Crusade Tactics and the Art of War
Dr. Sheila J
contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
strategy and tactics at home. Tens of thousands of knights, barons,
and sergeants came back as veterans from the East, and one would
expect to see the lessons which they had learned in fighting the Turks
and Syrian perpetually applied to the wars of their native countries.
Yet, it is by no means easy to point out obvious instances of such
application of new principles of war, save in the provinces of
fortification and of arms and armour. It strategy and tactics it is
difficult to detect from a broad survey much direct influence flowing
from the crusades.
I would suggest that we may take as the clearest example of this the
entire neglect by the Western nations of the most important tactical
lesson of the Crusades. The one great principle which settled the fate
of wars with the Turks was that generals who properly combined
infantry and cavalry in their line of battle were successful, and that
generals who tried to dispense with the support of foot-soldiery
always failed disastrously. The fact that the combination of the two
arms is better than simple reliance on one had been shown at Hastings
long before the Crusades began, but the lesson was even more clearly
visible in the details of such fights as Antioch or Ascalon as
compared with the disasters of 1101 or the narrow escape from
destruction at Dorylaeum.
We would expect to find that the return home of the warriors of the
first Crusade would be followed by the development of a rational use
of infantry and cavalry in close alliance and interdependence. But we
find little of the kind: over the greater part of Western/Central
Europe the cavalry arm still maintains its exclusive dominance and
infantry is still despised and distrusted.
In many of the 12th C battles, when by some rare exceptions we do find
combatants on foot entrusted with a principal part in the fight, we
discover on closer inquiry that they are not ordinary foot soldiers,
but knights who have dismounted in order to carry out some desperate
duty.
Any thoughts on the above?
Cheers,
Sheila
William Black
"Dr. Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ff801b.031215...@posting.google.com...
> When we turn from the history of the Crusades to consider the
> contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
> thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
> great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
> strategy and tactics at home.
<snip of examples>
Medieval warfare was not a common event. Men would perhaps fight one battle
in their lifetime.
However there are lots of sieges, and the castle builders of the medieval
Middle East were influential all over Europe when they returned.
The huge castles of the Welsh Marches are essentially Middle Eastern in
design.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Paul J Gans
Absolutely. I rather disagree. I think that the reason
why there was no direct carryover from the Levant to
western Europe lies in the enormous difference in geography.
In addition, I think it wrong to think that the infantry was
neglected in the period between the First Crusade and the Hundred
Years War. What we see is the aristocratic indifference to
the foot soldier. They had no honor and therefore could
win no honor. So they are ignored in the tales of the battles.
But they were there. That is very plain. With the exception
of a few cavalry actions carried out by parties of raiders,
I don't think there is a major battle in the period that does
not have more foot than horse. But they are rarely mentioned.
That led some writers to conclude that they were not there, or,
at best, were ignored by those in charge. I think that current
opinion runs rather against that viewpoint.
Steve Morillo wrote a book called "Warfare under the Anglo-
Norman Kings, 1066-1135" where one of his main theses is
that the Normans were so impressed by the Saxon stand at
Hastings that they incorporated Saxon techniques into the
methods by which their foot fought thereafter.
Certainly the First Crusade relied heavily on the foot, though
again they are not much mentioned.
The more or less standard works of the "new systhesis", from
Verbruggen's "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe" through
Michael Prestwich's "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages,
the English Experience" to John France's "Western Warfare
in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300" (and many others as
well) all emphasise that the infantry never disappeared from
the medieval battlefield -- and that while the fame went
to the cavalry (and the blame to the infantry) they were
an integral part of the medieval army of the period.
Just venting my prejudices.... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Prof. Marvel
Too long.
You'll get the hang of this medium soon, but if you take my advice it
will come sooner rather than later. One measured paragraph is all that's
required to begin a discussion. You've got far too many ideas above.
It's got to be a quick read; first food scholarship, that's the way the
medium works.
You should be more conversational, use the first person, avoid the third
person, never use the royal "we." Shun words of more than two syllables,
and especially pay attention to this: use active instead of passive. Let
verbs carry your sentences, avoid overstuffed nouns. Reduce everything
to its simplest form. For example,
"We would expect to find that the return home of the warriors of the
first Crusade would be followed by the development of a rational use of
infantry and cavalry in close alliance and interdependence."
Well, a sentence like that doesn't work here at all.
Cut it down to this instead:
"Why didn't military tactics improve?"
The idea is this is an informal forum, a coffee house, if you will. Your
writing is too formal, too stuffy, too baroque, too pedantic and overdrawn.
Now, my enemies will descend on this post like locust to tell you
everything I'm saying is wrong. Ignore them. They're immature, know
nothing, and would rather get points against me than see you improve as
a USENET poster.
Prof Marvel
Renia
We would rather see you improve as an historian. Sheila's comments are
very welcome here. Not enough medieval history here as it is.
Journalism is not history.
Both involve writing stuff down, but they use different disciplines.
You want to come and play on a history newsgroup, then you play by
historians' rules.
You want to troll, then tray alt.rec.troll
Renia
Prof. Marvel
Also, it's not good form to come into a newsgroup and start threads
right off. You should pay dues first: study the group, lurk, participate
in other threads, establish a core group of friends who enjoy talking
about the things you want to talk about, then when you start your own
threads you've got five people who'll jump to it.
You came in the door the wrong way. You could also drop the "Dr. Sheila
J." Sheila Jones, will do fine.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Stop stalking me, Renia.
Prof Marvel
Renia
> Dr. Sheila J wrote:
>
>
>
> Also, it's not good form to come into a newsgroup and start threads
> right off. You should pay dues first: study the group, lurk, participate
> in other threads, establish a core group of friends who enjoy talking
> about the things you want to talk about, then when you start your own
> threads you've got five people who'll jump to it.
>
> You came in the door the wrong way. You could also drop the "Dr. Sheila
> J." Sheila Jones, will do fine.
First, Sheila introduced herself and didn't just jump in. Second, she
posts on serious medieval issues, which we are delighted about. Third,
you are a troll and a newbie here, so shut up. Fourth, she can style
herself as she wishes, just as you do. You don't drop the Prof, do you.
You really aren't very good at this trolling business, are you?
Renia
Renia
Why? I've been taking troll lessons. I can stalk whom I like.
Renia
Bernardz
>
> Absolutely. I rather disagree. I think that the reason
> why there was no direct carryover from the Levant to
> western Europe lies in the enormous difference in geography.
>
Also in scale of resources. It is like comparing WW1 and WW2 to the
small wars that came after it.
--
Enjoy the moment of victory now as the knockers will be out soon.
19th saying of Bernard
Tron Furu
"Dr. Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> skrev i melding
news:ff801b.031215...@posting.google.com...
> When we turn from the history of the Crusades to consider the
> contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
> thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
> great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
> strategy and tactics at home.
We all experience that when we have been away for 4 weeks, and try to retell
the marvels of the foreign to people for whom absolutely everything has been
the same as every other day those same 4 weeks.
Your problem rests AFAICS on some suppositions:
1. Technology is independent from politics
Once you find a better military mousetrap, etc. But perhaps political
factors tend to slow down or prevent introduction of technology (like
"...infantry is still despised and distrusted...."). I wouldn't off hand
know which, but mere speculation can muster: Losing standing in the eyes of
other Lords, production system not fit to support the demographics needed to
establish new style army; plus the two specifications offered below.
2. Lords had centralized control.
Like they just needed to throw a switch, and things happened differently.
Perhaps they didn't have the time or the imagination to ride around to all
their vassals and explain Ascalon in detail. Perhaps the vassals trained the
way they always trained, and the Lords had to make do with that. This is
partly the same thesis as above, but AFAIR the lines of command and control
were a lot more tangled, and less efficient, than .... well, I don't know if
it is better today.
3. Any condottiere can compose the army he likes.
There is the question of economy. An army that needs to be retaught might be
expensive ...? Again, perhaps they (most) often had to make do with what
they had.
If these should happen to be somewhat valid points, they would be hypotheses
relevant for any explanation of your problem, I hope. The Zero Hypotheses
has already been mentioned, that the factual basis for the problem does not
obtain - there was foot afoot after all.
TF
Kel Rekuta
Dr. Sheila J wrote:
> When we turn from the history of the Crusades to consider the
> contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
> thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
> great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
> strategy and tactics at home. Tens of thousands of knights, barons,
> and sergeants came back as veterans from the East, and one would
> expect to see the lessons which they had learned in fighting the Turks
> and Syrian perpetually applied to the wars of their native countries.
These veterans didn't face the same opponents once they returned home.
Why should they apply tactics successful against a lightly armed, highly
mobile enemy against their mail clad, heavily mounted rivals at home? Or
do you suggest they should drop traditional Western tactics to adopt
that of the foreign culture that drove them from the Levant? ;)
>
> I would suggest that we may take as the clearest example of this the
> entire neglect by the Western nations of the most important tactical
> lesson of the Crusades. The one great principle which settled the fate
> of wars with the Turks was that generals who properly combined
> infantry and cavalry in their line of battle were successful, and that
> generals who tried to dispense with the support of foot-soldiery
> always failed disastrously.
>
> Any thoughts on the above?
> Cheers,
> Sheila
The Crusading period is not my preferred area of study, but I've read
quite a bit related to the military aspects of them. "The one great
principle which settled the fate of wars with the Turks was" in fact the
perpetual shortage of personnel and funds required to defend Outremer.
Without the great movements of Crusades organized in the West, the fall
of Outremer was a foregone conclusion. The Levant has proven time and
again to be economically insufficient to support a domestic economy
*and* significant military activity without outside support.
Western (Frankish) tactics and equipment fared rather well against
middle Eastern military technology in pitched battle. There simply
weren't enough Westerners or the funds to support them. Combine that
with inept and jealous leadership and you will see that many of the
disastrous defeats were unavoidable.
BTW, Sheila thanks for joining this NG. It desperately needed new blood.
Too bad it is suffering a surfeit of trolls and loons at them moment.
Bear with it, there are a lot of really helpful and well read people
here most of the time.
TTFN,
Kel Rekuta
Julian Richards
>right off. You should pay dues first: study the group, lurk, participate
>in other threads, establish a core group of friends who enjoy talking
>about the things you want to talk about, then when you start your own
>threads you've got five people who'll jump to it.
>
>You came in the door the wrong way. You could also drop the "Dr. Sheila
>J." Sheila Jones, will do fine.
I disagree with all of that. Use "respect" as your keyword in Usenet
as it should be in life. Anything else is irrelevant. Imagine a Usenet
group as a pub. The "Edward the Confessor" is a good example. There
are certain things there that would get you a trip to casualty. You
are safer in Usenet but there are similar groundrules.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Prof. Marvel
She's catching heat and she's going to catch more heat if she doesn't
make adjustments. I've read her posts, analyzed what she's doing wrong
and reported back. You provide moral support but nothing that will help
her improve as a poster -- and that's because you're such a mediocre
poster yourself.
Dr. Sheila has to reinvent herself if she wants to get along here. Even
Paul Gans is beginning to find her overlong lectures tiresome.
Prof Marvel
Alex
> In article <brm075$mib$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
> >
> > Absolutely. I rather disagree. I think that the reason
> > why there was no direct carryover from the Levant to
> > western Europe lies in the enormous difference in geography.
> >
>
> Also in scale of resources. It is like comparing WW1 and WW2 to the
> small wars that came after it.
Indeed. Most of the time the events in the Outremer were practically
"domestic affairs" of the few French feudal families.
Drew Nicholson
[snip]
> Now, my enemies will descend on this post like locust to tell you
> everything I'm saying is wrong. Ignore them. They're immature, know
> nothing, and would rather get points against me than see you improve
> as
> a USENET poster.
>
>
> Prof Marvel
Shelia, please ignore everything he said. Why on _earth_ would we want you
to _reduce_ the number of facts in your posts and turn your style into some
sort of USA-Today factoid presentation written for people with no more than
a third-grade education?
I quite enjoyed your post. Very informative. Must have been all those four
syllable words and FACTS.
--
Drew
History doesn't wait for school to be over.
Drew Nicholson
You're a fecking idiot, and have no idea what you're talking about.
Alex
> When we turn from the history of the Crusades to consider the
> contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
> thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
> great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
> strategy and tactics at home.
Errrrr... IMHO, this was rather good thing because most of these
"great campaigns" were notorious for a lousy logistics and ability
to squander most of the forces well before you reached your destination.
Luckily for the medieval western warfare, the distances involved in the
"conventional" wars had been much smaller.
>Tens of thousands of knights, barons,
> and sergeants came back as veterans from the East,
In many cases they did not because they turned back well before they
reached the Holy Land (like most of the German contingents in the 2nd
Crusade after their experience in the Asia Minor).
>and one would
> expect to see the lessons which they had learned in fighting the Turks
> and Syrian perpetually applied to the wars of their native countries.
Well, this would be patently stupid, taking into an account the substantial
differences in equipment and tactics between the Turks and their "native
countries".
> Yet, it is by no means easy to point out obvious instances of such
> application of new principles of war,
Indeed. An idea of arming the knights with the bows would be a little
bit bizzare. :-)
>save in the provinces of
> fortification and of arms and armour. It strategy and tactics it is
> difficult to detect from a broad survey much direct influence flowing
> from the crusades.
>
Taking into an account that most of the Crusades and the enterprise in
general ended as a monumental fiasco, it is probably fortunate that their
influence is hard to find.
> I would suggest that we may take as the clearest example of this the
> entire neglect by the Western nations of the most important tactical
> lesson of the Crusades. The one great principle which settled the fate
> of wars with the Turks was that generals who properly combined
> infantry and cavalry in their line of battle were successful, and that
> generals who tried to dispense with the support of foot-soldiery
> always failed disastrously.
Please, a TACTICAL principle could not settle a fate of wars. The Crusading
kingdoms were doomed from the very beginning due to the purely demographic
reasons.
>The fact that the combination of the two
> arms is better than simple reliance on one had been shown at Hastings
> long before the Crusades began,
OTOH, it was clearly shown in a number of battles, from Zempach to Nancy
and Navarra, that a simple reliance on one branch can be much better
than "the combination of the two arms". Which means that any general
pronouncement has only _general_ but not an ABSOLUTE value. :-)
>
> We would expect to find that the return home of the warriors of the
> first Crusade would be followed by the development of a rational use
> of infantry and cavalry in close alliance and interdependence.
