Kalamazoo 2
Paul J Gans
University. It is an up and down sort of place. The dorms
contain the registration center, the book exhibit, a number
of meeting rooms, and rooms for a fair number of participants.
These dorms are on a hillside. One walks *down* to a roadway,
across a small lagoon complete with fountains and, occasionally,
ducks and swans, and then *up* a rather steep hill to several
of the buildings containing meeting rooms.
And then there are other buildings a bit further along, also
used as venues.
Thursday morning found me on the way to the furthest building
(Bernhard) for the first meeting of De Re Militari[1]. The
first paper was by Florin Curta (University of Florida) who
has, almost single-handedly, rescued the history of south-
eastern medieval history from its neglect in the US.[2]
His talk was titled "The Stirrup Controversy Revisited:
The Earliest Avar Stirrups". Because of the stirrup controversy[3]
the talk was very well attended. The gist of Curta's paper
was that recent archaeology has moved the date of the earliest
stirrups found in Europe back 50 to 100 years and makes the
first users of stirrups in Europe the Avars.
This is seemingly a rather boring point, but it does tend to
reawaken the notion that "shock combat", in which a lancer can
brace himself in his seat on horseback far better with stirrups
than with any other device. I suspect that more will be heard
about this in the future.
There were other papers in this session. The only other one
of major interest to me was Brian Price's (University of North
Texas) work titled "Medieval Fechtbucher, Judicial Duels, and
the Laws of War: Morphology of Trial by Combat and the
Production of German Fighting Treatises". The title provides
a far better abstract of the paper than anything I could write.
I had lunch in the Bernhard cafeteria with Rich Ring, known
to many here as the Master of Ceremonies at the Pseudo-Society
session on Saturday night. In real life Rich is the "list
owner" of mediev-l, the medieval mailing list whereas I am
only the list manager. We discussed various problems involving
the list. List members can expect announcements shortly.
After lunch I headed back down the hill to the Dorms where
there was a fairly unusual session featuring, as far as I
know, the first father-son back-to-back papers ever at K'zoo.
The session was titled "The Medieval German Empires: Carolingian
and Ottonian Continuity I." The speakers were Charlie Bowlus
(University of Arkansas, Emeritus), Bernie Bachrach (University
of Minnesota), and David Bachrach (University of New Hampshire).
Bowlus's paper was titled "The Carlolingians and the Origins
of Medieval Germany". The paper really dealt with Charlemagne's
invasion of Italy in 773 AD. To do this he had to cross the
Alps. But the passes were controlled by others, mainly smallish
principalities allied with Desiderius, the Lombard King.
How Charlemagne managed to get through the Alpine passes against
what should have been serious opposition has never been fully
understood. Bowlus's contribution was a serious discussion
about how Charlemagne's diplomacy coupled with his well-organized
"special forces" units managed to take and hold the passes.
The rest, as they say, is history. Desiderius was deposed, and
the Lombards never really regained their former power.
[1] De Re Militari is, to quote its web pages:
De Re Militari is an international scholarly association
established to foster and develop interest in the study of
military affairs and warfare in the Middle Ages and the
Early Modern Period. Our society publishes the Journal of
Medieval Military History and organizes academic conferences
focusing on medieval warfare.
It is of course open to all. The web pages at
<http://www.deremilitari.org/> are excellent and recommended
to anybody interested in medieval military history.
[2] See <http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/>
[3] See <http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/strpcont.html>
--
--- Paul J. Gans
am...@hotmail.com
[]
> His talk was titled "The Stirrup Controversy Revisited:
> The Earliest Avar Stirrups". Because of the stirrup controversy[3]
> the talk was very well attended. The gist of Curta's paper
> was that recent archaeology has moved the date of the earliest
> stirrups found in Europe back 50 to 100 years and makes the
> first users of stirrups in Europe the Avars.
