Autumn is upon us once more, with its falling leaves, heaps of spiders, travelling birds and, last but not least, my birthday! Normally this is not something I get very excited about, but perhaps to my detriment yesterday I took a look at the site of Boydell and Brewer, a British publisher. Their books are just invaluable to anyone interested in Medieval Western European history; I saw too many books I liked and may now be forced to rob a bank to buy them all.
Luckily, as my birthday is nearby (14 October), I'll see if I have enough patience to stay without a criminal record.
This does however mean that the total collection of Boydell and Brewer is unlikely to be in my possession any time soon, and that I have the difficult task ahead of me of deciding what books I'd like best. These are, thus far:
Warfare in Medieval Brabant (1356-1406)
By Sergio Boffa
I like Brabant. I also like Brabant getting beaten by Guelders. This happened a lot during that particular period (Baesweiler, Ravenstein) so it's probably going to be one big smile from start to finish.
Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century
By Kelly deVries (apparently a bloke)
Although this book is out of stock at the moment, it'd certainly be a valuable addition to my collection on medieval warfare; it’s actually the principal book out on medieval infantry. Describes their organisation, tactics, armour, etc from about 1300 to 1350 or so. However, needs to be reprinted at great speed to be in time for B-Day.
John the Fearless
By Richard Vaughan
Part of the Valois Dukes of Burgundy series, this volume describes the life and death of the second duke of Burgundy of the Valois line. Pretty much starting the civil war in France (Armagnacs vs Bourguignons), he made Burgundy an independent state focusing on the Low Countries rather than a backwater French duchy.
Also deals with the siege of Maastricht (1407-1408). Boy we got a lot of press.
Bestiary
By Richard Barber
Actually, Barber didn't write it himself; it's a republication of a thirteenth century bestiary in the Oxford Library collection. Includes full colour prints of all the images, apparently, and a translation of the text. I presume Richard Barber must have written the introduction or translated the stuff. I already have a book by him on the Black Prince, a rather different subject.
These are the principal books from Boydell and Brewer I would like to have; there's loads more interesting ones, for example a biography of Bertrand du Guesclin and a study of the Black Death, but those are ranked a little lower for me.
When I was in Donner (big bookstore in Rotterdam) last week I saw another few good books, so I might as well add them, too:
Broedertwist
By Peter Rietbergen & Tom Verschaffel (editors)
Uitgeverij Waanders
A collection of essays on the Belgian revolt and (cultural) relations between the Netherlands and Belgium. Nicely illustrated and with contributions from good historians. Overall, tempting.
Lodewijk Napoleon
By J. G. Kikkert
Uitgeverij Aspekt
A biography of the first king of the country, brother of Napoleon. Best king we've ever had. Bit worried I might know pretty much everything in it already, at least the political stuff, which is most interesting to me. Also, it appears there's another biography being published soon by the Walburg Pers, which might be of better quality.
Then there was a paperback on the naval history of Great Britain from about 1550 to 1850 or so, and how the navy contributed to the creation of the British Empire. It looked interesting and well researched, but I already have two books on more or less the same subject standing in my bookcase.
When it comes to books I already have, I'm currently reading a few. Principal one of them is The Princely Court, by Malcolm Vale. It describes the way the courts of England, Flanders, Artois and Hainault-Holland functioned and it tries to identify a Western European court culture. It's well written and very interesting, but at times a little dull – the chapter on liveries, for example, while quite interesting could be rather tough going. However I have learned some important things, such as that being a servant in Hainault-Holland yielded one the best liveries, although not terribly optimistic ones (they were all grey; must have been a lot of suicides during Winter).
I'm also reading, on the side, Froissart's Chronicles. This is of course a very very abbreviated translation, dealing primarily with the Hundred Years War, as it is an English publication, but it's good. Froissart's style of writing is really easy to follow and very lively; sadly he is not always reliable (historians still disagree on how much).
6.9.06
The Military Value of the Knight
I was in an argument the other day over the value of knights in high and late medieval warfare. A not very well thought out post challenged my creativity and I wrote a short essay refuting all points made attacking the knights. I thought some might find this interesting, not just for any military history facts they might learn from it but also from knowing what keeps me busy from time to time.
I omit the opening paragraph, but if you're interested you can read the rest of the debate HERE
Military history is not a study of "What type of soldier is best" or "Who was the greatest general", subjects this forum seems to broach with alarming regularity. We are dealing with humans, and humans are fallible. They can be impetuous, frightened, sleepy, or drunk. They might be hungry, or cold. They are not machines that do the same thing over and over and get the same result every single time.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to say that some weapons were more successful versus some other weapons. A mass of pikes or goedendags would be effective at keeping enemies at a safe distance - yet if their flank was turned or archers were brought to bear on them, they could falter.
An important aspect of war is psychology, and often the side that first loses its head also loses the struggle.