This is all nice and beautiful but you have to have a regular army.
Or, at least, a mercenary one. Not the case in most of XII century
Europe.
>But we
> find little of the kind: over the greater part of Western/Central
> Europe the cavalry arm still maintains its exclusive dominance and
> infantry is still despised and distrusted.
> In many of the 12th C battles, when by some rare exceptions we do find
> combatants on foot entrusted with a principal part in the fight, we
> discover on closer inquiry that they are not ordinary foot soldiers,
> but knights who have dismounted in order to carry out some desperate
> duty.
[Errrrrr..... Like the German knights at the siege of Mantua? Of course,
it was XVI century. :-)]
The reason is rather simple and obvious. The knights had been better armed
and trained and, as a result, better suited for the "desperate duty".
Another factor is what I'd call a "name recognition". Even in XIX century
historians often used the names of commanders while completely ignoring
their troops. "Brave Marshal X took a redoubt.... Fearless Y repulsed all
enemy's attacks ... ", etc. Ditto for the medieval aristocracy. Add to this
some social realities of the MA and you got a picture.
Prof. Marvel
But what Shelia wants is engaging response, not people silently enjoying
her posts. That does her no good. She's here to learn and this is
something that simply won't happen if she treats the medium like a
lecture hall instead of a forum.
Her writing is too pedantic; it doesn't have mass appeal. People like
you, although you enjoy it, find it impossible to respond to; which
explains why you've yet to respond to any of her posts.
Only two are three people here are able to respond to her posts and then
with more effort then they like. The woman needs to learn how to "write
down," which for this group means targeting a fifth or sixth grade
reading level.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
> Prof. Marvel wrote:
>
>
>>Dr. Sheila has to reinvent herself if she wants to get along here.
>>Even Paul Gans is beginning to find her overlong lectures tiresome.
>>
>>Prof Marvel
>
>
> You're a fecking idiot, and have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> --
>
Should I assume from the above that your position is not in full
agreement with my position?
Prof Marvel
Douglas
> Dr. Sheila J wrote:
>
<snip interesting question on Crusade tactics> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sheila
>
>
> Too long.
>
> You'll get the hang of this medium soon, but if you take my advice it
> will come sooner rather than later.
<snip>>
> Now, my enemies will descend on this post like locust to tell you
> everything I'm saying is wrong. Ignore them. They're immature, know
> nothing, and would rather get points against me than see you improve as
> a USENET poster.
>
>
> Prof Marvel
I've never heard of you mate, but that is priceless, coming from
someone who cannot snip a post to make it readable. Check the Usenet
FAQs. And your dosage.
Drew Nicholson
>
> But what Shelia wants is engaging response, not people silently
> enjoying her posts. That does her no good. She's here to learn and
> this is something that simply won't happen if she treats the medium
> like a lecture hall instead of a forum.
>
> Her writing is too pedantic; it doesn't have mass appeal. People like
> you, although you enjoy it, find it impossible to respond to; which
> explains why you've yet to respond to any of her posts.
>
> Only two are three people here are able to respond to her posts and
> then with more effort then they like. The woman needs to learn how to
> "write down," which for this group means targeting a fifth or sixth
> grade reading level.
>
> Prof Marvel
>
It's people like you that reduce the standards of education in this country
because you want children to feel good about themselves, rather than have
them work at learning something.
_Go_ _away_, you USA Today factoid of a man.
Drew Nicholson
You should assume that I don't consider your DNA to be part of the same
species as the rest of us.
_Go_ _away_.
--
Renia
Prof. Marvel wrote:
> Renia wrote:
>
>> Prof. Marvel wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Sheila J wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, it's not good form to come into a newsgroup and start threads
>>> right off. You should pay dues first: study the group, lurk,
>>> participate in other threads, establish a core group of friends who
>>> enjoy talking about the things you want to talk about, then when you
>>> start your own threads you've got five people who'll jump to it.
>>>
>>> You came in the door the wrong way. You could also drop the "Dr.
>>> Sheila J." Sheila Jones, will do fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, Sheila introduced herself and didn't just jump in. Second, she
>> posts on serious medieval issues, which we are delighted about. Third,
>> you are a troll and a newbie here, so shut up. Fourth, she can style
>> herself as she wishes, just as you do. You don't drop the Prof, do you.
>>
>> You really aren't very good at this trolling business, are you?
>>
>> Renia
>>
>
> She's catching heat and she's going to catch more heat if she doesn't
> make adjustments. I've read her posts, analyzed what she's doing wrong
> and reported back. You provide moral support but nothing that will help
> her improve as a poster -- and that's because you're such a mediocre
> poster yourself.
Thank you for that, but I've been here a very long time and know the
score. You have been here 5 minutes and haven't a clue how this
newsgroup works. You have not even noticed that most of the group just
plain ignores you. I'm the one who deals with the idiots. Others deal
with the clever trolls.
>
> Dr. Sheila has to reinvent herself if she wants to get along here. Even
> Paul Gans is beginning to find her overlong lectures tiresome.
Posting style matters here not a jot. Sheila should carry on regardless
of what you say, and I'm sure she will.
Lurk and learn.
Renia
Renia
> Drew Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Prof. Marvel wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now, my enemies will descend on this post like locust to tell you
>>> everything I'm saying is wrong. Ignore them. They're immature, know
>>> nothing, and would rather get points against me than see you improve
>>> as
>>> a USENET poster.
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof Marvel
>>
>>
>>
>> Shelia, please ignore everything he said. Why on _earth_ would we
>> want you
>> to _reduce_ the number of facts in your posts and turn your style into
>> some
>> sort of USA-Today factoid presentation written for people with no more
>> than
>> a third-grade education?
>>
>> I quite enjoyed your post. Very informative. Must have been all
>> those four
>> syllable words and FACTS.
>>
>
>
> But what Shelia wants is engaging response, not people silently enjoying
> her posts. That does her no good. She's here to learn
We're all here to discuss medieval history. That means we are all here
to learn, and even teach a little, about medieval history. We do this by
discussion. Not by journalistic sub-editing.
> and this is
> something that simply won't happen if she treats the medium like a
> lecture hall instead of a forum.
>
> Her writing is too pedantic; it doesn't have mass appeal.
You have obviously never read a serious history book or article. Neither
have you read some of the serious academic stuff some here have posted
over the years. Although I am a journalist by trade, I come here as
someone trained in historiography. I can see the difference between the
two approaches. This is a history newsgroup. Live with it.
> People like
> you, although you enjoy it, find it impossible to respond to; which
> explains why you've yet to respond to any of her posts.
Not everyone responds to every post on medieval history here, because we
all have our own areas of expertise and/or speciality. If you monitor
the group, you will find different people respond to different areas of
medieval history.
>
> Only two are three people here are able to respond to her posts and then
> with more effort then they like. The woman needs to learn how to "write
> down," which for this group means targeting a fifth or sixth grade
> reading level.
Not at all. Some people here are more experienced historians than you
seem to think.
Renia
Renia
The newbie poster kicked out of university thinks he knows it all. No
wonder he was kicked out. He's the kind who never learn anything because
they think they know it all already.
Renia
Prof. Marvel
I've given my opinion. I have nothing else to say on the matter.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
> Prof. Marvel wrote:
>
>>Drew Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Prof. Marvel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dr. Sheila has to reinvent herself if she wants to get along here.
>>>>Even Paul Gans is beginning to find her overlong lectures tiresome.
>>>>
>>>>Prof Marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a fecking idiot, and have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>
>>Should I assume from the above that your position is not in full
>>agreement with my position?
>>
>>Prof Marvel
>>
>>
>>>Drew
>>>History doesn't wait for school to be over.
>
>
> You should assume that I don't consider your DNA to be part of the same
> species as the rest of us.
>
>
> Drew
What a sweet thing to say. Thank you very much.
Prof Marvel
>
>
Drew Nicholson
>>
>
> I've given my opinion. I have nothing else to say on the matter.
>
> Prof Marvel
Then you'll be leaving. Don't forget your bag.
Prof. Marvel
> Renia
>
No, Renia. She's a lot smarter than you are.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
> Prof. Marvel wrote:
>
>
>>I've given my opinion. I have nothing else to say on the matter.
>>
>>Prof Marvel
>
>
> Then you'll be leaving. Don't forget your bag.
>
>
>
My "bag"? Did I come with a bag?
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
More hilarious Brit wit. We yanks may not find it funny, but at this
very moment, tea is splashing on laps all across London.
Prof Marvel
Renia
YIPPPPPEEEEEE !!! :-)
Renia
Renia
I'm sure she is.
Renia
Renia
YIPPPPPEEEEEE !!!
Renia
Renia
YIPPPPPEEEEEE !!! :-)
Renia
Michael W Cook
wrote on 16/12/03 4:03 am:
> Dr. Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> When we turn from the history of the Crusades to consider the
>> contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
>> thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
>> great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
>> strategy and tactics at home. Tens of thousands of knights, barons,
>> and sergeants came back as veterans from the East, and one would
>> expect to see the lessons which they had learned in fighting the Turks
>> and Syrian perpetually applied to the wars of their native countries.
>> Yet, it is by no means easy to point out obvious instances of such
>> application of new principles of war, save in the provinces of
>> fortification and of arms and armour. It strategy and tactics it is
>> difficult to detect from a broad survey much direct influence flowing
>> from the crusades.
>
>> I would suggest that we may take as the clearest example of this the
>> entire neglect by the Western nations of the most important tactical
>> lesson of the Crusades. The one great principle which settled the fate
>> of wars with the Turks was that generals who properly combined
>> infantry and cavalry in their line of battle were successful, and that
>> generals who tried to dispense with the support of foot-soldiery
>> always failed disastrously. The fact that the combination of the two
>> arms is better than simple reliance on one had been shown at Hastings
>> long before the Crusades began, but the lesson was even more clearly
>> visible in the details of such fights as Antioch or Ascalon as
>> compared with the disasters of 1101 or the narrow escape from
>> destruction at Dorylaeum.
>
>> We would expect to find that the return home of the warriors of the
>> first Crusade would be followed by the development of a rational use
>> of infantry and cavalry in close alliance and interdependence. But we
>> find little of the kind: over the greater part of Western/Central
>> Europe the cavalry arm still maintains its exclusive dominance and
>> infantry is still despised and distrusted.
>> In many of the 12th C battles, when by some rare exceptions we do find
>> combatants on foot entrusted with a principal part in the fight, we
>> discover on closer inquiry that they are not ordinary foot soldiers,
>> but knights who have dismounted in order to carry out some desperate
>> duty.
>
>> Any thoughts on the above?
>
> Absolutely. I rather disagree. I think that the reason
> why there was no direct carryover from the Levant to
> western Europe lies in the enormous difference in geography.
>
> In addition, I think it wrong to think that the infantry was
> neglected in the period between the First Crusade and the Hundred
> Years War. What we see is the aristocratic indifference to
> the foot soldier. They had no honor and therefore could
> win no honor. So they are ignored in the tales of the battles.
> But they were there. That is very plain. With the exception
> of a few cavalry actions carried out by parties of raiders,
> I don't think there is a major battle in the period that does
> not have more foot than horse. But they are rarely mentioned.
>
> That led some writers to conclude that they were not there, or,
> at best, were ignored by those in charge. I think that current
> opinion runs rather against that viewpoint.
>
> Steve Morillo wrote a book called "Warfare under the Anglo-
> Norman Kings, 1066-1135" where one of his main theses is
> that the Normans were so impressed by the Saxon stand at
> Hastings that they incorporated Saxon techniques into the
> methods by which their foot fought thereafter.
>
> Certainly the First Crusade relied heavily on the foot, though
> again they are not much mentioned.
>
> The more or less standard works of the "new systhesis", from
> Verbruggen's "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe" through
> Michael Prestwich's "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages,
> the English Experience" to John France's "Western Warfare
> in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300" (and many others as
> well) all emphasise that the infantry never disappeared from
> the medieval battlefield -- and that while the fame went
> to the cavalry (and the blame to the infantry) they were
> an integral part of the medieval army of the period.
>
> Just venting my prejudices.... ;-)
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Good post, Paul, and I agree.
I also agree with William's point on siege and castles. Edward's castles in
Wales, and subsequently all following architecture, adopted techniques from
those in the Crusader kingdoms.
Cheers
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Michael W Cook
s...@sig.co.uk wrote on 16/12/03 1:39 pm:
>> Also, it's not good form to come into a newsgroup and start threads
>> right off. You should pay dues first: study the group, lurk, participate
>> in other threads, establish a core group of friends who enjoy talking
>> about the things you want to talk about, then when you start your own
>> threads you've got five people who'll jump to it.
>>
>> You came in the door the wrong way. You could also drop the "Dr. Sheila
>> J." Sheila Jones, will do fine.
>
> I disagree with all of that. Use "respect" as your keyword in Usenet
> as it should be in life. Anything else is irrelevant. Imagine a Usenet
> group as a pub. The "Edward the Confessor" is a good example. There
> are certain things there that would get you a trip to casualty. You
> are safer in Usenet but there are similar groundrules.
It seems I'm not alone in thinking Marvel needs a good slap.
MWC
Alex
>
> 2. Lords had centralized control.
> Like they just needed to throw a switch, and things happened differently.
> Perhaps they didn't have the time or the imagination to ride around to all
> their vassals and explain Ascalon in detail. Perhaps the vassals trained the
> way they always trained, and the Lords had to make do with that. This is
> partly the same thesis as above, but AFAIR the lines of command and control
> were a lot more tangled, and less efficient, than .... well, I don't know if
> it is better today.
>
... or the system allowed vassals to be only what they were:
each of them was a heavy horseman followed by a number of other horsemen
and some infantry. With this infantry belonging to his vassals and not to
him, how a lord could arrange for its training as an unified mass? This
would mean that each of his vassals voluntarily gives away command of a
part of HIS troops raised and mainatined at HIS expense and constituting
a part of HIS own strength (vs, among many others, his own lord).
Unlikely scenario.
> 3. Any condottiere can compose the army he likes.
> There is the question of economy.
IMO, you hit the nail on its head. Where the condotierres flowrished the
most? In Italy, with its advanced, money-based, economy. What an "average"
western lord of the early MA DID NOT have? Cash. An alternative? Promise
of the extensive looting. This would work for the "promising" foreign
entrprises, like 100YW and all the way to 30YW but these enterprises were
not typical for the medieval warfare.
