Yet the techniques for achieving this cohesion have been relatively ignored by military historians more concerned with operational results. The risks of disorganized pursuit were also frequently demonstrated alike by Magyar and Muslim horsemen, Welsh and Prussian peasants.4Ĭohesion, in short, became an increasingly important element of medieval armed forces. They were correspondingly concerned with being able to move formed bodies of men from place to place in a hurry. Medieval commanders were by no means indifferent to the problems and opportunities posed by flanks. Tactical considerations reinforced strategic factors in making high demands on the solidarity and flexibility of field forces. High levels of patience, cunning, and discipline were required to achieve even limited ends-not least to prevent operations from degenerating into mutual self-destruction through mutual plundering.3 Warfare had become too complex, too sophisticated, and too low-key to be sustained effectively by temporarily assembled bands of agonistic heroes. This attritional model in turn highlighted the familiar limita–tions of feudal levies: short service and organizational entropy. Medieval warfare therefore tended towards a process of small-scale maneuvers, raids, and skirmishes based on regional networks of forti–fications. An enemy defeated in the field was likely to escape decisive consequences by withdrawing behind defenses whose reduction involved massive expenses of time and effort. Large-scale battles were exceptional because of their risk-a risk enhanced by the high development of the science of fortification. Like the twentieth-century British marshal, no medieval commander could afford to lose men heedlessly. Even Richard the Lion-Hearted is now presented as a strategist comparable to Bernard Law Montgomery-a juxtaposition not necessarily favoring the latter! 2 The parallel reflects the high cost of medieval armies relative to a given political system’s mobilizable resources. The image made familiar by Ferdinand Lot and Sir Charles Oman, of medieval warfare as featuring limited discipline, simple tactics, and no strategy at all, has given way to a growing appreciation of the complexity of military operations between the eighth and the sixteenth centuries.1 More and more medieval leaders are emerging from the shadows of romance as solid, competent captains. The Middle Ages were characterized by growing institutional sophistication, and nowhere was this more apparent than the craft of war. Caste, Skill, and Training: The Evolution of Cohesion in European Armies from the Middle Ages to the Sixteenth Century
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |