Fighting Techniques of the Middle Ages: anyone read this?

[FenrisUlf]

Just wondering if anyone here has checked out the book Fighting Techniques of the Middle Ages, which is a very good general history of just how troops and armies fought, were trained, armed and equipped during the Medieval period. It covers infantry, cavalry, sieges, and naval warfare, among other topics, and hits a wide array of European cultures.

I was surprised to find out how tactically flexible the Anglo-Saxon thegns were, for instance. They fought in full chain and wielding a double-handed Danish Axe, but each axeman was covered in battle by one or two troops with leather armor, spears, and large shields. They were also usually backed up by archers who didn't shoot en masse like English longbowmen, but worked more like close-range snipers, shooting opponents from a distance of a few yards or even feet from behind cover of the shield-wall.

They were cleverly lead as well -- when the Welsh (who fought as light infantry) revolted a few years before the Normans invaded, King Harald kitted most of his men out in light armor and kept them on the move after the Welsh. They rarely fought, but the Welsh were kept on the move and couldn't follow their usual raid and pillage tactics. Meanwhile, English ships penetrated the Welsh rivers and sacked and burned the fortified villages the Welsh themselves used for supplies. The Welsh finally gave up, beheaded their current king, and sent his noggin in a barrel of salt to the English to show their desire for peace. Harald won without a single battle.

Really a very good book. I'd give it four stars at least.

[BlueBuddha]

I'd love to check out the book. I hear plenty of self-proclaimed experts on medieval warfare on gaming boards, but not a lot of facts :)

If for no other reason than to know what I'm being unrealistic (cough... dual-weilding...cough) about, it would be nice to know how they really fought.

[FenrisUlf]

It also has a good section on guys called the Almugavars who were light infantry wielding spears and short swords like butcher cleavers, and dressed in sheperd's clothes, who used to wipe out armored knights with the greatest of ease. So much for the idea that cavalry just strolled over infantry during the Middle Ages.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Just wondering if anyone here has checked out the book Fighting Techniques of the Middle Ages, which is a very good general history of just how troops and armies fought, were trained, armed and equipped during the Medieval period. It covers infantry, cavalry, sieges, and naval warfare, among other topics, and hits a wide array of European cultures.

Cool. Sounds likea "must read" for me.
Another good one, if you can hunt it up, is "Elizabethean Military Science". A later period, tho...more Pike & Shot tactics, tho it also has a groovy chapter on Renaissance era medicine,

I was surprised to find out how tactically flexible the Anglo-Saxon thegns were, for instance. They fought in full chain and wielding a double-handed Danish Axe, but each axeman was covered in battle by one or two troops with leather armor, spears, and large shields. They were also usually backed up by archers who didn't shoot en masse like English longbowmen, but worked more like close-range snipers, shooting opponents from a distance of a few yards or even feet from behind cover of the shield-wall.

The Scottish Galloglaigh mercenaries continued fighting in this style (The word Galloglas more or less literaly translates as Young Forgien/Norse Warrior, "Gal" meaning forgien, was originally used almost exclusively to refer to the conquerors, thus Galoway, Dun Na Gal were all founded by viking traders) up into the early 17th century to good effect. A company of galloglaigh was, on paper, 100 Heavy Infantry. In Fact a full strength company was usually actually around 87 "sparrs" each sparr consisting of one galloglas and 2 to 3 ghilles ("boys" or attendants) who would fight as cetharnach (skirmishers), often using ranged weapons such as bows, spears, or guns in later periods.

I've always thought it was an excellent TOO for an army of the tech level. Gives a lot of tactical flexibility.

[Steve Long]

I think I have this book, but in case I don't, could you provide an author and other such info? ty. ;)

[Cancer]

FWIW, I recently finished a biography of Tamerlame. It wasn't that good a book, unfortunately, with its best parts being the bits from the author's journey through that part of the world doing his research. But it had one fascinating thing that I'd never considered before. He invaded India, and the Indian princes had war elephants. He did not (the heart of his army was horse archers), and this was a serious issue. How he dealt with the war elephants at Delhi was fascinating.

He had many camels in his baggage train, so he had a large number of them loaded with dry brush and wood. When the elephants were brought into line preparing to charge, he had these camels herded into line opposite them. When the elephants charged, he had the camels' loads set on fire.

According to the book, a distressed camel "roars", and with their butts being on fire, they ran forward, toward the elephants. The elephants aren't afraid of much, but roaring mobile bonfires falls in the elephant category of "Things I'll Avoid For Now", and the elephants went off in other directions, beyond their mahouts' limited ability to control. That removed the only tactical advantage the Indians had, and Tamerlame carried the day.

[FenrisUlf]

I think I have this book, but in case I don't, could you provide an author and other such info? ty. ;)

Oops, I'll have to hunt the name down. I believe it was published by Thames & Hudson, though.

[Sociotard]

I tried a book google. I found Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics by Matthew Bennett and Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World (3000 B.C. to 500 A.D.): Equipment, Combat Skills, and ... by James R Ross, but nothing by that exact title. Those were both published by Thomas Dunne Books.

[Markdoc]

If it's the Bennett book, I used to have a copy. It doesn't have much to do with medieval fighting techniques, but it's an OK book and a decent introduction to medieval warfare.

cheers, Mark.

[Susano]

I'd be interested in this book as well, once you find the right info.

[MorpheousXO]

I'd be interested in this book as well, once you find the right info.