Prof. Marvel
>>Also, it's not good form to come into a newsgroup and start threads
>>right off. You should pay dues first: study the group, lurk, participate
>>in other threads, establish a core group of friends who enjoy talking
>>about the things you want to talk about, then when you start your own
>>threads you've got five people who'll jump to it.
>>
>>You came in the door the wrong way. You could also drop the "Dr. Sheila
>>J." Sheila Jones, will do fine.
>
>
> I disagree with all of that. Use "respect" as your keyword in Usenet
> as it should be in life. Anything else is irrelevant. Imagine a Usenet
> group as a pub. The "Edward the Confessor" is a good example. There
> are certain things there that would get you a trip to casualty. You
> are safer in Usenet but there are similar groundrules.
--Julian Richards
Your post is incoherent, Julian. What are you trying to say?
Prof Marvel
>
>
> --
>
>
> julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
>
> "My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
> He's ten years old, he should make his own"
>
> "I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
> disappointment when I got home to discover
> that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
> band of dolphins"
Alex
> Dr. Sheila J wrote:
>
>
>
> Also, it's not good form to come into a newsgroup and start threads
> right off.
Says who? I don't remember you being in this NG long enough to make
the rules.
Paul J Gans
>In article <brm075$mib$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
>>
>> Absolutely. I rather disagree. I think that the reason
>> why there was no direct carryover from the Levant to
>> western Europe lies in the enormous difference in geography.
>>
>Also in scale of resources. It is like comparing WW1 and WW2 to the
>small wars that came after it.
I don't understand that. Seriously. In what way were the
scale of resources out of balance. The first and third
crusades did rather well militarily. Not perfect by any
means but they were not outclassed.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Dr. Sheila J wrote:
>> When we turn from the history of the Crusades to consider the
>> contemporary history of the Art of War in Western Europe, the first
>> thing that strikes me is the comparatively small influence which the
>> great campaigns in the Levant seem to have had upon the development of
>> strategy and tactics at home. Tens of thousands of knights, barons,
>> and sergeants came back as veterans from the East, and one would
>> expect to see the lessons which they had learned in fighting the Turks
>> and Syrian perpetually applied to the wars of their native countries.
>These veterans didn't face the same opponents once they returned home.
>Why should they apply tactics successful against a lightly armed, highly
>mobile enemy against their mail clad, heavily mounted rivals at home? Or
>do you suggest they should drop traditional Western tactics to adopt
>that of the foreign culture that drove them from the Levant? ;)
>>
>> I would suggest that we may take as the clearest example of this the
>> entire neglect by the Western nations of the most important tactical
>> lesson of the Crusades. The one great principle which settled the fate
>> of wars with the Turks was that generals who properly combined
>> infantry and cavalry in their line of battle were successful, and that
>> generals who tried to dispense with the support of foot-soldiery
>> always failed disastrously.
>>
>> Any thoughts on the above?
>> Cheers,
>> Sheila
>The Crusading period is not my preferred area of study, but I've read
>quite a bit related to the military aspects of them. "The one great
>principle which settled the fate of wars with the Turks was" in fact the
> perpetual shortage of personnel and funds required to defend Outremer.
>Without the great movements of Crusades organized in the West, the fall
>of Outremer was a foregone conclusion. The Levant has proven time and
>again to be economically insufficient to support a domestic economy
>*and* significant military activity without outside support.
>Western (Frankish) tactics and equipment fared rather well against
>middle Eastern military technology in pitched battle. There simply
>weren't enough Westerners or the funds to support them. Combine that
>with inept and jealous leadership and you will see that many of the
>disastrous defeats were unavoidable.
Kel, I rather agree with you. Consider also that Europe
in the year 1100 was projecting power over a thousand
miles from home. That's impressive.
And had their relationship with Byzantium been different
the entire venture might have had a different ending.
Of course, that's a big what-if, but the Byzantines
had the manpower and the shorter travel distance.
>BTW, Sheila thanks for joining this NG. It desperately needed new blood.
>Too bad it is suffering a surfeit of trolls and loons at them moment.
>Bear with it, there are a lot of really helpful and well read people
>here most of the time.
Agreed with enthusiasm!
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I agree. Sheila basically said that when she specifically
exempted castle architecture.
But there really is a debate on the status of the
infantry. One reason why DeVries wrote "Infantry
Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century" was to show
that there was no real military revolution. Just the
usual constant jockeying of offense and defense.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Douglas
<snip>
>
> More hilarious Brit wit. We yanks may not find it funny, but at this
> very moment, tea is splashing on laps all across London.
>
read message headings. Try a Usenet FAQ, really.
D
PS Sorry, Mr Cook, I'll ignore him from now.
Prof. Marvel
Sorry for what? Mr. Cook gets his ass kicked in a flame war and you
apologise to him for talking to the guy who did the kicking?
That it?
Prof Marvel
Bernardz
There is a saying "If something can be misinterpreted, it will be." I
did not make it up as I am not that good yet.
I was referring to wars in Europe itself. It would be a long time before
these wars would achieve the size of the resources on the scale of the
crusades.
--
Enjoy the moment of victory now as the knockers will be out soon.
19th saying of Bernard
Julian Richards
>"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:<3fdf560e$0$30493$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>...
><snip>
>>
>> More hilarious Brit wit. We yanks may not find it funny, but at this
>> very moment, tea is splashing on laps all across London.
>>
>Your grasp of sociolinguistics is equalled only by your ability to
>read message headings. Try a Usenet FAQ, really.
An interesting view of geography also in assuming that most, if not
all, of the British population inhabit London. Ditto for culture in
assuming that all British people have tea as the drink of choice and
that they always drink it whilst using the computer.
--
Julian Richards
Prof. Marvel
> On 17 Dec 2003 02:26:14 -0800, dph...@my-deja.com (Douglas) wrote:
>
>
>>"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:<3fdf560e$0$30493$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>...
>><snip>
>>
>>>More hilarious Brit wit. We yanks may not find it funny, but at this
>>>very moment, tea is splashing on laps all across London.
>>>
>>
>>Your grasp of sociolinguistics is equalled only by your ability to
>>read message headings. Try a Usenet FAQ, really.
>
>
> An interesting view of geography also in assuming that most, if not
> all, of the British population inhabit London. Ditto for culture in
> assuming that all British people have tea as the drink of choice and
> that they always drink it whilst using the computer.
>
>
> --
>
> Julian Richards
So, using your corrections the gag is more effective like this:
"More hilarious Brit wit. We yanks may not find it funny, but at this
very moment, Brits are wetting their pants around the globe."
Hmm, not bad.
Prof Marvel
Paul J Gans
>In article <bro0lj$dpc$3...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
>> Bernardz <Berna...@removehotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <brm075$mib$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely. I rather disagree. I think that the reason
>> >> why there was no direct carryover from the Levant to
>> >> western Europe lies in the enormous difference in geography.
>> >>
>>
>> >Also in scale of resources. It is like comparing WW1 and WW2 to the
>> >small wars that came after it.
>>
>> I don't understand that. Seriously. In what way were the
>> scale of resources out of balance. The first and third
>> crusades did rather well militarily. Not perfect by any
>> means but they were not outclassed.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>There is a saying "If something can be misinterpreted, it will be." I
>did not make it up as I am not that good yet.
>I was referring to wars in Europe itself. It would be a long time before
>these wars would achieve the size of the resources on the scale of the
>crusades.
Ok. It is often wondered why the countries of Europe could not
field armies the size of the Romans. They could, as the
Crusades showed. But it called for an international effort
and huge amounts of money. But both the manpower and the money
was found, and this in the 11th century.
Until poplulations grew to the size where say France had a
population equivalent to medieval France, England, and Germany,
one would not see armies of the size you talk about.
---- Paul J. Gans
Julian Richards
<ricl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>So, using your corrections the gag is more effective like this:
Twat.
Even Hines is worth a reasoned argument.
--
Julian Richards
Martin Reboul
"Dr. Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ff801b.031215...@posting.google.com...
I'm not familiar with crusader tactics and the battles of that
time, but I think the answer might lie in the mistrust and
snobbish attitude many of the aristocracy and better off in Europe
to their 'peasants'.
That pride and arrogance led many knights and gentlemen (most
notably the French, but also the Teutons and others) to disaster
many times, when facing determined, well armed infantry with
missile support. Even after the development of horse plate armour,
well disciplined archers could break up, confuse or even destroy
any cavalry charge - I assume the Saracens had decent archers? The
crusades took place in the days of chainmail rather than plate,
which was far more vulnerable to arrows.
I'd say that some lessons certainly were learned from that era,
for instance, the dismounting of the French at Poitiers, although
they failed to appreciate the factor of exhaustion when thay
attacked. Their excellent armour gave a high degree of protection
even so (if anyone has any doubts, witness the enormous number of
prisoners taken at Agincourt), but those wearing it fell prey to
lead hammers as they were tired out from slogging their way to the
English line.
The disdain and mistrust most of the somewhat heavy handed
aristocrats had towards their 'serfs' (on the continent) even led
to the longbow being banned in France - what could be more
worrying than the idea of any peasant (who was unhappy with his
lot) making one from readily available materials, then using it
against his master?
I therefore suspect it was as much politics, tradition and the
more abrasive relationship between the commons and lords which
caused this reluctance to use infantry and cavalry together - the
nobility preferred to be horsed, and the peasants could never
afford to be.
That may be a bit simplistic, but in Britain, where attitudes were
rather different on the whole, infantry and cavalry did usually
co-operate, and in conjunction with archers, sometimes had
enormous and spectacular effects, especially against continental
armies.
There's probably more to it than that, but I'm sure this was a
significant factor?
Cheers
Martin
Julian Richards
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm not familiar with crusader tactics and the battles of that
>time, but I think the answer might lie in the mistrust and
>snobbish attitude many of the aristocracy and better off in Europe
>to their 'peasants'.
>
>That pride and arrogance led many knights and gentlemen (most
>notably the French, but also the Teutons and others) to disaster
>many times, when facing determined, well armed infantry with
>missile support. Even after the development of horse plate armour,
>well disciplined archers could break up, confuse or even destroy
>any cavalry charge - I assume the Saracens had decent archers? The
>crusades took place in the days of chainmail rather than plate,
>which was far more vulnerable to arrows.
Didn't the Saracens use some mounted archers. That that was the tactic
that was new to the Crusaders as the charge of heavily armoured
cavalry with lances was new to the Muslims.
Bernardz
Yes. The population of each of the political units in Western Europe was
too small. Unlike the Roman they were not united.
What you need to keep a large army in place is money and resources to
feed such a force. So the first large armies of this scale appeared in
the rich regions of Italy.
--
Wealth must be produced before it can be distributed.
20th saying of Bernard
Paul J Gans
I'll agree if we limit this to landed societies. Nomadic ones
in which all men beyond a certain age are considered fighters
are another story. As we know they eventually overwhelmed
the western Roman Empire.
On the other hand, Charlemagne seems to have been able to
put huge armies in the field. Quite possibly this was due
to two things -- the continued tradition of free men being
fighters[*] and the possible (some would say probable)
continued existance of the Roman governance system that
allowed Charlemagne's writs to be widely disseminated.
But his successors could not duplicate his armies.
---- Paul J. Gans
[*] We know this because we still have Charlemagne's
edicts modifying the call-up to take into account the
fact that by his time many free men were rather poor.
So he directed that a certain number band together to
finance one of their number as a fighter.
Alex
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:21:01 -0000, "Martin Reboul"
> <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I'm not familiar with crusader tactics and the battles of that
> >time, but I think the answer might lie in the mistrust and
> >snobbish attitude many of the aristocracy and better off in Europe
> >to their 'peasants'.
> >
> >That pride and arrogance led many knights and gentlemen (most
> >notably the French, but also the Teutons and others) to disaster
> >many times, when facing determined, well armed infantry with
> >missile support. Even after the development of horse plate armour,
> >well disciplined archers could break up, confuse or even destroy
> >any cavalry charge - I assume the Saracens had decent archers? The
> >crusades took place in the days of chainmail rather than plate,
> >which was far more vulnerable to arrows.
>
> Didn't the Saracens use some mounted archers. That that was the tactic
> that was new to the Crusaders
IIRC, some of the participants of the 1st Crusade came from the areas
where they had contact with the mounted archers.
>as the charge of heavily armoured
> cavalry with lances was new to the Muslims.
Judging by what had been published on SHM over the years, the "Saracens"
in this area had some experience with the heavy cavalry (Bizantian and
Western).
To know something does not always mean to be able to do something
practical about it. The initial crusaders did not have a human material
to creat the horse archers and their opponents could not easily
immitate the western-style heavy cavalry. OTOH, IIRC, the Seljuks had
some rather heavy cavalry, not only the light archers.
Alex
>
> I'm not familiar with crusader tactics and the battles of that
> time, but I think the answer might lie in the mistrust and
> snobbish attitude many of the aristocracy and better off in Europe
> to their 'peasants'.
>
> That pride and arrogance led many knights and gentlemen (most
> notably the French, but also the Teutons and others) to disaster
> many times, when facing determined, well armed infantry with
> missile support. Even after the development of horse plate armour,
> well disciplined archers could break up, confuse or even destroy
> any cavalry charge - I assume the Saracens had decent archers? The
> crusades took place in the days of chainmail rather than plate,
> which was far more vulnerable to arrows.
>
> I'd say that some lessons certainly were learned from that era,
> for instance, the dismounting of the French at Poitiers, although
> they failed to appreciate the factor of exhaustion when thay
> attacked. Their excellent armour gave a high degree of protection
> even so (if anyone has any doubts, witness the enormous number of
> prisoners taken at Agincourt), but those wearing it fell prey to
> lead hammers as they were tired out from slogging their way to the
> English line.
Well, AFAIK, this was actually the case when one side tried to change
its tactics to find a winning formula. After the lesson of Crecy
(cavalry attacking heavy/missile infantry in a strong position),
they tried to adopt a Scottish model (remembering Bannockburn but
ignoring more recent disaster): attack in the massive infantry formations.
BTW, IIRC, exhaustion became a factor at Agincourt, not at Poitiers).
Minus the long spears, plus the heavy armour, this model did not work
out, anyway. So they kept trying the new ways until they hit a winning
factor: an artillery (it took a while before this factor became practically
available and having a dumb, arrogant opponent did not hurt either :-) ).
Not relying on it exclusively, they kept trying to create a national
infantry (initially, the archers, then the pikemen) but failed due to
the lack of a material: a free peasant (and/or a lot of a very poor minor
nobility).
>
> The disdain and mistrust most of the somewhat heavy handed
> aristocrats had towards their 'serfs' (on the continent) even led
> to the longbow being banned in France - what could be more
> worrying than the idea of any peasant (who was unhappy with his
> lot) making one from readily available materials, then using it
> against his master?
You see, situation was quite different from England. English yoman
was not a "serf" and, if the serfs had been present in the big numbers
in the medieval England, I doubt that anybody on the top was unnecessary
enthusiastic about arming them. It was not an issue of "any peasant"
but on of a "serf". The English "military material" came from another
social class, that was practically absent in France.
You may notice that all types of a high-quality medieval-early modern
western infantry came from the places with the numerous personally free
peasantry: Swiss cantons, Spain, Germany, England, Gasconne. Even not
always impressive Italians fall into this category.
Francouis I tried to create some equivalent of the British
yomenry to provide a foundation for the national infantry. This social
experiment failed miserably but, taking into an account who was trying
to do such a thing, a "disdain" hardly was a decisive factor in the
schema of things.
Michael Kuettner
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:brsos2$4d6$6...@reader2.panix.com...
Not really. See his campaign against Widukind and the Saxons.
He was able to put barely enough men for the task in the field;
but "huge armies" ? Why wasn't Italy subdued ?
Why did the war against the Saxons last that long ?
> Quite possibly this was due
> to two things -- the continued tradition of free men being
> fighters[*] and the possible (some would say probable)
> continued existance of the Roman governance system
in the Western Frankia ......
> that allowed Charlemagne's writs to be widely disseminated.
>
depends ....
> But his successors could not duplicate his armies.
>
Oh, they could.
But they as often as not used them against themselves ;-)
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
> [*] We know this because we still have Charlemagne's
> edicts modifying the call-up to take into account the
> fact that by his time many free men were rather poor.
> So he directed that a certain number band together to
> finance one of their number as a fighter.
Yes and no.
AFAIR, a fief (a piece of land) was granted with the obligation
to equip a certain number of warriors.
How that grant was split afterwards is another story.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Gans) wrote:
> So he directed that a certain number band together to
> finance one of their number as a fighter.
From memory.
There are interesting parallels between the various Western methods
of raising troops and the Byzantine system. Both had standing troops
(household, huscarl, capital regiment, whatever) and both raised
troops by levy (fyrd, thematic troops). There is even the recognition
of a difference in quality of levied troops (fyrd and select fyrd and
first and second rate thematic forces). The system of several
households joining together to support one trooper is also found in
both.
The main difference is that the thematic troops seem to have drilled
at periods and according to some sources may have been paid on an
occasional basis when not on active duty. There was also of course a
major difference in scale of the forces involved.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
I know this is contentious. I tend to follow Bachrach
on this. It was one of his recent books. I'll give
the full cite tonight when I'm home.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>From memory.
Agreed. Byzantium was, of course very rich and very populous
at the time the themes existed.
Something similar happened in the west once chartered towns
became common. They were responsible for their own defense.
So all able-bodied men were turned out for training and drill.
Often this was done twice a month.
It wasn't perfect, but it did lead to a semi-trained militia
available not only for defense but either for hire or for
use, depending on the town's charter.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:brtihr$7f4or$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:brsos2$4d6$6...@reader2.panix.com...
> > On the other hand, Charlemagne seems to have been able to
> > put huge armies in the field.
>
> Not really. See his campaign against Widukind and the Saxons.
> He was able to put barely enough men for the task in the field;
> but "huge armies" ? Why wasn't Italy subdued ?
> Why did the war against the Saxons last that long ?
>
I meant by the above that there _were_ many soldiers; but many of
them weren't available for campaigns because
a) they were stationed in the border duchies (?) ("Grenzmarken") where
they were needed for keeping raiders (Slavs, Avars, Saxons, etc) out of the
empire
b) they had to hold up peace in newly acquired territories.
So we have many men-at-arms who couldn't be pulled away from their
garrisons; I don't know how high the percentage was, but I'd bet that
it might have been between a third and a half of KalleMagnes army.
<snip>
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alex
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > On the other hand, Charlemagne seems to have been able to
> > put huge armies in the field.
>
> Not really. See his campaign against Widukind and the Saxons.
> He was able to put barely enough men for the task in the field;
> but "huge armies" ?
An answer, IMHO, is very simple. It was proven by the Dreadful
Historian that Charlemagne's huge armies are a myth. The historians
of the next generation (in a search of some prominence of their own)
denounced the Dreadful One (saves a lot of time on reading as well)
and returned to where a military history was before him: any absurdity
written in the chronicles should be taken as God's Truth. :-)
>Why wasn't Italy subdued ?
> Why did the war against the Saxons last that long ?
Because he actually had very small (but highly professional) armies. :-)
Michael Kuettner
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
<snip>
> I know this is contentious.
I don't think so. I think it's worthy of a long on-topic thread ;-)
> I tend to follow Bachrach
> on this. It was one of his recent books. I'll give
> the full cite tonight when I'm home.
>
I'll look forward to it.
Please note my follow-up to my post where I've clarified my
statement (re. men-at-arms and how many could be used
in his army).
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f8e58188.03121...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:<brtihr$7f4or$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
> > > On the other hand, Charlemagne seems to have been able to
> > > put huge armies in the field.
> >
> > Not really. See his campaign against Widukind and the Saxons.
> > He was able to put barely enough men for the task in the field;
> > but "huge armies" ?
>
> An answer, IMHO, is very simple. It was proven by the Dreadful
> Historian that Charlemagne's huge armies are a myth. The historians
> of the next generation (in a search of some prominence of their own)
> denounced the Dreadful One (saves a lot of time on reading as well)
> and returned to where a military history was before him: any absurdity
> written in the chronicles should be taken as God's Truth. :-)
>
Yes and no.
I don't want to engage in trench - warfare here (which would be an
anachronism ;-)).
I just wanted to point out that the men-at-arms were not all freely movable
(you couldn't draw soldiers from a border duchy, eg.).
> >Why wasn't Italy subdued ?
> > Why did the war against the Saxons last that long ?
>
>
> Because he actually had very small (but highly professional) armies. :-)´
Very small ? I doubt it.
Highly professional ? Partly (the nobles and their retinue).
Movable ? That's the crux, I guess.
While we have documents stating that noble x had to equip y men,
how many of them could be taken away from the area they had to
subdue/protect ?
(In KalleMagnes times, of course).
I'm undecided on that issue.
Or lemme state it bold :
If KalleMagne had 1000 men in his army, at most 500-600 would
have been at his free disposal without bringing havoc to the empire.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans
>>Cheers,
>>Michael Kuettner
> ---- Paul J. Gans
The book is "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard Bachrach,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
The (very) short of it is that Bachrach argues that there
was significant survival of Roman institutions into the
time of the Carolingians. And he argues that this allowed
the gathering and supplying of large armies.
This is a contentious thesis and many feel that it is totally
wrong. Nevertheless, Bachrach makes what I think is a good
case and argues strongly for it.
He also has worked out a fair amount of the logistics
involved, including the manpower pool the Carolingians had
to draw upon.
The book is an interesting if heavy read. A major part of
it is Bachrachs patented footnotes. Some are literature
citations and others are mini-essays either pushing his
point of view or attempting to destroy competing ones.
Agree with it or not, it is an interesting read.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
Yes, I saw that. I've posted the reference to the book.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Very good. Having now insulted many (but not all) modern
military historians in one paragraph I can gather that you
are feeling better. For that at least I am grateful.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:f8e58188.03121...@posting.google.com...
>> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
>news:<brtihr$7f4or$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>
>> > > On the other hand, Charlemagne seems to have been able to
>> > > put huge armies in the field.
>> >
>> > Not really. See his campaign against Widukind and the Saxons.
>> > He was able to put barely enough men for the task in the field;
>> > but "huge armies" ?
>>
>> An answer, IMHO, is very simple. It was proven by the Dreadful
>> Historian that Charlemagne's huge armies are a myth. The historians
>> of the next generation (in a search of some prominence of their own)
>> denounced the Dreadful One (saves a lot of time on reading as well)
>> and returned to where a military history was before him: any absurdity
>> written in the chronicles should be taken as God's Truth. :-)
>>
>Yes and no.
>I don't want to engage in trench - warfare here (which would be an
>anachronism ;-)).
>I just wanted to point out that the men-at-arms were not all freely movable
>(you couldn't draw soldiers from a border duchy, eg.).
>> >Why wasn't Italy subdued ?
>> > Why did the war against the Saxons last that long ?
>>
>>
>> Because he actually had very small (but highly professional) armies. :-)?
>Very small ? I doubt it.
>Highly professional ? Partly (the nobles and their retinue).
>Movable ? That's the crux, I guess.
>While we have documents stating that noble x had to equip y men,
>how many of them could be taken away from the area they had to
>subdue/protect ?
>(In KalleMagnes times, of course).
>I'm undecided on that issue.
>Or lemme state it bold :
>If KalleMagne had 1000 men in his army, at most 500-600 would
>have been at his free disposal without bringing havoc to the empire.
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
I don't think it worked that way. Charlemagne had his
"household" troops and he had his retainers who held
various places for him. And there is no doubt that
these folks formed the cadre of his army.
But the men were raised from many parts of his lands.
Most years men were called to assemble at a designated
spot in the country (usually near the "jumping off"
place) and told to bring their arms, supplies for a
standard period, etc. These were not lords. These
were ordinary free men -- most of whom would come with
a horse or two, a cart or two, likely drawn by an ox,
a servant or two to handle his supplies (which were likely
to be for a few weeks) etc.
After the stipulated period Charlemagne was responsible
for feeding the troops. He managed this by having
various places pre-stocked with supplies.
Yes, this called for a great deal of organization.
And he seems to have had that ability.
---- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J
Paul:
How do you sleep at night with all this knowledge in your head? And your
a chem professor too? Gosh....how humbling! I can't even mix up a good
gravy!
Sheila
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
[big snip]
>Paul:
>How do you sleep at night with all this knowledge in your head? And your
>a chem professor too? Gosh....how humbling! I can't even mix up a good
>gravy!
Thank you for the complement.
I'll tell you the story. I was always torn between
history (a favorite subject of my mother's) and
chemistry (my father's field). As it happened
I ended up majoring in Chemistry in both college
and graduate school.
As often happens in school, my interests got
slightly refined. My interest in chemistry got
refined to theoretical chemistry -- which is far
more physics and math than wet chemistry. And
my interest in history narrowed to the medieval
period.
By then I'd read a lot of what was then current
views of the Middle Ages. Of course, that was
quite a few years ago. I kept it up as a hobby
over many years.
By a series of coincidences too tedious to
detail, I ended up being approached by the
powers that ran the Medieval and Renaissance
Studies Program at NYU to see if I'd do a course
for them in medieval technology and everyday life.
We struck a bargain. I'd do the course if they'd
undertake to help me fill in the gaps in my background.
You see, self-taught folks often are very well read
in some areas and ill-read in others.
They've been working on me ever since, much to my
benefit. Through them I ended up at various meetings
of medievalists, gave papers, met quite a few, and
had a grand time.
And fell in with a bunch of medieval military
historians who have been a bad influence on me...
It all began when Bernie Bachrach, discovering that
I was a chemist, wanted to know if I was willing to
do some experiments to see if we could duplicate
Greek fire. I said I wasn't *that* kind of a chemist
but the die was cast. Most of the ones I've met are
exceptionally nice folks, even when they are squabbling
over some point or other.
So what you get from me is a mish-mash of things
I read in Southern or Pirenne 50 years ago to
things I read by Cliff Rogers yesterday, intermingled
with what folks have told me over the years.
How do I remember it? I don't. I've forgotten much
more than I recall.
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: Having a second career later in life does wonderful
things to refresh the mind. One could visit
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/2600/classnotes/sm.html
to see how I amused myself since September. It is a
200 page book up on the web for anyone who can to read.
It is what I did while being irate at current US foreign
policy.
And don't be surprised. There are folks here who can
read that stuff better than I can. This is an amazing
collection of people. I've learned tons here and I
have nothing but respect for the vast majority of
posters. They are wonderful folks, even the ones
who don't agree with me.
Alex
IIRC, the picture above was exactly what The Dreadful Obsolete One
considered a myth, based on a consideration that these huge mobs
of the "free men" would lack training and other thingies necessary
for an efficient army.
By the time all of them manage to get together, half of them would
be already out of their supplies (in a miraclous case of ALL of them
arriving exactly in the prescribed moment, you'd have a nice traffic
jam and one of two problems with setting the camp) and by the time,
Charlemagne's officials (or whoever) sorted this mob into some
semblance of the regiments, ALL of them would be out of food. In the
best case scenario, the numbers would greately diminish in a week or
two due to the mass hangings of those stealing the food from their
brothers in arms. And this crowd on the march.... This would be a sight!
While one is riding the horse, another is overseeing his ox-driven
carts (and the servants, as everybody knows, the simple folk always
has them). With a complete impossibility to plan in advance combination
of horses, oxen and pedestrians, the officials of Charlemagne surely
were well above their collegues of the past or future.
Training of these men.... Now, this would be even more interesting.
Probably by the time they learned to act in some semblance of an unit
(BTW, were their weapons "standard" at least to some degree?), there would
be probably an end of the fighting season. etc. :-)
Alex
Am I factually wrong? I don't think so: (a) Above is not applicable to those
who have the same opinion as the Dreadful One; (b) A main reason for getting
back to the pre-Dreadful's perceptions is a wish to leave one's own
"footprint". While the Dreadful's theory looks logical, the "old-new"
one does not, unless you are ready to assume that Charlemagne had better
military and civil administrators than almost anybody over the recorded
history.
But THE IMPORTANT thing is that, due to the fact that you are NOT a
military historian, I did not insult you. :-)
> I can gather that you
> are feeling better.
Ah, my dear Watson, this may actually mean many things, including the
fact that a permanent pain sharpened my brain. :-)
> For that at least I am grateful.
Thanks, this is always nice to know.
