Tactics of the Middle Ages. A brief overview of the armies of the Middle Ages The number of armies of the Middle Ages

The composition of the dry rations of the European armies now resembles the menu of a good restaurant. In the Middle Ages, the diet of a fighter was much more brutal.

"Evil War" - this is how winter campaigns were called in the Middle Ages. The army was critically dependent on the weather and food supplies. If the enemy captured the convoy with food, the soldiers in enemy territory were doomed. Therefore, large campaigns began after the harvest, but before heavy rains - otherwise the carts and siege engines would get bogged down in the mud.

"An army marches while its stomach is full" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

French engraving from the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453). Source: Wikipedia

During World War II, the daily allowance of the soldiers of the Red Army was to include 800 g of rye bread (900 g from October to March), 500 g of potatoes, 320 g of other vegetables, 170 g of cereals and pasta, 150 g of meat, 100 g of fish, 30 g combined fat or fat, 20 g vegetable oil, 35 g sugar. Total according to the documents - 3450 calories. At the forefront, the diet could change significantly.

Wartime diet

In order for a soldier on a campaign to take off and hang packs on a horse, push a wagon, swing an ax, carry stakes and put up tents, he needed up to 5,000 calories. No food - no army. Therefore, with a successful campaign, the soldiers ate better than most medieval estates.

Today, 3,000 calories are considered the norm for a man with an active lifestyle.

Each day was allocated up to 1 kilogram of good bread and 400 grams of salted or smoked meat. The supply of "live canned food" - several dozen heads of cattle - was slaughtered in a critical situation or to raise morale before an important battle. In this case, they ate everything, right down to the entrails and tails, from which they cooked porridges and soups. The constant use of crackers causes diarrhea, so the dried bread was thrown there, into the common cauldron.

Pepper, saffron, dried fruits and honey were given to the sick and wounded. The rest seasoned the food with onions, garlic, vinegar, less often mustard. In the north of Europe, the fighters were also given lard or ghee, in the south - olive oil. There was almost always cheese on the table.

The medieval soldier's diet was supplemented by salted herring or cod, dried river fish. All this was washed down with beer or cheap wine.

Medieval military convoy with provisions and equipment. Illustration from the book "Hausbuch" of 1480. Source: Wikipedia

drunken sea

In the galleys, even slaves and convicts ate better than commoners on land. The rowers were fed bean soup, stew with beans, breadcrumbs. About 100 grams of meat and cheese were given out per day. In the late Middle Ages, the norm of meat increased and lard appeared in the diet. The rowers had the most satisfying food - this is how the sailors were motivated to fight for this place.

Food on ships was abundantly poured with wine - from 1 liter per day for officers, 0.5 for sailors. At the signal of the squadron admiral, for good work, all rowers could pour another bonus cup. Beer got the norm of calories. In total, the sailor drank a liter or two of alcohol per day. Not surprisingly, fights and riots were frequent.

This work briefly highlights the main points in the development of the army in the Middle Ages in Western Europe: changing the principles of its recruitment, organizational structure, the basic principles of tactics and strategy, social status.

A detailed description of this battle has come down to us in the presentation of Jordanes.
Of greatest interest to us is Jordan's description of the battle formations of the Roman troops: the army of Aetius had a center and two wings, and on the flanks Aetius placed the most experienced and proven troops, leaving the weakest allies in the center. Jordanes motivates this decision of Aetius by taking care that these allies do not leave him during the battle.

Shortly after this battle, the Western Roman Empire, unable to withstand the military, social and economic cataclysms, collapsed. From that moment, the period of the history of the barbarian kingdoms began in Western Europe, and in the East the history of the Eastern Roman Empire continued, which received the name of Byzantium from the historians of modern times.

Western Europe: From the Barbarian Kingdoms to the Carolingian Empire.

In the V-VI centuries. a number of barbarian kingdoms are formed on the territory of Western Europe: in Italy, the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, ruled by Theodoric, on the Iberian Peninsula, the kingdom of the Visigoths, and on the territory of Roman Gaul, the kingdom of the Franks.

At that time, complete chaos reigned in the military sphere, since three forces were simultaneously present in the same space: on the one hand, the forces of the barbarian kings, which were still poorly organized armed formations, consisting of almost all the free men of the tribe.
On the other hand, there are the remnants of the Roman legions, led by the Roman governors of the provinces (a classic example of this kind is the Roman contingent in Northern Gaul, led by the governor of this province, Siagrius, and defeated in 487 by the Franks under the leadership of Clovis).
Finally, on the third side, there were private detachments of secular and ecclesiastical magnates, consisting of armed slaves ( antrustions), or from warriors who received land and gold from the magnate for their service ( buccellaria).

Under these conditions, a new type of army began to form, which included the three components mentioned above. A classic example European army VI-VII centuries. can be considered an army of the Franks.

Initially, the army was recruited from all the free men of the tribe who were able to handle weapons. For their service, they received from the king land allotments from the newly conquered lands. Every year in the spring, the army gathered in the capital of the kingdom for a general military review - the “March fields”.
At this meeting, the leader, and then the king, announced new decrees, announced campaigns and their dates, and checked the quality of the weapons of their soldiers. The Franks fought on foot, using horses only to get to the battlefield.
Battle formations of the Frankish infantry "...copied the shape of the ancient phalanx, gradually increasing the depth of its construction...". Their armament consisted of short spears, battle axes (francisca), long double-edged swords (spat) and scramasaxes (a short sword with a long handle and with a single-edged leaf-shaped blade 6.5 cm wide and 45-80 cm long). Weapons (especially swords) were usually richly decorated, and appearance weapons often testified to the nobility of its owner.
However, in the eighth century Significant changes are taking place in the structure of the Frankish army, which entailed changes in other armies in Europe.

In 718, the Arabs, who had previously captured the Iberian Peninsula and conquered the kingdom of the Visigoths, crossed the Pyrenees and invaded Gaul.
The actual ruler of the Frankish kingdom at that time, Major Karl Martell, was forced to find ways to stop them.

He faced two problems at once: firstly, the land reserve of the royal fiscal was depleted, and there was nowhere else to take land to reward soldiers, and secondly, as several battles showed, the Frankish infantry was unable to effectively resist the Arab cavalry.
To solve them, he carried out the secularization of church lands, thus obtaining a sufficient land fund to reward his soldiers, and announced that from now on, not the militia of all free Franks was going to war, but only people who were able to acquire full set rider's weapons: a war horse, a spear, a shield, a sword and armor, which included leggings, armor and a helmet.

Medieval armies were relatively small because they existed in small states. These were professional armies, consisting for the most part of the representatives of one class. At the same time, the limited resources of the then rulers did not allow the deployment of large armies: the recruitment of such armies would take a long time, their supply would be a significant problem due to the lack of transport and insufficiently developed agriculture for this.
For the military historian of the Middle Ages, the problem of the size of the army is key. Medieval sources constantly report the victories of a small army over enemy forces that are many times superior to it (with the help of God, some saint, etc.). Especially often such references are found in sources on the Crusades. Bernard of Clairvaux, for example, wrote about the Templars that they conquered by the power of God, and that one of them defeated a thousand enemies, and two put 10 thousand to flight. ( Reference to the book of DeuteronomyXXXII, 30; a similar one is given in the work of the largest chronicler of the crusades Guillaume of Tire,IV, 1. On the special attitude of the chroniclers of the Crusades to numerical data, see: Zaborov, M.A. An Introduction to the Historiography of the Crusades (Latin ChronographyXI-thirteenth century). M., 1966. S. 358-367.)

Such reports of the chroniclers can be taken for granted, especially when the historian, appealing to feelings of national pride, tries to prove that "his" army defeated the enemy's one, which outnumbered it.
There is an opinion that medieval people did not attach much importance to numbers, and even the leaders were rarely interested in accurate data on the number of their troops. The case of the Carolingian chronicler Richer of Reims (d. after 998) is indicative: following in his work the Annals of Flodoard (894-966), he at the same time arbitrarily changes the number of soldiers in the direction of their increase. However, there were also clerics who gave the exact number of warriors (especially with regard to cavalry). This applies to the First Crusade and the subsequent history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. O. Heermann cites in his work data on the main battles of the era of the Crusades:

date	Battle	Knights	Infantry
1098	Battle of Antioch Lake Battle of Antioch	700 (500-600)	- -
1099	Ascalon	1,200	9,000
1101	Ramla	260	900
1102	Ramla	200	-
1102	Jaffa	200	-
1105	Ramla	700	2,000
1119	al-Atarib	700	3,000
1119	Hub	700	-
1125	Azaz	1,100	2,000