>
> This is seemingly a rather boring point, but it does tend to
> reawaken the notion that "shock combat",
>in which a lancer can
> brace himself in his seat on horseback far better with stirrups
> than with any other device.
Crazy Glue would provide even better results so you should probably
reconsider 'any other'. :-)
> I suspect that more will be heard
> about this in the future.
Hopefully so. BTW, introduction of the stirrups benefited mounted
archers as well.
Side notice: a given definition of 'shock combat' applies exclusively
to the lancers. However, most of what could have pass for 'shock'
cavalry of the early-modern Europe did not (except Polish hussars)
have lances as a part of their equipment and most of those who did
(lancers, Cossacks) were considered a light cavalry. Does this mean
that the whole notion of the mounted shock tactics became obsolete in
post-medieval world or that it should be modified?
Paul J Gans
>[]
>> His talk was titled "The Stirrup Controversy Revisited:
>> The Earliest Avar Stirrups". Because of the stirrup controversy[3]
>> the talk was very well attended. The gist of Curta's paper
>> was that recent archaeology has moved the date of the earliest
>> stirrups found in Europe back 50 to 100 years and makes the
>> first users of stirrups in Europe the Avars.
>>
>> This is seemingly a rather boring point, but it does tend to
>> reawaken the notion that "shock combat",
>>in which a lancer can
>> brace himself in his seat on horseback far better with stirrups
>> than with any other device.
>Crazy Glue would provide even better results so you should probably
>reconsider 'any other'. :-)
>> I suspect that more will be heard
>> about this in the future.
>Hopefully so. BTW, introduction of the stirrups benefited mounted
>archers as well.
That was brought up. It is undoubtedly true. It also seems to
be true that the Huns who were mounted archers did not use
stirrups. At the meeting it was agreed that the Huns might have
been even better archers had they used stirrups.
>Side notice: a given definition of 'shock combat' applies exclusively
>to the lancers. However, most of what could have pass for 'shock'
>cavalry of the early-modern Europe did not (except Polish hussars)
>have lances as a part of their equipment and most of those who did
>(lancers, Cossacks) were considered a light cavalry. Does this mean
>that the whole notion of the mounted shock tactics became obsolete in
>post-medieval world or that it should be modified?
That's the neat thing. Avar graves contained stirrups, bow pieces,
and lance heads.
As for the post medieval world, we can assume that they used
stirrups, can't we? If they did not use lances then they were
more probably better described as rapid attack forces or something
similar.
William Black
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c3a4b68-e3cd-45c6...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Side notice: a given definition of 'shock combat' applies exclusively
to the lancers. However, most of what could have pass for 'shock'
cavalry of the early-modern Europe did not (except Polish hussars)
have lances as a part of their equipment and most of those who did
(lancers, Cossacks) were considered a light cavalry. Does this mean
that the whole notion of the mounted shock tactics became obsolete in
post-medieval world or that it should be modified?
------------------------------
Because people noticed something.
The first thing they noticed was that guys with bows shot people off horses
reasonably easily and that armouring horses wasn't cost effective.
2. The second thing they noticed was that getting people off their horses
and giving them a sort of big nasty can opener was more efficient than
attacking on a horse with a lance.
So fighting with lances became a sport...
Of course when you fight with lances for sport you also notice other stuff,
like people fall off loads of times and get injured by accident and fighting
with lances when you're on a horse and wearing armour is a really great way
to injure yourself to no real effective purpose...
But, lances are really good way to kill infantrymen who have no missile
weapons...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
am...@hotmail.com
Yes, AFAIK, they were heavily (by the standards of time) armoured
cavalry with both lances and bows (or at least some of them had
lances). IIRC, there are contemporary references to Byzantian cavalry
using Avar-style lances with a leather loop in the middle. This could
mean a 'combined' tactics: lance could hang over the shoulder while
rider was using a bow (pretty much as a Cossack's lances in
combination with the firearms).
OTOH, stirrup, even with the adjustment you are talking about, should
appear on a relatively late stage of their existence in Europe so I'm
not sure if they managed to get any serious benefit out of its usage.