Michael Kuettner
> The book is "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard Bachrach,
> University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
>
Paul, me wantsssssssss my birthday pressssssssssent
(hint : it's on Monday).
Please cite Bachrach's estimates.
And please tell me _what_ sources he has used.
If it's only Western Frankia, well ...
> The (very) short of it is that Bachrach argues that there
> was significant survival of Roman institutions into the
> time of the Carolingians. And he argues that this allowed
> the gathering and supplying of large armies.
>
How could Roman institutions have survived _outside_ of the Roman
empire ?
Bermuda Triangle again ?
> This is a contentious thesis and many feel that it is totally
> wrong. Nevertheless, Bachrach makes what I think is a good
> case and argues strongly for it.
>
Please cite something from it.
> He also has worked out a fair amount of the logistics
> involved, including the manpower pool the Carolingians had
> to draw upon.
>
Besides the point.
Manpower pool <> soldiers at your disposal.
> The book is an interesting if heavy read. A major part of
> it is Bachrachs patented footnotes. Some are literature
> citations and others are mini-essays either pushing his
> point of view or attempting to destroy competing ones.
>
> Agree with it or not, it is an interesting read.
>
As I've said, it's on my list to be acquired; but if he only covers
Western Frankia, it's worthless.
So, again : Please cite his figures for the KalleMagneian army.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
Lemme clarify my statement :
"For every 1000 men KalleMagne had in his army, at most 500-600 would
have been at his free disposal without bringing havoc to the empire."
OK ?
> But the men were raised from many parts of his lands.
No.
They weren't raised from "his" lands (except for the ones raised
from the lands he actually held).
The Frankia wasn't comparable to "Bastard Feudalism"
(the system the Bastard imposed upon Britain after 1066).
> Most years men were called to assemble at a designated
> spot in the country (usually near the "jumping off"
> place) and told to bring their arms, supplies for a
> standard period, etc. These were not lords. These
> were ordinary free men -- most of whom would come with
> a horse or two, a cart or two, likely drawn by an ox,
> a servant or two to handle his supplies (which were likely
> to be for a few weeks) etc.
>
We've been throught this before.
You're right about "nobility"; I should have written "free men" and
holders of office like duces (there was _some_ nobility back even then,
but let's take that to a different thread).
_BUT_ : That's beside my point.
How many _could_ show up there for a little war ?
Many from (nowadays) France.
Few from the eastern borders.
Does Bachrach cover this differences ?
> After the stipulated period Charlemagne was responsible
> for feeding the troops. He managed this by having
> various places pre-stocked with supplies.
>
These places were called "Pfalzen" (sing. Pfalz).
> Yes, this called for a great deal of organization.
> And he seems to have had that ability.
>
No argument about that !
But again, could you cite at least a little of Bachrach ?
(It'ssssssssssssss my birssssssday, Ganssssssssssssss ;-)
Cheersssssssss,
Michael "Gollum" Kuettner
Paul J Gans
You are absolutely right.
Too bad it didn't happen that way. It would have made
a better movie.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Alex, that's insulting. The folks who worry about this
don't have to "wish to leave one's own 'footprint'". They
already have.
Since your dislike of having books recommended to you
is well-known, I'll not do it, but I'll not summarize
hundreds of pages of evidence for you either. But I
will say this:
The main idea is that Charlemagne did have the administrative
means to reach a very large portion of the free men in his
lands. Let me put it to you this way: Would you believe
that the administrators of his lands would allow a large number
of people to NOT pay their taxes? Of course not. So
certainly there were ways of knowing who they were and where
they lived.
Indeed, there seems to be evidence that many of the better
organized kings kept extensive documentation (like the
Domesday book in England) of the lands they controlled,
who owned what, and what they owed in tax money.
If you don't believe this, then explain how the taxes
were collected.
The other aspect of this is that Charlemagne's armies
never called up a huge fraction of the free men of
military age. The population of his lands was many
millions (I'm not going to look up the figures that
folks use) and his armies were of the size of perhaps
40 to 50 thousand.
We KNOW how he assembled them and how they were fed.
There was no real problem with it.
>But THE IMPORTANT thing is that, due to the fact that you are NOT a
>military historian, I did not insult you. :-)
This is of course true.
>> I can gather that you
>> are feeling better.
>Ah, my dear Watson, this may actually mean many things, including the
>fact that a permanent pain sharpened my brain. :-)
That is NOT good. Having had long lasting (but not permanent)
pain myself, I know this from personal experience.
>> For that at least I am grateful.
>Thanks, this is always nice to know.
YOu are very welcome.
----- Paul J. Gans
Uwe Müller
>
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:bs0hf5$me$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> >
> > >"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > >news:f8e58188.03121...@posting.google.com...
> > >> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> > >news:<brtihr$7f4or$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > >>
> snip >
> Of course.
> Lemme clarify my statement :
> "For every 1000 men KalleMagne had in his army, at most 500-600 would
> have been at his free disposal without bringing havoc to the empire."
>
> OK ?
>
> > But the men were raised from many parts of his lands.
>
> No.
> They weren't raised from "his" lands (except for the ones raised
> from the lands he actually held).
> The Frankia wasn't comparable to "Bastard Feudalism"
> (the system the Bastard imposed upon Britain after 1066).
You seem to have forgotten armies from Slavs, Alamannes, Thuringians and
others, which also answered his calls. You might say, that for every man he
could muster directly from his 'own' lands, there would have been another 2
or 3 to come from outside.
The slavic contigent in the Saxon wars was important enough to be awarded
settlement rights in former saxon areas, compare the slavic castel of
Hollenstedt west of the Elbe river.
>
> > Most years men were called to assemble at a designated
> > spot in the country (usually near the "jumping off"
> > place) and told to bring their arms, supplies for a
> > standard period, etc. These were not lords. These
> > were ordinary free men -- most of whom would come with
> > a horse or two, a cart or two, likely drawn by an ox,
> > a servant or two to handle his supplies (which were likely
> > to be for a few weeks) etc.
> >
> We've been throught this before.
> You're right about "nobility"; I should have written "free men" and
> holders of office like duces (there was _some_ nobility back even then,
> but let's take that to a different thread).
> _BUT_ : That's beside my point.
> How many _could_ show up there for a little war ?
> Many from (nowadays) France.
> Few from the eastern borders.
> Does Bachrach cover this differences ?
I don't know the book in questions, but which borders do you mean? Those of
the frankish heartland? They were covered by neighbouring tribes, that had
been subdued. And sending off these tribes to fight the frankish wars,
relieved the frankish borders from pressure, if there was any.
So it must have been the outlying border of the slavs, Thuringians, etc.
AFAIR slavs fought on both sides in the Saxon wars. So the Danes could
indeed work pressure on the borders of the frankophil slavs or at least aid
also those, who would oppose them. Remember animal style decorations on
weapons or weapon belts coming from Scandinavia and being found from
Alamannia to Britain.
Charles versus Widukind, Franks against Saxons, that sounds like the
Hollywood version of the story. In reality it would have been something more
like a christian league fighting a heathen one. And many people inbetween
settling old bills, trying to acquire land of their own, or just thinking of
having a good time away from home.
>
>snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Alex
Sorry, don't see logic in what you wrote. I did not use "worry" and, of
course, they made their 'footprint'. Judging by yours numerous quotations,
one of the specific features of these footprints is getting back to the
pre-Dreadful's methods of the historic analysis.
>
> Since your dislike of having books recommended to you
> is well-known,
Wrong, this is my dislike of spending considerable amount of money
on the books recommended by you (on too many ocassions quotations from
these books proved to be extremely ...er.... "entertaining"). This, however,
has nothing to do with me respect to you personally.
> I'll not do it, but I'll not summarize
> hundreds of pages of evidence for you either. But I
> will say this:
>
> The main idea is that Charlemagne did have the administrative
> means to reach a very large portion of the free men in his
> lands.
Well, the Dreadful One dedicated a considerable volume to this particular
issue. The problem was not an ability to reach these people but how to
raise and maintain an army out of these people (BTW, he gave some interesting
material regarding ability of a medieval administration to do the projections
without a census).
> Let me put it to you this way: Would you believe
> that the administrators of his lands would allow a large number
> of people to NOT pay their taxes? Of course not. So
> certainly there were ways of knowing who they were and where
> they lived.
>
> Indeed, there seems to be evidence that many of the better
> organized kings kept extensive documentation (like the
> Domesday book in England) of the lands they controlled,
> who owned what, and what they owed in tax money.
As far as England is concerned, an attempt to make an estimate
of the population at the time of Ed III overestimated it not
by percentages but by times.
>
> If you don't believe this, then explain how the taxes
> were collected.
>
As usually, you drifted away of the practical issue of raising
and maintaining an army....
> The other aspect of this is that Charlemagne's armies
> never called up a huge fraction of the free men of
> military age.
Indeed.
> The population of his lands was many
> millions (I'm not going to look up the figures that
> folks use) and his armies were of the size of perhaps
> 40 to 50 thousand.
According to the Dreadful One, they had been 10K top with
most of them being in the range of 5-6K. With the low (by the
modern standards) discipline of the march and the huge supply
trains (even with the usage if the rivers, etc.) the columns
would be very long. He gave an assesment of, IIRC, 14 miles.
Can't tell if translator converted the German miles into the
English/American ones but, even if converted, this IS a very
long column.
Now, how the 40-50K army moved? In a single column or as a set
of the independent columns? If the 1st, it had to be extremely
long, probably unpractically so. If there were broken into the
separate columns, how this is confirmed by the reports of the C's
campaigns? In most cases, these columns had to be separated by the
considerable spaces, taking into an account conditions and the
numbers of the roads in the places like Saxony or Spain.
His main point (as far as I remember) is that there were
two systems that existed simultaneously: one the traditional
(counts raising a certain number of the free people,
usually small because equipment and maintenance were costly)
and another new (segniors raising their vassals). Only the
grandchildren of Charlemagne completely eliminated the old
system but, according to the Dreadful One, Charlemagne mostly
relied on the new one: it provided for more mobile and better
armed (but smaller) armies.
>
> We KNOW how he assembled them and how they were fed.
> There was no real problem with it.
Nope. Only with their numbers.
> >> I can gather that you
> >> are feeling better.
>
> >Ah, my dear Watson, this may actually mean many things, including the
> >fact that a permanent pain sharpened my brain. :-)
>
> That is NOT good. Having had long lasting (but not permanent)
> pain myself,
What happened to you?
>I know this from personal experience.
Hopefully, it will get better with the passage of time (I already can cough
without having a terrible pain in the side) but so far it is permanently
annoying.
>
>
> >> For that at least I am grateful.
>
> >Thanks, this is always nice to know.
>
> YOu are very welcome.
Thanks.
Soren Larsen
news:brtihr$7f4or$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de
> news:brsos2$4d6$6...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>> I'll agree if we limit this to landed societies. Nomadic ones
>> in which all men beyond a certain age are considered fighters
>> are another story. As we know they eventually overwhelmed
>> the western Roman Empire.
>>
>> On the other hand, Charlemagne seems to have been able to
>> put huge armies in the field.
>
> Not really. See his campaign against Widukind and the Saxons.
> He was able to put barely enough men for the task in the field;
> but "huge armies" ? Why wasn't Italy subdued ?
> Why did the war against the Saxons last that long ?
Every time Widukind was in trouble he got asylum in Denmark.
Saxony was a nice buffer to have between Denmark and Francia.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Alex
Of course, because the only thing these "simple folks" had been still
marginally useful for, was defense of a kingdom against the invasion,
not marching for a foreign conquest.
Remove the "folklore" from your description and you'll find yourself
dangerously close to the description given by the Dreadful One. :-)
> It would have made
> a better movie.
It already did a better book: you may read a description of the
militia given in "The Deluge". A different time and place (and not
exactly the "simple folks" but otherwise....) :-)
Oh, BTW, there is a GREAT movie of the same name, which you can easily
get in NY (but getting a copy with the English subtitles can be a
problem). Actually, this is the best "historic" movie I ever saw and
I saw a lot of them. Actually, if you did not read the book, read it:
it is much better than "Quo Vadis?" and quite comparable with
"3 Musketeers" in a degree of entertainment. In a process, you may
discover a completely new (for you :-) ) and very interesting piece
of history....
Paul J Gans
[...]
>Sorry, don't see logic in what you wrote. I did not use "worry" and, of
>course, they made their 'footprint'. Judging by yours numerous quotations,
>one of the specific features of these footprints is getting back to the
>pre-Dreadful's methods of the historic analysis.
No. What they do is look at far more data than was
known to Delbruck.
>>
>> Since your dislike of having books recommended to you
>> is well-known,
>Wrong, this is my dislike of spending considerable amount of money
>on the books recommended by you (on too many ocassions quotations from
>these books proved to be extremely ...er.... "entertaining"). This, however,
>has nothing to do with me respect to you personally.
This one is expensive and I'd not recommend it to anyone
for just that reason. Why such books are expensive is
beyond me, but that's another story.
>> I'll not do it, but I'll not summarize
>> hundreds of pages of evidence for you either. But I
>> will say this:
>>
>> The main idea is that Charlemagne did have the administrative
>> means to reach a very large portion of the free men in his
>> lands.
>Well, the Dreadful One dedicated a considerable volume to this particular
>issue. The problem was not an ability to reach these people but how to
>raise and maintain an army out of these people (BTW, he gave some interesting
>material regarding ability of a medieval administration to do the projections
>without a census).
But there was a census of a kind.
>> Let me put it to you this way: Would you believe
>> that the administrators of his lands would allow a large number
>> of people to NOT pay their taxes? Of course not. So
>> certainly there were ways of knowing who they were and where
>> they lived.
>>
>> Indeed, there seems to be evidence that many of the better
>> organized kings kept extensive documentation (like the
>> Domesday book in England) of the lands they controlled,
>> who owned what, and what they owed in tax money.
>As far as England is concerned, an attempt to make an estimate
>of the population at the time of Ed III overestimated it not
>by percentages but by times.
I do not think this is correct. The King and his ministers
knew almost to the penny what each and every landowner owed
him. And they knew how much scutage they should pay and they
made very sure to collect it.
>>
>> If you don't believe this, then explain how the taxes
>> were collected.
>>
>As usually, you drifted away of the practical issue of raising
>and maintaining an army....