Often, in contrast to data on huge armies, which are often based on conjecture or fabrication, data on small armies are the result of calculations, especially if lists of military salaries were available to the authors. So, Gilbert de Mons, Chancellor of the Count of Gennegau and his confidant, cites quite plausible numerical data in his chronicle - from 80 to 700 knights. Similar data should also be taken into account to assess the overall mobilization potential of a particular region (according to Gilbert de Mons, Flanders could field 1 thousand knights, Brabant - 700). And, finally, Gilbert's data are confirmed by both modern and later sources.
When working with sources, you can be guided by the following rule (of course, it does not always work): the most reliable sources give the correct numerical data as long as these data are small. On the march and before the battle, the knights were divided into small tactical units ( conrois), subordinate to the lord, from which large battles were formed ( batailles). This helps in determining the size of the army. You should also take into account the number of horses (for example, if the lord reimbursed the cost of fallen horses to vassals) and compare the data of the army of a separate lordship with the data for other lordships.
These data are supplemented by archival materials, the number of which increases in the High and especially in the Late Middle Ages. So, we know the number of knights in the army of the Duke of Brittany (in 1294 - 166 knights and 16 squires) and, more or less, for the Duchy of Normandy (for example, in 1172, only 581 knights appeared in the army of the Duke from 1500 fiefs, although in reality the number of fiefs could reach up to 2 thousand). In the army of Philip II Augustus (1180-1223) we know the number of sergeants and communal infantry for the period between 1194 and 1204. In England, a number of archival documents 13th century and many documents of the XIV century; based on their analysis, it can be concluded that the army of the English king rarely exceeded the bar of 10 thousand people. (foot and horse).
An effective tool is the analysis of the battlefield itself. When the length of the front is known, conclusions can also be drawn about the number of armies fighting here. So, in the battles of Courtrai (1302) and Mont-en-Pevel (1304), the front was just over 1 km, therefore, the armies fighting here were small. On such a field it is very difficult to maneuver an army of 20,000 men, unless we are talking about a frontal attack by detachments located in a very deep formation.
In determining the size of the army, information about the length of the column on the march can be useful. So, in the battle of Antioch (1098), the Franks, according to Ordericus Vitaly, put up 113 thousand fighters who left the city gates on the battlefield. If 5 knights rode in a row, then the depth of the column was 22,600 people. If we also take into account the infantry and take the width of the formation of a detachment of 5 people. 6 feet (≈1.8 m), then we get a column length of more than 45 km. Passing through the gate and across the bridge of such a column would take about 9 hours: the army would arrive on the battlefield only in the evening, while it would still need to line up. That. Orderic Vitaly's data should be dismissed as overestimated.
In addition, during the usual march, the convoy should be taken into account. The size of the camp must also be taken into account. Thus, the camp of the Roman legion (6 thousand people) occupied an area of ​​25 hectares (500x500 m). True, the marching camp could be smaller in size, but this ratio remained until late XIX V.
In general, it should be remembered that the armies of the Middle Ages were small in number. So, in the Battle of Bremuel (1119), Louis VI and Henry I fought at the head of 400 and 500 knights, respectively. In the Second Battle of Lincoln (1217), the English king put up 400 knights and 347 crossbowmen against the rebellious barons, his enemies, in turn, had an army of 611 knights and about 1 thousand foot soldiers.

Military affairs in the Middle Ages almost completely ignored the legacy of Rome. Nevertheless, in the new conditions, talented commanders managed to create armies that instilled fear in their opponents.

Of all the troops convened in the entire history of the Middle Ages, the ten most formidable can be distinguished.

Byzantine army under Justinian the Great

The regular Byzantine army consisted of several provincial armies, and for offensive operations a separate detachment was formed, reinforced by mercenaries.

Knights of France

Armored horse knights, who formed the core of the French army, can be safely called the super-powerful weapon of the Middle Ages.

The tactics of the French army in the heyday of chivalry were simple and effective. A powerful cavalry strike at the center of enemy formations ensured a breakthrough of the front, followed by the encirclement and destruction of the enemy.

The only way to overcome such a formidable force was to use the terrain and weather conditions. In heavy rain, the cavalry was most vulnerable, as the knights and their horses simply got stuck in the mud.

Frankish army of Charlemagne

Charlemagne was an innovator of the military art of the Middle Ages. His name is associated with a departure from the barbarian traditions of warfare. We can say that the legendary emperor created the classic army of the Middle Ages.

The basis of Charles's army was the feudal lords. Each landowner had to come to war fully equipped and with a certain number of soldiers. Thus, the professional core of the army was formed.

Army of Saladin

The conqueror of the crusaders Saladin created one of the best armies of the Middle Ages. Unlike the Western European armies, the basis of his army was light cavalry, consisting of archers and spearmen.

The tactics were maximally adapted to the natural conditions of the Middle Eastern deserts. Saladin launched surprise attacks on the flanks, after which he retreated back into the desert, luring the enemy troops behind him. The heavy cavalry of the crusaders could not withstand the long pursuit of the light horsemen of the Muslims.

Slavic-Varangian army of the times of Oleg

Prince Oleg went down in history by hanging his shield on the gates of Constantinople. In this he was helped by his army, the main advantage of which was its numbers and mobility. For the Middle Ages, the military power of the troops of the Kyiv prince was impressive. Several tens of thousands of people that Oleg put up against Byzantium could not be gathered by anyone.

Equally impressive was the mobility of so many soldiers. The army of the prince skillfully used the fleet, with the help of which it quickly moved along the Black Sea and descended along the Volga to the Caspian Sea.