Looking at the 13th century, it is easy to conclude that knights were the dominant factor on the Western European battlefield. Yet this is somewhat misleading. Throughout France, Phillipe Augustus set up communes to stimulate the quality of his infantry, and by the time of Bouvines he was able to call upon over 7000 urban militia type men. Infantry was not being neglected; it was just inferior in social standing to the knights or even mercenaries and was considered less important - but important enough for Philippe II to invest in it on a massive scale.
The battle of Bouvines, which misplacedgeneral briefly describes as "mainly Knight Vs. Knight" was a struggle where the French infantry gave way under pressure. The urban militia was still young and not experienced enough to withstand assaults not only of Imperial knights, but also of Flemish and Brabançon footsoldiers, at that time perhaps the most experienced in Western Europe, having seen active service as mercenaries for a long time.
Nevertheless, it were the French knights who regained the initiative and won the battle, not due to honourary exploits or valour, but because of their discipline. The Imperials, who had been made to force-march to the battlefield, were tired and strung out, while the French were in close ranks. The better disciplined French therefore broke through the enemy cavalry, and though a Brabançon schiltron formed and protected the fleeing Imperials, they too were run down by the French.
It was therefore a real victory where one side was outclassed by the other, not just a battle of attrition; many more victories such as these can be summed up, such as Muret, Lewes, Evesham, the Marchfeld, Worringen, Baesweiler, Ravenstein, Straelen, Montlhéry, etc etc. In all these knights were the victors thanks to superior discipline and drill.
There are too many battles mentioned to discuss them all, but actually many of misplaced's battles underline the importance of knights. Poitiers, for example is a prime example of knights winning; it wasn't a clear-cut longbow vs mounted knight battle, as people like to see; on the contrary. All but the first wave of the French army fought on foot, and the principal fighting force on the English side were not their longbowmen, but rather their Anglo-Gascon knights and men-at-arms. The single most decisive moment of the battle was actually caused by mounted knights, when the Captal de Buch with a group of mounted men-at-arms flanked the French attacking army and brought them into disarray. After this, the battle became a melee struggle where eventually the French king and his bold son Philippe surrendered - to a knight, Sir Denis de Morbecque.
This battle serves to underline the importance of knights in combat - their very versatility was what made them so valuable. Being able to conduct both mounted and infantry actions, as well as being well-trained in the martial arts, they were the elite of the army.
Another point not touched upon here is that many of the victories mentioned here were reversed. Kortrijk (not Courtrai; the Flemish won, at least show them the honour of using the actual placename rather than the French one) was followed by Mons-en-Pévèle, Kassel and Westrozebeeke; after Bannockburn came Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill. The knights learned how to face these opponents and adjusted their tactics.
The English army during the Hundred Years War is used by the author to underline the point that the knight was fading. But he wasn't; society was changing, and this change was reflected in the composition of the army. The English army was a brutally effective combination of the knightly class with the middle class longbowmen (and billmen, to a lesser extent), and the result of a simultaneous peak of both upper and middle class society. French society peaked earlier, and only the upper class really peaked, making the French armies much more vulnerable; Flemish society had a smaller upper class and there the urban middle class was most successful. The Flemish case makes a good point as to how no single class can be effective on its own: after Kortrijk, their army was defeated by knights at Kassel and Westrozebeeke, suffering massive casualties; the Liège militia suffered the same fate at Othée.
The only point the author makes that stands is that knights alone could not win a battle, but surely this is common sense?
I omit the opening paragraph, but if you're interested you can read the rest of the debate HERE
Military history is not a study of "What type of soldier is best" or "Who was the greatest general", subjects this forum seems to broach with alarming regularity. We are dealing with humans, and humans are fallible. They can be impetuous, frightened, sleepy, or drunk. They might be hungry, or cold. They are not machines that do the same thing over and over and get the same result every single time.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to say that some weapons were more successful versus some other weapons. A mass of pikes or goedendags would be effective at keeping enemies at a safe distance - yet if their flank was turned or archers were brought to bear on them, they could falter.
An important aspect of war is psychology, and often the side that first loses its head also loses the struggle.
Looking at the 13th century, it is easy to conclude that knights were the dominant factor on the Western European battlefield. Yet this is somewhat misleading. Throughout France, Phillipe Augustus set up communes to stimulate the quality of his infantry, and by the time of Bouvines he was able to call upon over 7000 urban militia type men. Infantry was not being neglected; it was just inferior in social standing to the knights or even mercenaries and was considered less important - but important enough for Philippe II to invest in it on a massive scale.
The battle of Bouvines, which misplacedgeneral briefly describes as "mainly Knight Vs. Knight" was a struggle where the French infantry gave way under pressure. The urban militia was still young and not experienced enough to withstand assaults not only of Imperial knights, but also of Flemish and Brabançon footsoldiers, at that time perhaps the most experienced in Western Europe, having seen active service as mercenaries for a long time.
Nevertheless, it were the French knights who regained the initiative and won the battle, not due to honourary exploits or valour, but because of their discipline. The Imperials, who had been made to force-march to the battlefield, were tired and strung out, while the French were in close ranks. The better disciplined French therefore broke through the enemy cavalry, and though a Brabançon schiltron formed and protected the fleeing Imperials, they too were run down by the French.
It was therefore a real victory where one side was outclassed by the other, not just a battle of attrition; many more victories such as these can be summed up, such as Muret, Lewes, Evesham, the Marchfeld, Worringen, Baesweiler, Ravenstein, Straelen, Montlhéry, etc etc. In all these knights were the victors thanks to superior discipline and drill.
There are too many battles mentioned to discuss them all, but actually many of misplaced's battles underline the importance of knights. Poitiers, for example is a prime example of knights winning; it wasn't a clear-cut longbow vs mounted knight battle, as people like to see; on the contrary. All but the first wave of the French army fought on foot, and the principal fighting force on the English side were not their longbowmen, but rather their Anglo-Gascon knights and men-at-arms. The single most decisive moment of the battle was actually caused by mounted knights, when the Captal de Buch with a group of mounted men-at-arms flanked the French attacking army and brought them into disarray. After this, the battle became a melee struggle where eventually the French king and his bold son Philippe surrendered - to a knight, Sir Denis de Morbecque.
This battle serves to underline the importance of knights in combat - their very versatility was what made them so valuable. Being able to conduct both mounted and infantry actions, as well as being well-trained in the martial arts, they were the elite of the army.
Another point not touched upon here is that many of the victories mentioned here were reversed. Kortrijk (not Courtrai; the Flemish won, at least show them the honour of using the actual placename rather than the French one) was followed by Mons-en-Pévèle, Kassel and Westrozebeeke; after Bannockburn came Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill. The knights learned how to face these opponents and adjusted their tactics.
The English army during the Hundred Years War is used by the author to underline the point that the knight was fading. But he wasn't; society was changing, and this change was reflected in the composition of the army. The English army was a brutally effective combination of the knightly class with the middle class longbowmen (and billmen, to a lesser extent), and the result of a simultaneous peak of both upper and middle class society. French society peaked earlier, and only the upper class really peaked, making the French armies much more vulnerable; Flemish society had a smaller upper class and there the urban middle class was most successful. The Flemish case makes a good point as to how no single class can be effective on its own: after Kortrijk, their army was defeated by knights at Kassel and Westrozebeeke, suffering massive casualties; the Liège militia suffered the same fate at Othée.
The only point the author makes that stands is that knights alone could not win a battle, but surely this is common sense?
1.9.06
Books More Interesting Than Weather, Report Says
Apparently we’ve just had the wettest August in recorded weather history, an average of 185mm of rain drowning our lands (to a normal standard of about 60mm in the same month); in some areas, even the 300mm rain mark was passed. It was colder than normal, too, with something like 16 degrees C to 17 C standards. If only El Niño were still around, then we could blame it all on him!
While my agenda has been fairly occupied each day for the past two weeks, there’s really not all that much to tell about it all. I baby-sat three times now, last time being yesterday evening, which made me a little money on the side for very little work. The three children are getting used to me, and I’ve only heard “We want a girl baby-sit!” once, on the first night, when I was having some difficulty getting them to sleep.
Also, I finished Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales a few days ago, which was a good read, for the most part. The tale of saint Cecilia (The Second Nun’s Tale) has to be one of the worst stories I’ve ever read, though, and that in pretty poor rhyme, too. A bad way to conclude any book, but luckily the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale made up for it by giving a very interesting insight into alchemy and conmen. The rest were quite well written, though the stories not always as appealing, and some were a bit tedious. I didn’t mind the Squire’s Tale being cut halfway through, for example.
I’ll be away this weekend, as we’ll be planning the program for Tafelstraat for the coming year. For my own reading, I’ll be bringing “The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe (1270-1380)” by Malcolm Vale. It’s a very good read, and even the financial aspect, which I’m dealing with now, is interesting.
For some lighter entertainment, a very abridged English translation of Froissart’s Chroniques will be coming with me, too. Good ol’ 14th Century.
While my agenda has been fairly occupied each day for the past two weeks, there’s really not all that much to tell about it all. I baby-sat three times now, last time being yesterday evening, which made me a little money on the side for very little work. The three children are getting used to me, and I’ve only heard “We want a girl baby-sit!” once, on the first night, when I was having some difficulty getting them to sleep.
Also, I finished Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales a few days ago, which was a good read, for the most part. The tale of saint Cecilia (The Second Nun’s Tale) has to be one of the worst stories I’ve ever read, though, and that in pretty poor rhyme, too. A bad way to conclude any book, but luckily the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale made up for it by giving a very interesting insight into alchemy and conmen. The rest were quite well written, though the stories not always as appealing, and some were a bit tedious. I didn’t mind the Squire’s Tale being cut halfway through, for example.
I’ll be away this weekend, as we’ll be planning the program for Tafelstraat for the coming year. For my own reading, I’ll be bringing “The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe (1270-1380)” by Malcolm Vale. It’s a very good read, and even the financial aspect, which I’m dealing with now, is interesting.
For some lighter entertainment, a very abridged English translation of Froissart’s Chroniques will be coming with me, too. Good ol’ 14th Century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)