>
> As for the post medieval world, we can assume that they used
> stirrups, can't we?
I'm afraid that in this case there is no need in 'assuming' anything
due to a widely available evidence. :-)
>If they did not use lances then they were
> more probably better described as rapid attack forces or something
> similar.
It look to me that there are 2 possible approaches to this issue:
1. Use definition in a narrowly medieval context and making stress on
a weaponry (coached lance) rather than on tactics (of course, it can
be argued that weaponry may define tactics but this argument will not
necessarily work outside Western Europe). This results in a need for a
special tactical term because even medieval cavalry attacking sword in
hand would not qualify. Even the same knights after their lances were
broken should be moved into a different category, if they keep
fighting.
2. Concentrate on tactics: direct attack with a lance or sword vs
engaging enemy from a distance (or using hit and run tactics). This,
of course, may muddle water a little bit for the BT-oriented people.
William Black
Side notice: a given definition of 'shock combat' applies exclusively
to the lancers. However, most of what could have pass for 'shock'
cavalry of the early-modern Europe did not (except Polish hussars)
have lances as a part of their equipment and most of those who did
(lancers, Cossacks) were considered a light cavalry. Does this mean
that the whole notion of the mounted shock tactics became obsolete in
post-medieval world or that it should be modified?
------------------------------
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c3a4b68-e3cd-45c6...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Side notice: a given definition of 'shock combat' applies exclusively
> to the lancers. However, most of what could have pass for 'shock'
> cavalry of the early-modern Europe did not (except Polish hussars)
> have lances as a part of their equipment and most of those who did
> (lancers, Cossacks) were considered a light cavalry. Does this mean
> that the whole notion of the mounted shock tactics became obsolete in
> post-medieval world or that it should be modified?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Because people noticed something.
>
> The first thing they noticed was that guys with bows shot people off horses
> reasonably easily and that armouring horses wasn't cost effective.
>
about?
> 2. The second thing they noticed was that getting people off their horses
> and giving them a sort of big nasty can opener was more efficient than
> attacking on a horse with a lance.
Attacking on a horseback did not necessarily mean doing this with a
lance or even having a full-scale plate armour. AFAIK, Swedish cavalry
starting from Gustav-Adolph and all the way to Charles XII was famous
for attacking sword in hand, quite often very successfully. IIRC,
Cromwell's 'ironsides' were not lancers either and I can bring few
more examples.
Neither did existence of the can openers spelled the end of a cavalry:
during the times of the 30YW and for the decades afterwards it often
amounted up to 40 - 50% percents of the field armies.
>
> So fighting with lances became a sport...
This statement makes sense only if you are limiting definition of
'lance' to the type used by the Western European knights. Otherwise,
it existed in the European armies all the way to WWI and, IIRC, Poles
still had it in 1939.
[]
> But, lances are really good way to kill infantrymen who have no missile
> weapons...
Charles the Bold found that this was not necessarily the case. So did
quite a few others.
William Black
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3ea2257-4d73-464f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Attacking on a horseback did not necessarily mean doing this with a
lance or even having a full-scale plate armour. AFAIK, Swedish cavalry
starting from Gustav-Adolph and all the way to Charles XII was famous
for attacking sword in hand, quite often very successfully. IIRC,
Cromwell's 'ironsides' were not lancers either and I can bring few
more examples.
Neither did existence of the can openers spelled the end of a cavalry:
during the times of the 30YW and for the decades afterwards it often
amounted up to 40 - 50% percents of the field armies.
-----------------------
Apples and oranges.
After firearms made armour obsolete as a defence against missile weapons
cavalry went through a renaissance.
The 'infantry revolution' that begins with Falkirk ended with the cavalry as
auxiliaries who couldn't prevail against disciplined foot.
Cromwell's 'Ironsides' couldn't break a pike square no matter how good they
were.