No. It goes directly to the point of Charlemagne's being
able to raise a considerable body of troops. Since the
Carolingians (or Peppinids, if you wish) often had to
raise armies and since the tradition that free men were
fighting men had not died, they were able to do so.
And the quality of those men was at least as good as
the armies they went up against.
>Indeed.
I will post the promised summary of Bachrach's argument
in a few days. It will be long and nobody will read much
of it, but I will do it.
>>
>> We KNOW how he assembled them and how they were fed.
>> There was no real problem with it.
>Nope. Only with their numbers.
>> >> I can gather that you
>> >> are feeling better.
>>
>> >Ah, my dear Watson, this may actually mean many things, including the
>> >fact that a permanent pain sharpened my brain. :-)
>>
>> That is NOT good. Having had long lasting (but not permanent)
>> pain myself,
>What happened to you?
Strange and mysterious swelling of the leg with a large
amount of pain. It was not phlebitis or any other thing
anyone could find. It lasted for eight to ten weeks
during which time I was constantly irritable. And it
did NOT sharpen my brain.
>>I know this from personal experience.
>Hopefully, it will get better with the passage of time (I already can cough
>without having a terrible pain in the side) but so far it is permanently
>annoying.
This is good, because not being able to cough makes the
doctor upset. ;-)
>>
>>
>> >> For that at least I am grateful.
>>
>> >Thanks, this is always nice to know.
>>
>> YOu are very welcome.
>Thanks.
You are again welcome.
----- Paul J. Gans
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Sorry, don't see logic in what you wrote. I did not use "worry" and, of
> >course, they made their 'footprint'. Judging by yours numerous quotations,
> >one of the specific features of these footprints is getting back to the
> >pre-Dreadful's methods of the historic analysis.
>
> No. What they do is look at far more data than was
> known to Delbruck.
My impression is that enough data had been available at his time. The
problem, as in many cases, is in the method of analysis.
>
> >> I'll not do it, but I'll not summarize
> >> hundreds of pages of evidence for you either. But I
> >> will say this:
> >>
> >> The main idea is that Charlemagne did have the administrative
> >> means to reach a very large portion of the free men in his
> >> lands.
>
> >Well, the Dreadful One dedicated a considerable volume to this particular
> >issue. The problem was not an ability to reach these people but how to
> >raise and maintain an army out of these people (BTW, he gave some interesting
> >material regarding ability of a medieval administration to do the projections
> >without a census).
>
> But there was a census of a kind.
Judging by the Dreadful One, the 1st attempt to carry something like
a census had been made during the reign of Louis the Pious and it is
not even clear if this attempts went beyond drafting a law.
>
>
> >> Let me put it to you this way: Would you believe
> >> that the administrators of his lands would allow a large number
> >> of people to NOT pay their taxes? Of course not. So
> >> certainly there were ways of knowing who they were and where
> >> they lived.
> >>
> >> Indeed, there seems to be evidence that many of the better
> >> organized kings kept extensive documentation (like the
> >> Domesday book in England) of the lands they controlled,
> >> who owned what, and what they owed in tax money.
>
> >As far as England is concerned, an attempt to make an estimate
> >of the population at the time of Ed III overestimated it not
> >by percentages but by times.
>
> I do not think this is correct. The King and his ministers
> knew almost to the penny what each and every landowner owed
> him. And they knew how much scutage they should pay and they
> made very sure to collect it.
>
>
Quote from the Dreadful One: "When, in the reign of King Edward III, the
English parliament once decided to draw up a tax under a new method, it
assumed in its calculation of the amount to be received that the kingdom
had 40,000 parishes; later it turned out that there were not even 9,000.
The number of the knightly fiefs was estimated as 60,000 by some and as
32,000 by others, including the royal ministers; in reality, there was
not even 5,000. And this, as we shall see later, while England had a
real central administration; the Frankish Kingdom did not have a central
administration, so that it does not even provided us with estimates that
might serve as an example."
As a corroborating example from the other end of Europe, Novgorodian
Republic definitely had a well-working taxation system and, having a big
chunk of its population within a single city, should not have visible
problems with the head count. However, AFAIK, the 1st census had been
carried only in XIII century by the order of Khan Batu (the Mongols had
a simple taxation system based on a headcount). The very idea was completely
new and foreign to the population and conduct of the census (implemented by
the local Prince and boyars under Mongolian supervision) was accompanied
by a massive cheating, which resulted in a popular upraising.
As you probably know, in many places the local powers relied on the tax
farmers and "collective responsibility", not on the direct contact with the
individual taxpayers. Under such a system, you have only to have a very
general idea of how much a particular area can pay.
[]
Ah, THIS is the source? Well, somehow I don't expect to find the
boring details of the military logistics. :-)
> It will be long and nobody will read much
> of it, but I will do it.
The efforts are always appreciated. However (maybe I'm running ahead
of myself), unless he provided the detailed description of how the
armies of 40-50K operated, you may spare yourself an effort (as far as
I am concerned): the numbers, not confirmed by the operational details
are useless.
You see, for me it is rather simple (perhaps because I am not a professional
historian): if a system is described, it should be clear how this system
operated. In the case of an army, it should be clear how the campaigns
were conducted.
[]
> >> That is NOT good. Having had long lasting (but not permanent)
> >> pain myself,
>
> >What happened to you?
>
> Strange and mysterious swelling of the leg with a large
> amount of pain. It was not phlebitis or any other thing
> anyone could find. It lasted for eight to ten weeks
> during which time I was constantly irritable. And it
> did NOT sharpen my brain.
Could it be <whatever the English term> the disease from which almost
any "decent" person suffered in <MA - late XIX>? One coming out of
heaving eating too much meat and drinking too much of <whatever>?
Hopefully, you are OK now.
>
>
> >>I know this from personal experience.
>
> >Hopefully, it will get better with the passage of time (I already can cough
> >without having a terrible pain in the side) but so far it is permanently
> >annoying.
>
> This is good, because not being able to cough makes the
> doctor upset. ;-)
>
Well, it made me considerably more upset! And, anyway, doctor is interested
only in my leg. :-(
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bs5mmb$gvl$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
>> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Sorry, don't see logic in what you wrote. I did not use "worry" and, of
>> >course, they made their 'footprint'. Judging by yours numerous quotations,
>> >one of the specific features of these footprints is getting back to the
>> >pre-Dreadful's methods of the historic analysis.
>>
>> No. What they do is look at far more data than was
>> known to Delbruck.
>My impression is that enough data had been available at his time. The
>problem, as in many cases, is in the method of analysis.
We'll have to disagree on that.
>>
>> >> I'll not do it, but I'll not summarize
>> >> hundreds of pages of evidence for you either. But I
>> >> will say this:
>> >>
>> >> The main idea is that Charlemagne did have the administrative
>> >> means to reach a very large portion of the free men in his
>> >> lands.
>>
>> >Well, the Dreadful One dedicated a considerable volume to this particular
>> >issue. The problem was not an ability to reach these people but how to
>> >raise and maintain an army out of these people (BTW, he gave some interesting
>> >material regarding ability of a medieval administration to do the projections
>> >without a census).
>>
>> But there was a census of a kind.
>Judging by the Dreadful One, the 1st attempt to carry something like
>a census had been made during the reign of Louis the Pious and it is
>not even clear if this attempts went beyond drafting a law.
There is a common sense problem here. How do you think
a monestary knew which of its holdings owed what? How
do you think that a baron knew which of his holdings owed
what? And how did the count know who owed him what?
There have always been records. Most were treated as working
documents, which they were. Errors were constantly corrected
and new entries made. Most of the ones that have survived
are from monasteries -- with the exception of the Domesday
book. And by the way, where do you think William got that
idea?
I do not think that this is correct. It is an example
of what we now know as opposed to what Delbruck thought
he knew.
>As a corroborating example from the other end of Europe, Novgorodian
>Republic definitely had a well-working taxation system and, having a big
>chunk of its population within a single city, should not have visible
>problems with the head count. However, AFAIK, the 1st census had been
>carried only in XIII century by the order of Khan Batu (the Mongols had
>a simple taxation system based on a headcount). The very idea was completely
>new and foreign to the population and conduct of the census (implemented by
>the local Prince and boyars under Mongolian supervision) was accompanied
>by a massive cheating, which resulted in a popular upraising.
>As you probably know, in many places the local powers relied on the tax
>farmers and "collective responsibility", not on the direct contact with the
>individual taxpayers. Under such a system, you have only to have a very
>general idea of how much a particular area can pay.
No. The west did not rely on tax farmers to know about
how many knigt's fees were due, who owned which bit of land,
etc. There are tons of court cases showing that the central
government had records. This is true both in England and France.
The records became better over time. In Charlemagne's time
we do not know the actual extent of the records, but we can
judge by the results.
It is. But of course the details are controversial.
I do not have Timothy Reuter's arguments at hand, but
he took a different view.
The problem we are going to have is that you will accuse
me of taking Bachrach's silly arguments at face value.
I find that a difficult way to argue since what it does
is puts the blame on the reporter. Or have you forgotten
the bit about the swimming knight during the crusades?
A reputable historian quoted without comment a chronicle
entry that spoke of a knight swimming a stream. We may
assume from the context that he was armed.
I took a lot of heat over that and I've not really
forgotten it. I was called stupid and blamed for posting
it.
Since then I've been rather leery of getting involved
with some folks -- particularly those who do not like
my posting extracts that violate their preconceived
views of a situation.
I will repeat this once more. Most modern historians
appreciate what Delbruck did in debunking medieval
figures about army size and the like. They have
essentially universally claimed that he is now quite
out of date. If you don't like that, fine, but don't
take it up with me. Take it up with them.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about
Charlemagne and his armies. I'm only going to be
able to post enough to show the general thread of
the argument. The rest is up to folks who want
to learn more.
----- Paul J. Gans
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bs5mmb$gvl$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
> >> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >Sorry, don't see logic in what you wrote. I did not use "worry" and, of
> >> >course, they made their 'footprint'. Judging by yours numerous quotations,
> >> >one of the specific features of these footprints is getting back to the
> >> >pre-Dreadful's methods of the historic analysis.
> >>
> >> No. What they do is look at far more data than was
> >> known to Delbruck.
>
> >My impression is that enough data had been available at his time. The
> >problem, as in many cases, is in the method of analysis.
>
> We'll have to disagree on that.
If you are saying that method is not important, you are just confirming
my opinion regarding today's level of a research.
>
>
> >>
> >> >> I'll not do it, but I'll not summarize
> >> >> hundreds of pages of evidence for you either. But I
> >> >> will say this:
> >> >>
> >> >> The main idea is that Charlemagne did have the administrative
> >> >> means to reach a very large portion of the free men in his
> >> >> lands.
>
> >> >Well, the Dreadful One dedicated a considerable volume to this particular
> >> >issue. The problem was not an ability to reach these people but how to
> >> >raise and maintain an army out of these people (BTW, he gave some interesting
> >> >material regarding ability of a medieval administration to do the projections
> >> >without a census).
> >>
> >> But there was a census of a kind.
>
> >Judging by the Dreadful One, the 1st attempt to carry something like
> >a census had been made during the reign of Louis the Pious and it is
> >not even clear if this attempts went beyond drafting a law.
>
> There is a common sense problem here.
No, there is a problem of having census vs not having it. You can do
the headcount on the low levels (a single feudal household, a monastery)
but there was no well-working hierarchical system of information in which
this low level unit was obliged to pass the correct data to the higher
level(s) of a hierarchy.
A king would know how many castles duke X has but he would have a very
vague idea regarding the number of the duke's serfs.
[]
>
> >Quote from the Dreadful One: "When, in the reign of King Edward III, the
> >English parliament once decided to draw up a tax under a new method, it
> >assumed in its calculation of the amount to be received that the kingdom
> >had 40,000 parishes; later it turned out that there were not even 9,000.
> >The number of the knightly fiefs was estimated as 60,000 by some and as
> >32,000 by others, including the royal ministers; in reality, there was
> >not even 5,000. And this, as we shall see later, while England had a
> >real central administration; the Frankish Kingdom did not have a central
> >administration, so that it does not even provided us with estimates that
> >might serve as an example."
>
> I do not think that this is correct.
Nobody asks you to think in this particular case.
> It is an example
> of what we now know as opposed to what Delbruck thought
> he knew.
OK, show me the exact modern numbers applicable to this case. If you can't,
this will be a typical example of what I wrote earlier: badmouthing
Delbruck just to look "modern".
BTW, AFAIK, England at the time of Ed III did not have anything close
to 60,000 knights.
>
> >As a corroborating example from the other end of Europe, Novgorodian
> >Republic definitely had a well-working taxation system and, having a big
> >chunk of its population within a single city, should not have visible
> >problems with the head count. However, AFAIK, the 1st census had been
> >carried only in XIII century by the order of Khan Batu (the Mongols had
> >a simple taxation system based on a headcount). The very idea was completely
> >new and foreign to the population and conduct of the census (implemented by
> >the local Prince and boyars under Mongolian supervision) was accompanied
> >by a massive cheating, which resulted in a popular upraising.
> >As you probably know, in many places the local powers relied on the tax
> >farmers and "collective responsibility", not on the direct contact with the
> >individual taxpayers. Under such a system, you have only to have a very
> >general idea of how much a particular area can pay.
>
> No. The west did not rely on tax farmers to know about
> how many knigt's fees were due,
Of course. They had been telling to the tax farmers how much goverment
wants to get from the area. The rest was his problem.
> who owned which bit of land,
> etc. There are tons of court cases showing that the central
> government had records.
Which period are you talking about?
> This is true both in England and France.
>
Until proven otherwise, Delbruck's statement stays.
> The records became better over time. In Charlemagne's time
> we do not know the actual extent of the records, but we can
> judge by the results.
The problem is that we don't know the "results". We DO know that
he raised the armies strong enough to do his conquests. This tells
us very little about the records alledgedly held by the central
goverment.
[]
> >The efforts are always appreciated. However (maybe I'm running ahead
> >of myself), unless he provided the detailed description of how the
> >armies of 40-50K operated, you may spare yourself an effort (as far as
> >I am concerned): the numbers, not confirmed by the operational details
> >are useless.
>
> >You see, for me it is rather simple (perhaps because I am not a professional
> >historian): if a system is described, it should be clear how this system
> >operated. In the case of an army, it should be clear how the campaigns
> >were conducted.
>
> It is. But of course the details are controversial.
In the simple words, this probably means that the claims about the
armies 40-50K strong are not supported by any real evidience, that the
people who claim these numbers did not care about the military aspects
of C's campaigns, etc.
> I do not have Timothy Reuter's arguments at hand, but
> he took a different view.
Different from which one? Delbruck's or Bachrach's? Out of two of
them, Delbruck was a military historian of a world class. I never
heard about Bachrach being an authority in this particular area.
>
> The problem we are going to have is that you will accuse
> me of taking Bachrach's silly arguments at face value.
Well, nobody asks you to associate yourself with him. You may start
with something like: "Here is the crap written by Bachrach. Personally,
I consider his arguments as silly but, just for your enluightment..."
This would make your attitude completely clear. Or you can make the
comments where appropriate, indicating your disagreements with the
author.
> I find that a difficult way to argue since what it does
> is puts the blame on the reporter. Or have you forgotten
> the bit about the swimming knight during the crusades?
How can I forget this? The problem (for you) was that you started
with expressing your enthusiasm about this book and backpedalled
only when we started asking you the questions about the swimming'style.
:-)
>
> A reputable historian quoted without comment a chronicle
> entry
...written by a person who, IIRC, was not present at the event....
>that spoke of a knight swimming a stream. We may
> assume from the context that he was armed.
We may also assume that this "reputable historian" swallowed the whole
episode without bothering to think. IIRC, there were some other jewels
besides this swimming piece.
>
> I took a lot of heat over that and I've not really
> forgotten it. I was called stupid and blamed for posting
> it.
As far as the blame is concerned, it was definitely not by me because
the whole thing was extremely entertaining. :-)
>
> Since then I've been rather leery of getting involved
> with some folks -- particularly those who do not like
> my posting extracts that violate their preconceived
> views of a situation.
C'mon, DR is not around for quite a while and I, as I already said,
always appreciate a good entertainment.
>
> I will repeat this once more. Most modern historians
> appreciate what Delbruck did in debunking medieval
> figures about army size and the like. They have
> essentially universally claimed that he is now quite
> out of date.
... and returned to the old, debunked medieval figures, like
you did with the C's armies..... :-)
>If you don't like that, fine, but don't
> take it up with me. Take it up with them.
>
I'm not taking it with you unless you are defending these figures.
If you are saying "here they are and I don't give a s--t one way
or another", it's one thing. If you are defending them, it's another
story.
Argument "most of .... think" is of no interest to me. I'm not a
professional historian, and "most of ....." thought that the Soviet
Union is the best place to be. So you know what I think about the
majority's opinion. :-)
> I'm not going to get into a debate with you about
> Charlemagne and his armies.
[Jumping up and down..... on one leg, of course]
Hurrah! Hurrah! 5-10 thousands! 5-10 thousands! 5-10 thousands!
> I'm only going to be
> able to post enough to show the general thread of
> the argument.
In other words, tell us how many columns C's army formed during
a campaign? :-)
>The rest is up to folks who want
> to learn more.
I can't wait to be enlightened. But I am confused: do you consider this
argument correct or will print it just to show the wrongfulness of the
B's ways?
Michael Kuettner
Aaaarghh, that should have read :
"....,it's worthless for my purposes."
My pet theory :
The widening of the Frankia brought an enormous strain on
the Romanized parts of the empire; because there was the
only pool for administrators (both civil and military).
There existed "public" schools, eg., which collapsed at
the time of Louis the Pious (Ludwid der Fromme) who forbade
non-clerics to enter the schools because he needed better-
educated clergy.
My guess is that the closing of schools to the public was the result of
a few generations' errors.
Just educate them enough to spread the word (with too few exceptions)
and then you lack educators for your educators.
The Franks _clearly knew_ the need of a _common_ administration
although they alllowed separate laws. See also their standardization
of measurements and currency.
They also (esp. Karl / Charles) clearly knew the need for a better
infrastructure (eg. "Fossa Karolinae").
There are hints everywhere; but why they failed in the end
(too little cash, too few (manpower) ressources or something else)
I don't know.
It can't be the non-primogeniture (look how Kallemagne got rid of
his brother).
Maybe it was the language ?
I just have too little data (but who hasn't) ;-)
That's why I'd like to hear about Bachrachs's figures and sources.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bs427t$9pi$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
Careful here, Uwe !
My argument was about _his_ lands; that's _not_ the same as _Frankian_
lands.
That's why I've mentioned Britain after 1066; there all the land belonged
to the
king; but not in the Frankia.
> The slavic contigent in the Saxon wars was important enough to be awarded
> settlement rights in former saxon areas, compare the slavic castel of
> Hollenstedt west of the Elbe river.
>
All fine and well, but besides the point.
Btw, I've found a book about Slavic Caranthania (Kärnten) in my library;
some nice data in there. Mail me if you're looking for details.
<snip>
> > We've been throught this before.
> > You're right about "nobility"; I should have written "free men" and
> > holders of office like duces (there was _some_ nobility back even then,
> > but let's take that to a different thread).
> > _BUT_ : That's beside my point.
> > How many _could_ show up there for a little war ?
> > Many from (nowadays) France.
> > Few from the eastern borders.
> > Does Bachrach cover this differences ?
>
> I don't know the book in questions, but which borders do you mean? Those
of
> the frankish heartland? They were covered by neighbouring tribes, that
had
> been subdued. And sending off these tribes to fight the frankish wars,
> relieved the frankish borders from pressure, if there was any.
>
I mean the borders of the Frankish empire in the times of KalleMagne.
That's the time we're arguing about ;-)
And what do you mean by "sending off other tribes to fight the wars" ?
Karl would have been bloody stupid to assemble a Langobardian
army (and equipping it with Bavarian leaders) !
There were _contingents_ of newly incorporated tribes; but never
armies.
> So it must have been the outlying border of the slavs, Thuringians, etc.
> AFAIR slavs fought on both sides in the Saxon wars. So the Danes could
> indeed work pressure on the borders of the frankophil slavs or at least
aid
> also those, who would oppose them. Remember animal style decorations on
> weapons or weapon belts coming from Scandinavia and being found from
> Alamannia to Britain.
>
Now wait a minute; there was no Alamannia under Karl.
The Alamannes were part of the Frankian empire.
I just don't get your point here; we're talking about Charlemagne's times.
> Charles versus Widukind, Franks against Saxons, that sounds like the
> Hollywood version of the story. In reality it would have been something
more
> like a christian league fighting a heathen one. And many people inbetween
> settling old bills, trying to acquire land of their own, or just thinking
of
> having a good time away from home.
>
Not really.
"Deus Io Vult" was older than the crusades ....
Did you know that Cyril and Method were imprisoned in Salzburg ?
"Eastern" vs. "Western" Christianization.
Cheers,
Michal Kuettner
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
You will. But I need to take a bit of time with this. It
not only means mining an entire book but then I'll have to
organize it in some way.
And right now I'm a bit distracted by end-of-the-year events.
(Indeed, at the moment I've seemed to have acquired a houseful
of grandchildren... :-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Michael Siemon
> And right now I'm a bit distracted by end-of-the-year events.
> (Indeed, at the moment I've seemed to have acquired a houseful
> of grandchildren... :-)
Enjoy. Grandchildren are great fun -- especially since they
go away, usually before becoming _too_ tedious...
Uwe Müller
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bsall4$atk3h$3...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
That's why I wrote 'You seem to have forgotten...'
Can You give numbers for what percentage of his army were actually raised on
his lands? And why did you mention border duties, were there borders near
his lands that he had to guard?
> That's why I've mentioned Britain after 1066; there all the land belonged
> to the
> king; but not in the Frankia.
>
What ever the powers of the Frankian kings were, they were sure to be
leaders of the frankian army and head of the troops send by others.
>
> > The slavic contigent in the Saxon wars was important enough to be
awarded
> > settlement rights in former saxon areas, compare the slavic castel of
> > Hollenstedt west of the Elbe river.
> >
> All fine and well, but besides the point.
Is there any campaign he has fought with only troops from his own lands?
> Btw, I've found a book about Slavic Caranthania (Kärnten) in my library;
> some nice data in there. Mail me if you're looking for details.
> <snip>
> > > We've been throught this before.
> > > You're right about "nobility"; I should have written "free men" and
> > > holders of office like duces (there was _some_ nobility back even
then,
> > > but let's take that to a different thread).
> > > _BUT_ : That's beside my point.
> > > How many _could_ show up there for a little war ?
> > > Many from (nowadays) France.
> > > Few from the eastern borders.
> > > Does Bachrach cover this differences ?
> >
> > I don't know the book in questions, but which borders do you mean? Those
> of
> > the frankish heartland? They were covered by neighbouring tribes, that
> had
> > been subdued. And sending off these tribes to fight the frankish wars,
> > relieved the frankish borders from pressure, if there was any.
> >
> I mean the borders of the Frankish empire in the times of KalleMagne.
> That's the time we're arguing about ;-)
Someone mentioned Britain post 1066 :-)
If you are talking about the frankian empire, the borders would have been to
far away to need securing by Karls household troops (people raised and
trained on his own land). If we are talking about the frankish 'tribe', the
borders were pretty secure after having beaten everybody else that had been
around, Alamannes, Saxons, Slavs, Awars, just to mention a few.
Are you talking about inner-frankish opposition?
> And what do you mean by "sending off other tribes to fight the wars" ?
> Karl would have been bloody stupid to assemble a Langobardian
> army (and equipping it with Bavarian leaders) !
> There were _contingents_ of newly incorporated tribes; but never
> armies.
Come on, that is picking on definitions. They were allowed to live by their
own laws, ruled by their own nobility but had to ask if they wanted to go to
war on their own. Nobody would give a damn if they were attacked by a
contigent instead of an army, the results were the same, and training and
logistics didn't change either.
>
> > So it must have been the outlying border of the slavs, Thuringians, etc.
> > AFAIR slavs fought on both sides in the Saxon wars. So the Danes could
> > indeed work pressure on the borders of the frankophil slavs or at least
> aid
> > also those, who would oppose them. Remember animal style decorations on
> > weapons or weapon belts coming from Scandinavia and being found from
> > Alamannia to Britain.
> >
> Now wait a minute; there was no Alamannia under Karl.
> The Alamannes were part of the Frankian empire.
AFAIR no, they were a separate kingdom, with the Frankian king being also
the Alamannian king. So they would muster Alamannian troops (a contigent if
you prefer) according to Alamannian laws but they would act according to
what Karl had planned.
> I just don't get your point here; we're talking about Charlemagne's times.
>
Right, and there are finds that hint at frankish influence far outside the
frankish lands or the frankish empire (Old Luebeck, the slavic castle/urban
centre, was rebuilt in frankish style, there are remains of frankish weapons
there, I would believe in frankish 'military advisors' being present). And
finds that hint at scandinavian influence have been made from Britain to
Alamannia.
Is there any reason to believe these lands, and other territories, were inte
grated into the frankish territories? No. But frankish and scandinavian
leaders played a decisive role in who would take leadership there, and they
acted as judges on inner slavic troubles.
Would slavic troops have been led to battle by frankish officers? No, they
wouldn't understand each other, they were led by slavic noblemen. But these
in turn had to answer Karls demands, they would have been hold responsible
for paying the taxes as well.
So, it all depends on how you define the frankish empire.
> > Charles versus Widukind, Franks against Saxons, that sounds like the
> > Hollywood version of the story. In reality it would have been something
> more
> > like a christian league fighting a heathen one. And many people
inbetween
> > settling old bills, trying to acquire land of their own, or just
thinking
> of
> > having a good time away from home.
> >
> Not really.
> "Deus Io Vult" was older than the crusades ....
> Did you know that Cyril and Method were imprisoned in Salzburg ?
> "Eastern" vs. "Western" Christianization.
Right, more specific 'papal, catholic christendom' against everybody else.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
erilar
Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Yes, this is one of the advantages of grandchildren over the intervening
generation as children 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as too many books. Bookshelves, on the other hand . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Paul J Gans
That is certainly true. Indeed, they've already gone on
to visit in-laws. But they left their large black lab
behind. And he's been my buddy for years.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
Please read the whole of the post _before_ you start replying.
I think we mean the same (but that isn't obvious to our international
members of this chatroom ;-))
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bsbqjn$7hu$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
No, you still don't get the point.
The point was about _his_ lands; ie. his _personal army_ from
_his own_ lands.
Show me _one single document_ which stated that the Frankia was
the _personal property_ of Karl.
There is none; and that was the point.
All of Britain became the _personal property_ of Willy the Bastard after
the conquest; thusly Britain became _his_ land.
That wasn't the case in the Frankia.
We must never forget that this is an international forum ;-)
> Can You give numbers for what percentage of his army were actually raised
on
> his lands? And why did you mention border duties, were there borders near
> his lands that he had to guard?
>
The border duties were part of the _empire_, not _his_ lands.
That's why I've objected to the use of "his army".
> > That's why I've mentioned Britain after 1066; there all the land
belonged
> > to the
> > king; but not in the Frankia.
> >
>
> What ever the powers of the Frankian kings were, they were sure to be
> leaders of the frankian army and head of the troops send by others.
>
Of course.
But don't confuse Karls's personal troups with the _army of the Frankia_ !
> >
> > > The slavic contigent in the Saxon wars was important enough to be
> awarded
> > > settlement rights in former saxon areas, compare the slavic castel of
> > > Hollenstedt west of the Elbe river.
> > >
> > All fine and well, but besides the point.
>
> Is there any campaign he has fought with only troops from his own lands?
>
NO !
And that was my point.
We agree.
See above.
Difference between _his_ army and the army of the _Frankia_.
> If you are talking about the frankian empire, the borders would have been
to
> far away to need securing by Karls household troops (people raised and
> trained on his own land).
Exactly.
Thanks for making my point for me.
> If we are talking about the frankish 'tribe', the
> borders were pretty secure after having beaten everybody else that had
been
> around, Alamannes, Saxons, Slavs, Awars, just to mention a few.
> Are you talking about inner-frankish opposition?
>
No, I'm talking of inner-_Frankian_ opposition.
The Frankia was the empire; the Franks were the ruling tribe.
> > And what do you mean by "sending off other tribes to fight the wars" ?
> > Karl would have been bloody stupid to assemble a Langobardian
> > army (and equipping it with Bavarian leaders) !
> > There were _contingents_ of newly incorporated tribes; but never
> > armies.
