death due to weak power and raids from three directions at once throughout the 9th and 10th centuries. - Arabs, Magyars and Vikings. The biggest threat to Europe now came from the Scandinavian Vikings.
The Viking, or Scandinavian, invasions began at the end of the 8th century. At first, the raids that took place throughout Europe seem to have been carried out mainly for the purpose of plunder, but later many conquerors settled in the lands they had captured. In 911, the king of the Franks ceded them the land, which was later called Normandy, and ultimately all of England became part of the Scandinavian empire of the Danish king Canute (995 - 1035). Meanwhile, the Vikings also invaded Iceland, Greenland and America, Spain, Morocco and Italy, Novgorod, Kyiv and Byzantium.
The strength of the Vikings lay in their seafaring skills. Their ships were at the level of the highest technical achievements and were the subject of their greatest pride, and they themselves were very skillful and hardy sailors. The "Gokstad ship" found in the excavations is 70 feet long and 16 feet wide, built of oak and weighs 20 tons. Its design is the most perfect. During long journeys, the Vikings sailed, but in battle they used oars. Yellow and black shields were hung alternately along the sides. By the 10th century ships became much larger in size, some of them could accommodate up to two hundred people and could sail 150 miles in a day. Food was preserved with salt and ice.
The Vikings always fought sea battles near the coast. They usually consisted of three stages. First, the commander conducted reconnaissance and chose a position to launch an attack, then, maneuvering, began approaching. During the battle, the captain always stood at the wheel. When the flotillas converged, the shelling began, usually the enemy was showered with a hail of arrows, but sometimes they were simply pelted with pieces of iron and stones. And finally, the Vikings boarded the ship, and the outcome of the battle was decided by hand-to-hand combat.
After this, the fleet remained the operational base for raids into the interior of the territory. Typically, the Vikings moved upstream along important waterways, bypassing the countryside and sacking monasteries and towns on both banks. They moved up as long as the river remained navigable or until they encountered fortifications that prevented further progress. Then they anchored or dragged the ships ashore, fenced them with a palisade and left a guard, after which they began to plunder the surrounding area. At first, when enemy troops appeared, they returned to the ships and went downstream. Later they became bolder. But since their forces were small and their main goal was plunder, they avoided major battles. Over time, they began to build fortified points, to which they often returned. These palisaded and moated coastal or even floating camps, defended by Viking battle axes, were extremely difficult to capture.
When the Vikings began their invasions they were probably poorly armed. One of the main goals of their robberies was the extraction of weapons and armor, and by the middle of the 9th century. they captured a lot of both, and also mastered their production themselves. Almost all Vikings had chain mail, and in other respects their armor was similar to Frankish armor. At first, the wooden shields were round, but later took on the shape of kites and were often painted in bright colors. The battle ax was a powerful offensive weapon. This was not a light tomahawk of the Franks, it was a powerful weapon - a heavy butt and a blade made of one piece of iron, mounted on an ax five feet long. Sometimes excerpts from runes were applied to the blades. In addition, the Vikings used short and long swords, spears, large bows and arrows.
The Vikings were primarily foot soldiers - preferring to use their large axes on foot. Mobility on land was achieved through the use of horses captured in the area for transport purposes. The most favorite battle formation was a solid wall of shields, such tactics were necessarily defensive, because they had to confront cavalry on foot. Usually they chose their camp, the opposite bank of the river or a steep hillside as the battlefield. Being professional warriors who feel the shoulder of a comrade in arms, they always prevailed over the hastily recruited villagers opposing them. All Vikings were tall and had exceptional physical strength. In their ranks were two particularly fearsome types of warriors. The first included berserkers, who, surprisingly, apparently belonged to the category of specially selected madmen, distinguished by their extraordinary strength and ferocity. Others, equally astonishing, were the "shield maidens"; Among them was Vebjorg, who “fought the champion Soknarsoti. She dealt him powerful blows, slapping him in the face and splitting his jaw. He put his beard in his mouth to protect himself. Vebjorg performed many great feats, (but) in the end she fell, covered with many wounds."
By the end of the 9th century, the Franks and English began to adapt to Viking tactics. In the preceding years of chaos, feudalism had developed rapidly, and the Franks were now able to assemble large forces of combat-ready cavalry. In 885 - 886 Paris successfully withstood a major Viking siege. And in England, Alfred the Great (died in 899), in order to stop the Danish Vikings, created a system of powerful fortifications. However, instead of cavalry, he relied on elite heavy infantry troops, which distinguished themselves with victories at Ashdown and Edington. He also, unlike the Franks, took steps to create a powerful fleet modeled on the ships of his enemies, the Vikings. From the time of Alfred until the middle of the 20th century. England always had a powerful naval force that could be relied upon.
And the annexation of England by Canute in 1016 was a political event, not a military one. By that time, Western Europe, finally free from 750 years of incessant barbarian raids, was already breathing easier.