In the words of The Duke of Wellington, when asked what use cavalry were:
"They add tone to what would otherwise be merely a vulgar brawl".
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d3ea2257-4d73-464f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 14, 1:00 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Attacking on a horseback did not necessarily mean doing this with a
> lance or even having a full-scale plate armour. AFAIK, Swedish cavalry
> starting from Gustav-Adolph and all the way to Charles XII was famous
> for attacking sword in hand, quite often very successfully. IIRC,
> Cromwell's 'ironsides' were not lancers either and I can bring few
> more examples.
>
> Neither did existence of the can openers spelled the end of a cavalry:
> during the times of the 30YW and for the decades afterwards it often
> amounted up to 40 - 50% percents of the field armies.
> -----------------------
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
of what you wrote to the subject under discussion ('shock' being
related exclusively to attack with a couched lance) so I'm not sure
which point (if any) you are trying to make besides, as usually,
narrowing all military history to the Brittish experience.
> After firearms made armour obsolete as a defence against missile weapons
Which happened during the Italian Wars and even then this issue was
not totally over until French Wars of Religion (even then it can be
argued that the Battle of Coutras simply demonstrated tactical
advantages of a well-managed combined force against an army led by
incompetent idiot) .
> cavalry went through a renaissance.
Probably this statement is supposed to mean something but I can't
figure out what exactly. Of course, it 'went' through Renaissance.
Even more, the armoured cavalry 'went' through it and Del Vasto who
hold an opinion that after Pavia (he probably never heard about
Falkirk) the gendarmes are obsolete had to acknowledge, after
Ceresole, that he was mistaken.
Then, your usage of the term 'cavalry' implies 'armoured cavalry'
only. During the early-modern period cavalry passed through revolution
of its own and changed from nobility-based armoured cavalry to a more
'democratic' version with a heavy stress on the firepower with a
switch from a shock tactics to caracolle and then (on a limited scale)
back to a shock tactics (with the sword instead of lance).
>
> The 'infantry revolution' that begins with Falkirk
Where predominantly infantry army was annihilated by a combined
force.... Not to mention that the whole notion of the infantry
'revolution' is rather absurd: it took centuries for infantry to
become a dominating battle force and even then you have to count
artillery as a part of the factor.
If you want some 'revolutionary' (as happening within a short interval
and having a lasting effect outside narrow region) things, you have to
start with the Swiss victories over Charles the Bold. Their model was
very fast copied (landsknechts and then Spanish infantry) and Swiss
themselves had been widely employed outside their native region. With
the gradual changes Swiss-like formations had been important factor of
the European warfare all the way to Rocroi.
> ended with the cavalry as
> auxiliaries who couldn't prevail against disciplined foot
It took few centuries to accomplish this (at least to XIX century) and
by this time there were no knights around so what you are saying is
totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
>
> Cromwell's 'Ironsides' couldn't break a pike square no matter how good they
> were.
>
One more irrelevant statement. Was 'square' in question capable to win
a battle? No. Were cavalry attacks an important tool for winning
Cromwell's battles? Yes. Not to mention that the military experience
is not limited to the events of the English CW. Conde won Rocroi by a
cavalry attack, Rossbach had been won predominantly by Seydlitz's
cavalry, etc.
> In the words of The Duke of Wellington, when asked what use cavalry were:
>
> "They add tone to what would otherwise be merely a vulgar brawl".
I'm sure that Gustav-Adolph, Frederic II, the Great Conde, Prince
Eugene and Marlborough would disagree.
William Black
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ff60b7e-f606-4129...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
------------------------
Your snipping makes it clear that you don't want a discussion, you just
want to score points.
I honestly can't be bothered to argue with a brick wall.
Piss off and find someone else to play word games with.
am...@hotmail.com
I did not snip anything from your post so what exactly are you
bitching about?
D. Spencer Hines
Wee Willie Black has had his tail kicked and then clipped.
DSH
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g0hma2$66i$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message