Ditto

[FenrisUlf]

I tried a book google. I found Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics by Matthew Bennett ... but nothing by that exact title. Those were both published by Thomas Dunne Books.

That's the book, sorry for any mistakes on my part.

Thanks for posting the correct information, Sociotard.

["V"]

The book is definitely going on my wishlist. I will add a slight *gloat* here on a related topic - I live in Leeds, England, and a few years ago the Royal Armouries museum was relocated to my home city. Basically it's a museum of warfare, weapons, armour etc from around the world from the most primitive items up to current state of the art equipment.

One of the best features is the regular (ie several times a day) displays of fighting techniques from a variety of eras performed by experts who actually know what techniques were actually used. Seeing just how quickly a skilled wielder could use a two handed sword, plus just how good the thing was for defense was a real eye opener.

Plus in summer the re-enacted jousts in full armour in the tiltyard are a real spectacle. If any Herophiles plan to visit Leeds for any reason at any time it is really worth a visit.

[ThothAmon]

FWIW, I recently finished a biography of Tamerlame. It wasn't that good a book, unfortunately, with its best parts being the bits from the author's journey through that part of the world doing his research. But it had one fascinating thing that I'd never considered before. He invaded India, and the Indian princes had war elephants. He did not (the heart of his army was horse archers), and this was a serious issue. How he dealt with the war elephants at Delhi was fascinating.

I believe the method of dealing with war elephants (assuming you had preparation time) was to tar / pitch live pigs then set them on fire and release them towards the enemy lines. The squealing, roasting pigs caused the elephants to bolt.

[TheQuestionMan]

Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts Academies, Schools, Groups
http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/lnk_body.htm


Cheers


QM

[Sgt_Pedro]

The book is definitely going on my wishlist. I will add a slight *gloat* here on a related topic - I live in Leeds, England, and a few years ago the Royal Armouries museum was relocated to my home city. Basically it's a museum of warfare, weapons, armour etc from around the world from the most primitive items up to current state of the art equipment.

One of the best features is the regular (ie several times a day) displays of fighting techniques from a variety of eras performed by experts who actually know what techniques were actually used. Seeing just how quickly a skilled wielder could use a two handed sword, plus just how good the thing was for defense was a real eye opener.

Plus in summer the re-enacted jousts in full armour in the tiltyard are a real spectacle. If any Herophiles plan to visit Leeds for any reason at any time it is really worth a visit.

I lived in Harrogate for a while and really enjoyed visiting the different armories around the UK. Though sadly I never caught one of those displays at Leeds :(

[FenrisUlf]

The book is definitely going on my wishlist. I will add a slight *gloat* here on a related topic - I live in Leeds, England, and a few years ago the Royal Armouries museum was relocated to my home city. Basically it's a museum of warfare, weapons, armour etc from around the world from the most primitive items up to current state of the art equipment.

One of the best features is the regular (ie several times a day) displays of fighting techniques from a variety of eras performed by experts who actually know what techniques were actually used. Seeing just how quickly a skilled wielder could use a two handed sword, plus just how good the thing was for defense was a real eye opener.

Plus in summer the re-enacted jousts in full armour in the tiltyard are a real spectacle. If any Herophiles plan to visit Leeds for any reason at any time it is really worth a visit.

Why, you lucky so-and-so. :thumbup:

[LordGhee]

and you have not taken pic and posted them!

bad V

Lord Ghee

["V"]

and you have not taken pic and posted them!

bad V

Lord Ghee

Sorry Lord Ghee, I didn't mean to be a tease - but I didn't take any pics while I was there. If you want more info though, this (http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=94) is a link to the official site and you can click on the "interpretations" section of each gallery to get more info about what displays are put on there.

There may be pics around the site, but to be honest I've just found the website myself & am still exploring.

[Goradin]

I do not know what the guy you read was smoking but the Anglo-Saxons flexible????

Anglo -Saxons might have had retainers but they were hardly a flexible army by any means. The Normans conquered England with a mere 5000 men. The Anglo-Saxons did not have decent missle troops nor reliable cavalry. Their tactical system was based on the simple shield wall. When they broke formation they lost its that simple. They were tough but their tactics were largely useless on offense unless fighting a similiar army like the Vikings. They could slog it out mano e mano with anyone but that was their sole tactical option. They also tended to lose any battle in which their leader died. Maldon and Hastings are great examples.

[Markdoc]

I do not know what the guy you read was smoking but the Anglo-Saxons flexible????

No-one's claiming that they were as tactically flexible as the Romans or Nikephorians, (or even the Normans, for that matter) but there are still a lot of people who adhere to the old idea that they were largely undisciplined, didn't understand drill, raised and fought locally, etc. It's that perception modern historians are trying to dispel.

More research has suggested that none of this is true - and that at its height the Anglo-Saxon kingdom actually had a standing national army, with clearly-defined field and garrison forces, a national armoury (or armouries) and an interlocking series of fortified towns assigned to regional defence commands. Several authors (like this guy)
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/abels.htm
argue that the Anglo-Saxon military had actually decayed significantly by the time of the Norman conquest: that it had been so successful in repelling invaders, that over time people got tired of paying taxes for an efficient defence and let it collapse. It's an argument that makes a lot of sense, explaining how earlier Anglo-saxon kings were able to keep quite large forces in the field for prolonged periods of time, even when operating outside their own areas.

cheers, Mark