Crusader army during the era of the First Crusade

The military art of medieval Europe reached its peak in the 12th century. Europeans began to actively use siege machines. Now the city walls were no longer an obstacle to a well-armed army. Taking advantage of their armor and weapons, the crusaders easily crushed the Seljuks and conquered the Middle East.

Army of Tamerlane

The great conqueror Tamerlane created one of the strongest armies of the late Middle Ages. He took all the best from ancient, European and Mongolian military traditions.

The core of the army was horse archers, but heavily armed infantry played an important role. Tamerlane actively used the long-forgotten formation of troops in several lines. In defensive battles, the depth of his army was 8-9 echelons.

In addition, Tamerlane deepened the specialization of the troops. He formed separate detachments of engineers, slingers, archers, spearmen, pontoons, etc. He also used artillery and war elephants.

Army of the Righteous Caliphate

The strength of the Arab army is evidenced by its conquests. The warriors who came from the Arabian desert conquered the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. IN early Middle Ages most of the former barbarian armies fought on foot.

The Arabs, on the other hand, practically did not use infantry, preferring cavalry armed with long-range bows. This allowed them to move quickly from one battle to another. The enemy could not gather all his forces into a fist and was forced to fight back in small detachments, which became easy prey for the army of the Righteous Caliphate.

Slavic-Varangian army of the times of Svyatoslav

Unlike Prince Oleg, Svyatoslav could not boast of the size of his army. His strength lay not in the number of warriors, but in their quality. The small squad of the Kyiv prince lived in battles and campaigns from the very childhood of Svyatoslav. As a result, by the time the prince matured, he was surrounded by the best fighters in Eastern Europe.

Svyatoslav's professional warriors crushed Khazaria, conquered the Yases, Kasogs and captured Bulgaria. A small Russian detachment for a long time successfully fought against countless Byzantine legions.

The army of Svyatoslav was so strong that it terrified with its mere mention. For example, the Pechenegs lifted the siege from Kyiv as soon as they heard that Svyatoslav's squad was approaching the city.

1. The Billmen

Source: bucks-retinue.org.uk

IN medieval Europe Vikings and Anglo-Saxons often used in battles numerous detachments of bilmen - foot soldiers, whose main weapon was a combat sickle (halberd). Derived from a simple peasant sickle for harvesting. The combat sickle was an effective edged weapon with a combined tip of a needle-shaped spear point and a curved blade, similar to a battle ax, with a sharp butt. During battles, it was effective against well-armored cavalry. With the advent of firearms, the units of bilmen (halberdiers) lost their significance, becoming part of beautiful parades and ceremonies.

2. Armored boyars

Source: wikimedia.org

The category of service people in Eastern Europe in the period of the X-XVI centuries. This military estate was common in Kievan Rus, Muscovy, Bulgaria, Wallachia, the Moldavian principalities, and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Armored boyars come from "armored servants" who served on horseback in heavy ("armored") weapons. Unlike the servants, who were released from other duties only in wartime, the armored boyars did not bear the duties of the peasants at all. Socially, armored boyars occupied an intermediate stage between peasants and nobles. They owned land with peasants, but their civil capacity was limited. After the accession of Eastern Belarus to the Russian Empire, the armored boyars became close in their position to the Ukrainian Cossacks.

3. Templars

Source: kdbarto.org

This was the name given to professional warrior-monks - members of the "order of the mendicant knights of the Temple of Solomon." It existed for almost two centuries (1114-1312), having arisen after the First Crusade of the Catholic army in Palestine. The order often performed the functions of military protection of the states created by the crusaders in the East, although the main purpose of its establishment was the protection of pilgrims visiting the "Holy Land". The Knights Templars were famous for their military training, mastery of weapons, clear organization of their units and fearlessness bordering on madness. However, along with these positive qualities, the Templars became known to the world as tight-fisted usurers, drunkards and debauchees, who took with them their many secrets and legends into the depths of centuries.

4. Crossbowmen

Source: deviantart.net

In the Middle Ages, instead of a combat bow, many armies began to use mechanical bows - crossbows. The crossbow, as a rule, surpassed the usual bow in terms of shooting accuracy and lethal force, but, with rare exceptions, it lost a lot in terms of rate of fire. This weapon received real recognition only in Europe from the 14th century, when numerous detachments of crossbowmen became an indispensable accessory of knightly armies. A decisive role in raising the popularity of crossbows was played by the fact that from the 14th century their bowstring began to be pulled with a collar. Thus, the restrictions imposed on the force of tension by the physical capabilities of the shooter were removed, and the light crossbow became heavy. Its advantage in penetrating power over the bow became overwhelming - bolts (shortened arrows of crossbows) began to pierce even solid armor.