>
> Come on, that is picking on definitions.
Exactly.
But we have to pick our definitions rather carefully to avoid confusion.
Especially, since this forum here is mostly versed in the mores of the
BT; our discussion is a little exotic ;-)
> They were allowed to live by their
> own laws, ruled by their own nobility but had to ask if they wanted to go
to
> war on their own. Nobody would give a damn if they were attacked by a
> contigent instead of an army, the results were the same, and training and
> logistics didn't change either.
>
Don't agree here (with "training and logistics didn't change").
They _had_ to change to be of use to the _kernel_ of Karl's
army, the "Panzerreiter".
I don't need some axe-fighters going berserk stumble in the way of my
main cavalry charge, for instance.
About the laws : Yes, mostly. No disagreement here.
Just about _his_ army (see above, again).
> >
> > > So it must have been the outlying border of the slavs, Thuringians,
etc.
> > > AFAIR slavs fought on both sides in the Saxon wars. So the Danes
could
> > > indeed work pressure on the borders of the frankophil slavs or at
least
> > aid
> > > also those, who would oppose them. Remember animal style decorations
on
> > > weapons or weapon belts coming from Scandinavia and being found from
> > > Alamannia to Britain.
> > >
> > Now wait a minute; there was no Alamannia under Karl.
> > The Alamannes were part of the Frankian empire.
>
> AFAIR no, they were a separate kingdom, with the Frankian king being also
> the Alamannian king. So they would muster Alamannian troops (a contigent
if
> you prefer) according to Alamannian laws but they would act according to
> what Karl had planned.
>
No.
KING'S LAW _ALWAYS_ broke tribal law _IF_ the king was strong enough.
See what happened to the Bavarians after Tassilo.
Their law _explicitly_ forbade a king from outside their tribe. they still
got
one although they had their own law inside the Frankia.
> > I just don't get your point here; we're talking about Charlemagne's
times.
> >
>
> Right, and there are finds that hint at frankish influence far outside
the
> frankish lands or the frankish empire (Old Luebeck, the slavic
castle/urban
> centre, was rebuilt in frankish style, there are remains of frankish
weapons
> there, I would believe in frankish 'military advisors' being present).
And
> finds that hint at scandinavian influence have been made from Britain to
> Alamannia.
>
AGAIN : FRANKIA doesen't equal FRANKISH.
> Is there any reason to believe these lands, and other territories, were
inte
> grated into the frankish territories? No. But frankish and scandinavian
> leaders played a decisive role in who would take leadership there, and
they
> acted as judges on inner slavic troubles.
>
> Would slavic troops have been led to battle by frankish officers? No,
they
> wouldn't understand each other, they were led by slavic noblemen. But
these
> in turn had to answer Karls demands, they would have been hold
responsible
> for paying the taxes as well.
>
Exactly.
They were part of the Frankian (not Frankish) army.
My point all along.
> So, it all depends on how you define the frankish empire.
>
You just call it the Frankia.
;-)
>
> > > Charles versus Widukind, Franks against Saxons, that sounds like the
> > > Hollywood version of the story. In reality it would have been
something
> > more
> > > like a christian league fighting a heathen one. And many people
> inbetween
> > > settling old bills, trying to acquire land of their own, or just
> thinking
> > of
> > > having a good time away from home.
> > >
> > Not really.
> > "Deus Io Vult" was older than the crusades ....
> > Did you know that Cyril and Method were imprisoned in Salzburg ?
> > "Eastern" vs. "Western" Christianization.
>
> Right, more specific 'papal, catholic christendom' against everybody
else.
>
Except for some nit-pickings and a clean-up of definitions, we seem to
have the same opinion.
The problem seems to be the misunderstanding of the terms
"Frankish" and "Frankian".
And the misunderstanding about _his_ and _Frankian_ army.
Of course the household troops were the kernel of the army as a
whole. But even those weren't raised from _his_ lands (wholly).
In contrast, the troops of the English king were raised from _his_
lands after 1066. That was my point.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Uwe Müller
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bsl6k4$e14ik$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi, Uwe !
>
> Please read the whole of the post _before_ you start replying.
> I think we mean the same (but that isn't obvious to our international
> members of this chatroom ;-))
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:bsbqjn$7hu$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:bsall4$atk3h$3...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:bs427t$9pi$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > > news:bs2msa$8u00i$5...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > > > news:bs0hf5$me$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > > > > > Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > > > > >news:f8e58188.03121...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > >> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:<brtihr$7f4or$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > > >> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > > > > >>
snip >
> No, you still don't get the point.
> The point was about _his_ lands; ie. his _personal army_ from
> _his own_ lands.
> Show me _one single document_ which stated that the Frankia was
> the _personal property_ of Karl.
> There is none; and that was the point.
> All of Britain became the _personal property_ of Willy the Bastard after
> the conquest; thusly Britain became _his_ land.
Except for Scotland, Wales, etc. , so we're down to England. Did he own all
of England personally? Did he own it as property of his family? Did he own
it as head of a lineage? AFAIK the existing patterns of land use were not
changed. The conditions for that land use would, if Your theory were true,
have to have been changed right after 1066 to some standard contract.
If it was not changed, then I would think that merely one party changed in a
contract, not the contract itself. I could be wrong there.
> That wasn't the case in the Frankia.
> We must never forget that this is an international forum ;-)
It does look like we have discussed different topics, in the same thread as
well.
I was giving some comments on the notion of the possible size of K.'s army,
the number of men he could or has called up for military action. I was not
concerned with the background of these people, wether they might have been
of K.'s family, lineage, tribe, or whatever. And I was not concerned with
the legal status, wether they were incorporated into Frankia, the Frankian
empire, the Frankish empire, or only attached to K., Frankia, the Frankish
empire etc.
> snip >
> > > And what do you mean by "sending off other tribes to fight the wars" ?
> > > Karl would have been bloody stupid to assemble a Langobardian
> > > army (and equipping it with Bavarian leaders) !
> > > There were _contingents_ of newly incorporated tribes; but never
> > > armies.
> >
> > Come on, that is picking on definitions.
>
> Exactly.
> But we have to pick our definitions rather carefully to avoid confusion.
> Especially, since this forum here is mostly versed in the mores of the
> BT; our discussion is a little exotic ;-)
Well, then, where do You see anything pertaining to an 'incorporation' of
tribes, wether into a frankian empire or army? The Hollenstedt meeting,
AFAIR as it is mentioned in the sources, does not treat the slavic leaders
as incorporated contigent, but as an ally.
>
> > They were allowed to live by their
> > own laws, ruled by their own nobility but had to ask if they wanted to
go
> to
> > war on their own. Nobody would give a damn if they were attacked by a
> > contigent instead of an army, the results were the same, and training
and
> > logistics didn't change either.
> >
> Don't agree here (with "training and logistics didn't change").
There is nothing to hint at the presence of frankish istructors, officers or
whatever, as a regular feature of slavic castles. Quite the contrary, the
few instances where such an influence becomes obvious seem to show some sort
of connection only between the leadership, not the people.
> They _had_ to change to be of use to the _kernel_ of Karl's
> army, the "Panzerreiter".
If You accept riding equipment and longswords as remnants of some sort of
cavalry, they had those as well. And the numbers of any army of this time
were
made up of infantry. So the problems of coordinating the troops were the
same to every one, no matter if the leader was Frankish, Scandinavian,
Slavic, or whatever.
> I don't need some axe-fighters going berserk stumble in the way of my
> main cavalry charge, for instance.
But that is the reality of battle, you can find it right back to Homer. Of
course nobody liked it. Would giving those berserkers frankish officers
help? And how long would they survive in 9th c. Slavia, Saxony or Denmark?
> snip >
> > > Now wait a minute; there was no Alamannia under Karl.
> > > The Alamannes were part of the Frankian empire.
I think I don't like Your defintion of Frankian empire. The military basis
of public organization did not change all that much. And basis for that was,
in Alamannia, the Lex Alamanorum, not the Lex Salica. The people, their laws
and the country were still called Alamannia.
> >
> > AFAIR no, they were a separate kingdom, with the Frankian king being
also
> > the Alamannian king. So they would muster Alamannian troops (a contigent
> if
> > you prefer) according to Alamannian laws but they would act according to
> > what Karl had planned.
> >
> No.
> KING'S LAW _ALWAYS_ broke tribal law _IF_ the king was strong enough.
I'd rather not mix up generalizations (laws) with actions, that a strong
king could do, despite them.
> snip >
> > So, it all depends on how you define the frankish empire.
> >
> You just call it the Frankia.
> ;-)
Calling it names is just childish ;-)
> snip >
>
> Except for some nit-pickings and a clean-up of definitions, we seem to
> have the same opinion.
> The problem seems to be the misunderstanding of the terms
> "Frankish" and "Frankian".
> And the misunderstanding about _his_ and _Frankian_ army.
> Of course the household troops were the kernel of the army as a
> whole. But even those weren't raised from _his_ lands (wholly).
> In contrast, the troops of the English king were raised from _his_
> lands after 1066. That was my point.
I wonder how those legalistic differences would show up in the reality of
9th c. Europe.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
David Read
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message > Until proven otherwise,
<much snippage - regular contributors should have no trouble
identifying whih lines are those of Paul Gans and which are those of
Alex Milman.>
Hmm....
Paul not only likes new books on medieval military history, (although
sometimes he fails to understand what he has read - his citing of John
France as support for his bizarre *slings not crossbows at Hastings
theory* for example) but he also particularly enjoys rewriting s.h.m.
history, usually because he has failed to understand or remember what
other people have written.
Of course, Alex, Paul *might* not have meant DR in his silly little
diatribe above but who cares?
A new book from Guy Halsall, _Warfare and Society in the Barbarian
West, 450-900_ has lots of lovely stuff that Kalamazoo types won't
much like. Guy Halsall, as some readers may recall, has been quoted by
me in the past on s.h.m., and, more importantly, endorsed by Jonathan
Jarrett, a one-time s.h.m contributor, and former pupil of Guy
Halsall, and one of the proof readers for this book. Indeed, John
France himself says of the book, 'This is an extremely important book.
Guy Halsall masters the subject with great authority.'
For those who are unaware, or who have forgotten, Guy Halsall is a
great critic of much of Bernard Bachrach's work on early medieval
warfare.
Here's Halsall on Bachrach and Delbruck:
In more recent years, Bernard S. Bachrach has argued that early
medieval
armies could be very large indeed, perhaps even reaching 100,000
men in the
field at the same time, if not in the same army. Although Bachrach
proclaimed his opinion to represent the orthodoxy on the subject in
the late
1990's, this is far from being the case. Where early medieval
historians
express a view on the matter, the consensus appears to be in much
the same
area as Verbruggen and Brooks left it, with armies in the low
thousands.
Clearly, however, there is much room for debate. p. 120
In a previous footnote, Halsall observes:
B.S. Bachrach, 'Early medieval military demography: some
observations on the
methods of Hans Delbruck', in Donald J. Kagay and L.J. Andrew
Villalon
(eds.) _The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval
Military and
Naval History_ (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 3-20, unconvincingly
attempts to
reject Delbruck's methodology, which, ironically, in spite of its
age
remains far more solid than Bachrach's own. p.268
_Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450-900_. Routledge 2003,
ISBN 0 415 23940 0
As one might expect with Halsall, there is much more of the same,
closely argued and well-informed critiques of Bachrach's various
analyses.
Much as I would like to continue his debate with anyone who is
interested, I fear that I shall be unable to do so for some while, and
will be able to devote but little time to s.h.m. However, it is always
worthwhile reminding gentle readers that there is more modern medieval
military scholarship out there besides that which has been written by
the personal friends and acquaintances of Paul Gans, more besides that
which is presented at annual Kalamazoo conferences, and more besides
that which is discussed on other well-known electronic forums.
cheers,
David Read
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message > Until proven otherwise,
>
I'm REALLY HAPPY to see you back!
> >
> > C'mon, DR is not around for quite a while and I, as I already said,
> > always appreciate a good entertainment.
>
> Hmm....
Well, this was a "forlorn hope" attempt to get you back into the discussion.
Unlike most of the attempts of this type, my was successful (or was it a
pure luck?). :-)
>
> Paul not only likes new books on medieval military history, (although
> sometimes he fails to understand what he has read - his citing of John
> France as support for his bizarre *slings not crossbows at Hastings
> theory* for example) but he also particularly enjoys rewriting s.h.m.
> history, usually because he has failed to understand or remember what
> other people have written.
>
> Of course, Alex, Paul *might* not have meant DR in his silly little
> diatribe above but who cares?
Ah, a New Year is coming so I hope that we will be able to sort these things
out in a peaceful spirit of a true comradership. :-)
Which means that they left the Dreadful's asessments more or less intact
(less than 10K, mostly 4-6K).
> Clearly, however, there is much room for debate. p. 120
>
> In a previous footnote, Halsall observes:
>
> B.S. Bachrach, 'Early medieval military demography: some
> observations on the
> methods of Hans Delbruck', in Donald J. Kagay and L.J. Andrew
> Villalon
> (eds.) _The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval
> Military and
> Naval History_ (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 3-20, unconvincingly
> attempts to
> reject Delbruck's methodology, which, ironically, in spite of its
> age
> remains far more solid than Bachrach's own. p.268
>
> _Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450-900_. Routledge 2003,
> ISBN 0 415 23940 0
>
> As one might expect with Halsall, there is much more of the same,
> closely argued and well-informed critiques of Bachrach's various
> analyses.
>
> Much as I would like to continue his debate with anyone who is
> interested, I fear that I shall be unable to do so for some while, and
> will be able to devote but little time to s.h.m.
Now, this is a pity.
>However, it is always
> worthwhile reminding gentle readers that there is more modern medieval
> military scholarship out there besides that which has been written by
> the personal friends and acquaintances of Paul Gans, more besides that
> which is presented at annual Kalamazoo conferences, and more besides
> that which is discussed on other well-known electronic forums.
Well, to be fair, Paul wrote that he does not necessarily backs the
Bachrach's arguments.
Paul J Gans
Thank you. That is correct. I even mentioned some
people who disagreed. I did not mention Guy Halsall.
And by the way, John France is one of the folks who
has hung out at Kalamazoo. A rather nice fellow. But
I hope that my having met him does not lower him in
anyone's esteem.
---- Paul J. Gans