Unit abstraction?

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Arralen:
To stirr up the discussion again:

Runciman claims that the East Roman Empire had a force of sixty thousand cavalry stationed on the Syrian frontier during the first half of the eleventh century. (Runciman, p 62)

"..to insist that the frontal cavalry charge was the sole tactical expedient of feudal generals is to ignore the evidence that can be found about literally scores of engagements" (p 251)

Stationed full time? Sounds odd. Are you sure he's not talking about the total number of mounted in the border Themes? The Byzantines during this period kept there cavalry back from the border to attack raiders as they attempted to get away with their loot. In general Runciman should be taken seriously and the Byzantince armies had huge numbers of mounted in an army which relied heavily on its mounted but still had good foot - wasn't a feudal one either obviously. While Byzantium had features of feudalism it is more analogous to Rome.

This other dude(s) seems to be overdressing his case - of course the mounted charge wasn't the sole expediant but who suggests it was? Whats the battle where the William the Conquerors son Henry beats his borther Robert by dismounting the Knights to form a front line to ther foot and is able to repulse the Norman knights charge? [edit thats Technebrai (sp?) I think - remember Technebria become the Saxons response the the Normans cry of remember Hastings.] Revenge for Senlac (Hastings) was the cry from the Saxon (becoming English) foot having beaten the Normans second time round even if this time they were ruled by one of them.

I agree with the depiction of the general low level of feudal military capability/competence and the scrapiness of their warfare but most Feudal armies had their most important elements mounted - Konradins at Tagliacozza was entirely made up of mounted - and many feudal battles were decided by knight charges and this certainly goes for most during the first crusade. Suggesting Knights were almost always kept in reserve is gross exageration and I could bore you with many accounts of feudal battles to show this to be the case. The bottom line is feudal armies varied enormously in make up from French and Normans with large amounts of Knights in some periods to Germans who used alot of foot yet still fielded an entirely mounted army at Tagliacoza. Some Spanish armies relied heavily on their above average (for the period) foot while others were mounted for speed of raiding. It depends what you are up to when you stumble into battle.

In truth feudalism is such a period of military ignorance (hell general ignorance) and stupidity that fashion and bigotry played more of a role than sense in most Generals calculations and very few Generals had a clue how to fight a large battle - which for them meant more than 1000. Bunch of ignorant, thugish, brutes the nobility but man were they staunch in the charge - almost the only thing useful they knew how to do on the battle field. I would certainly argue strongly that the charge is the central, and almost only, weapon of most Knights once on the battle field and their enitire trainging (the whole Quitain thing) was based on making them succeed at the moment of impact. Trouble is most of their leaders were so incompetent that getting the charge in could prove difficult - without Bohemond (a rare smart one)to save them the First Crusade would have failed.

Arsuf was not actually a set piece battle in the classic sense its more an attack on a marching force. That Richard did so well is a testement to his strength of character even if he was a big headed, lying, murdering, utter bastard. Richard is actually responsible for some of the worst Crusader atrocities and has been seen as one of the reasons the Saracans turned their back on Chivilrous behaviour towards the defeated (other than miltary order who they killed out of hand for good reasons). Previously a fair element of decorum had existed in delaing with prisoners who were not religous nutters.

Cheers

Keir

[ January 16, 2004, 22:12: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

[Keir Maxwell]

Another point on Feudal armies.

In many ways the only way to get a really good feel for the role of Knights on the battle field is there interaction with other cultures with more sane military traditions and thus somewhat less chaotic insane, accidental battles. Its the accounts of the Arabs and Byznatines that have lead military writers to place great weight on the role of the Knights charge as this was the thing the enemies of Knights feared and why Knights turn up all over the place as mercenaries. Knights were the best shock weapons of the period and Byzantine and Arab sources make this very clear.

Who has seen the Rohan hit the Orcish line in the Movie the Return of the King? The most inspiring depiction (indeed the only detailed one) of mounted hitting foot I have ever seen and boy did they trample them. Think about the training at the Quitain on this one and you will understand knights much better - flinch and you lose is what the Quitain teaches and Knights learnt this over and over agian in the becoming of a Knight.

The difficulty is that charging mounted only trampled foot who didn't maintain their nerve and also had the capability to form a solid wall. No idea how to represent this in dom at this point but including push backs would be a big step forward.

cheers

Keir

[ January 16, 2004, 20:53: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]