From the book Jewish Atlantis: The Mystery of the Lost Tribes author Kotlyarsky MarkFrom Antiquity to the Middle Ages Where are the Lost Tribes? The First Book of Kings says that, driven away by the king of Assyria, they remain beyond Euphrates. However, today no one can say with certainty to what places the Assyrian Empire extended and where
From the book Indians of North America [Life, religion, culture] author White John Manchip From the book Slavs [Sons of Perun] by Gimbutas MariaChapter 2 NORTH CARPATHIAN CULTURE OF THE BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGES The general course of cultural development in the North Carpathian region was almost the same as on the entire North European Plain. Before 1200 BC e. this area was influenced by Central European
THE TOWN IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES Eastcheap Market in Tudor times. Pay attention to the number of butcher shops. Meat has always been popular in London
From the book Earth Without People author Weisman AlanChapter 13 A world without war War can doom the Earth's ecosystems to hell: the Vietnamese jungles are evidence of this. But without chemical additives, war, surprisingly, often became the salvation of nature. During the Nicaraguan Contra Wars in the 1980s, when stopped
From the book The Myth of Absolutism. Changes and continuity in the development of Western European monarchy in the early modern period author Henshall NicholasVALOIS AND EARLY BOURBONS. THE HERITAGE OF THE MIDDLE AGES The history of early modern France began with events that modern real estate agents call contracts of exchange. Until the end of the 15th century, large provinces such as Brittany and Burgundy
From the book Origins and Lessons of the Great Victory. Book II. Lessons from the Great Victory author Sedykh Nikolay ArtemovichChapter 1. The beginning of the war So, the thunder struck. We could not avoid a mortal battle with the West, in the person of Hitler’s Germany and its official and unofficial satellites, since this battle in those conditions was historically inevitable. The war, which by all means I.V.
From the book What did the “talking” monkeys talk about [Are higher animals capable of operating with symbols?] author Zorina Zoya AlexandrovnaComparison of bonobos and common chimpanzees and the role of early language acquisition As Kanzi began to demonstrate spontaneous acquisition of language skills and continued to develop them at 11/2 to 21/2 years of age, two obvious questions arose. First of all, is it really
From the book Ukrainian Nationalism. Facts and Research by Armstrong JohnChapter 13 After the War In 1954, when this book was published, nine years had passed since the end of World War II in Europe. Many events have happened in Ukraine over these nine years. Combined with detailed evidence from emigrant sources,
From the book The world could have been different. William Bullitt trying to change the 20th century author Etkind Alexander MarkovichCHAPTER 1 THE WORLD BEFORE THE WAR Born in 1891, Bullitt belonged to what America would call an aristocratic Philadelphia family: his ancestors were Huguenot on his father's side, Jewish on his mother's, but both were among the early settlers on the Eastern Shore.
From the book London. Biography by Ackroyd PeterTown in the late Middle Ages Eastcheap Market in Tudor times. Pay attention to the number of butcher shops. Meat has always been popular in London
From the book Great naval battles of the 16th–19th centuries [Some principles of naval strategy] by Corbett JulianIntroduction THEORETICAL STUDY OF WAR. THE USE AND LIMITATIONS OF WAR At first glance, nothing could be more meaningless than the theoretical study of war. There is even a certain antagonism between the mentality that gravitates towards theoretical leadership and the fact that
From the book Battles for Leningrad author Modestov Alexander ViktorovichChapter 1 THEORY OF WAR The result of the work of any researcher is a detailed map of the area in which he traveled. But for those who after him started working in the same field, this map is the first place to start. It's the same with strategy. Before you start studying it,
From the author's bookChapter One Main events on the eve of the war and at the beginning of the war. Facts and opinions As is known, the Kaiser's Germany and Austria-Hungary suffered a crushing defeat during the First World War. According to the Treaty of Versailles, it was returned to France
The most famous battles of the Middle Ages surprise and amaze many people of our time with their scale, strategic moves and bloody sacrifices. This material contains the most iconic battles, according to the opinion, which have become unique standards of warfare for many great commanders of the world.
Of course, it is quite difficult to choose just a few battles from this era, because for some it is the battle tactics that are interesting, for others - the number of deaths, and for others - the warring countries, but we are sure that everyone will find something interesting and new.
Battle of Poitiers (Battle of Tours)
Who is against whom: Kingdom of the Franks - Umayyad Caliphate.
During this period of the Middle Ages, the Arab states persistently expanded their territorial possessions. By 732, they already owned North Africa, the lands of modern Spain and Portugal. The next frontier of conquest was the Kingdom of the Franks. But having already reached the Loire River, commander Charles Martell came out against the army of the Umayyad Caliphate under the command of Abdur-Rahman. It should be noted that the army of the Kingdom of the Franks consisted of experienced and battle-hardened soldiers (mostly infantrymen), and the Arabs in such battles relied on their famous cavalry.
Already initially, luck was on the side of Charles Martel, since he managed to place his army in an advantageous territorial position, which was located on a hill. In the first attack, the Frankish army took on the frontal attack of Abdur-Rahman's cavalry. They held out, but the horsemen of the Umayyad Caliphate managed to break through the ranks of the infantry. At this moment, Charles Martell used his prepared trick - a small detachment of Frankish scouts began an attack from the rear. Seeing this, the cavalry of the Umayyad Caliphate rushed back.
The retreat of the horsemen provoked panic in the Arab army, which soon developed into flight. Abdur-Rahman was killed.
Result: The conquest of Europe by the Umayyad Caliphate was stopped, its army was pushed back to a significant territory.
Who is against whom: England - Normandy.
After the death of King Edward the Confessor of England, who left no heir, a struggle for the throne began. The Saxon nobility nominated Harold Godwinson for this post. But at the same time, there were other contenders for power in England: the Norwegian king Harald the Severe and the Norman Duke William. Having successfully repulsed the attack on Stamford Bridge by the army of Harald the Severe, during which he was killed, after a very short period of time the army of Duke William advanced to war against the Saxon army.
The Norman army was much better armed than the soldiers of Harold Godwinson, who had very few archers and crossbowmen. But the Saxon army took an advantageous position on a hill, which turned out to be impregnable for the Norman army. It would seem that the Saxon army should have won easily, but a fatal mistake was made.
Godwinson's warriors rushed into pursuit, which arose completely spontaneously, of the retreating cavalry of the duke. The Normans not only held the line and stopped the attackers, but even managed to go on the offensive themselves, disrupt the battle formation of the Saxon army and take the heights. Harold Godwinson, like most of his warriors, was killed.
Result: Saxony and England came under the rule of the Normans. This led to significant changes in the usual way of life in this territory: the usual way of life of the Anglo-Saxon state was replaced by a centralized feudal monarchy with strong royal power.
Battle of Arsuf
Who is against whom: Crusaders - Ayyubids
The Battle of Arsuf took place during the Third Crusade. The Crusader army was led by
Richard the Lionheart , and on the Ayyubid side he commanded Saladin.
Around In Arsuf's situation, Saladin suddenly struck the “tail” of the column of knights, intending to force them to turn around and begin battle. But Richard decided not to start the fight and continue moving forward. But gradually the attacks of the Ayyubids became more and more daring and the rear ranks of the army, retreating, pressed in front And blowing. Lionheart changes his mind and orders to go on the offensive. Unable to withstand the pressure, Saladin's army began to retreat. The crusaders rushed after them and eventually killed about 7 thousand soldiers.
Result: After such a defeat, Saladin never again dared to meet Richard in open battle.
Battle of Lake Peipus (Battle of the Ice)
Who is against whom: Novgorod-Pskov troops - Livonian Order
This famous medieval battle considered one of the most famous in Russian history. The Livonian Order, taking advantage of the fact that Rus' had weakened significantly after the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars, took a number of actions to conquer territories, so Pskov, Izborsk, and Koporye came under their rule. But soon this territory was liberated by the army assembled by Alexander Nevsky. Having learned this, the Livonian Order sent an army to capture Novgorod. He expected to easily defeat the army of Alexander Nevsky. But the Russian military leader used a territorial trick.
At that moment, when the shock part of the Livonian army tried to break through the Novgorod infantry, the Russian army stood still, and mounted detachments were stationed on the flanks.
Gradually, the warriors of the order first ran into the shore, and then unnoticed they found themselves on Lake Peipsi. At this moment, the Russian cavalry struck the flanks and surrounded the enemies in a ring. Then the princely squad hit them. The Germans were trapped. Trying to escape. But the thin spring ice began to crack and many warriors of the order found themselves in the water and began to drown.
Result: after the lost battle on Lake Peipsi, the Livonian Order was forced to abandon the conquered Novgorod and Pskov lands.
Who is against whom: Teutonic knights - Lithuanian-Polish army.
The reason for the outbreak of war between the Teutonic Order and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the desire of Prince Vitovt to regain the territory of Zhemoytia, which at that moment was under the rule of the Teutonic Order. Teaming up with the Polish king Jagiello. The Weiskas of the warring parties were located opposite each other near the villages of Grunwald, Ludwigsdorf and Tanenberg. Prince Vitovt made the first move in the battle, sending the Tatar cavalry to attack. In response, the commander of the army of the Teutonic Order, Master Ulrich von Jungingen, sent heavily armed horsemen on the offensive. A heavy battle began. Vitovt's army retreated. The army of the order, sensing an imminent victory, rushed in pursuit, during which the battle order of the people was disrupted. At the same time, a battle began between the crusaders and part of the army under the command of Jagiello, who gradually introduced reserve banners into the battle to repel attacks. At this time, the army under the command of Vytautas reorganized and returned to the battlefield again, partially encircling the soldiers of the Teutonic Order. After some time, the crusaders, unable to withstand the onslaught of the Lithuanian-Polish army, were forced to retreat.
In this battle, almost the entire “light” of the Teutonic Order died, including the master himself.
Result: On February 1, 1411, the Peace of Torun was signed, thanks to which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania returned Samogitia to its composition, and Jogaila received the Dobrzyn territory.
After the Battle of Grunwald, the Teutonic Order began to lose its former power and after 56 years ceased to exist.
Did you like the material? Then you will like .
If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.
