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 man did not attach special significance figures, and even the leaders were rarely interested in the exact numbers 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. Thus, Gilbert de Mons, Chancellor of the Count of Gennegau and his confidant, gives 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 of the 13th century have been preserved. 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 Bremul (1119), Louis VI and Henry I fought at the head of 400 and 500 knights, respectively. At the Second Battle of Lincoln (1217) 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.
1. The Billmen
Source: bucks-retinue.org.uk
In medieval Europe, the 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 firearms detachments of bilmen (halberdiers) lost their importance, 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 class was distributed in Kievan Rus, Muscovy, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Moldavian principalities, 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 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 military protection 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 their many secrets and legends with them 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. The 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 tensile force physical abilities arrow, 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.
To fight so to fight, write down in the convoy!
Thinking about the number of armies, one cannot fail to mention such a supply component, and here, too, inconsistencies with what the author writes turned out to be.
Robb Stark Army: in 298 A.D.;
Robb Stark: 20,000 foot and horse
Freya: 3,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry
Edmure Tully: 16,000 foot and horse
Lord Vance, Clement Piper: 4,000 foot and horse
Moat Kailin: 400 infantry
Howland Reid: Several Thousands of Infantry and Archers (Guarding the Isthmus) 2000
Total: 46400 people on foot and horseback
Medieval armies did not care much about the supply of food and medicine. They lived mainly by plundering and taking supplies from the local population. Usually, for civilians, the passage of a friendly army was as devastating as the raids of enemies. Medieval armies did not stay in one place for long, as local supplies of food and fodder quickly ran out. This was a real problem in sieges. If the besieging army did not take care of organizing a constant supply of food in advance, then the besiegers, as a rule, began to starve even earlier than the besieged. If the army remained in one place, then there was also a problem of hygiene. Medieval armies brought with them a large number of animals in addition to horses and were not distinguished by cleanliness, so there were often problems with dysentery. Disease and exhaustion greatly reduced the size of the feudal armies. While campaigning in France, Henry V of England lost about 15 percent of his army to disease at the siege of Harflo and more on the march to Agnikort. In the battle itself, he lost only 5 percent of the soldiers. Henry V himself also died of an illness related to unsanitary conditions.
The basis of the army's diet was bread, and it was required for one soldier per day about 2.5 kg. and sugar and butter were not available in the Middle Ages. Yes, and with meat, things were much poorer, so 2.5 kg of bread per person per day is a necessary minimum for a medieval army on a campaign.
Let's do simple calculations. For example, let's take Stark's army, in 298 A.D. Whispering Forest. Martin writes about 46.4 thousand soldiers. Great, multiply 46400 by 2.5 kg and get = 116,000 kg per day. So, the carrying capacity of an ordinary single-horse peasant cart is about 200 kg. We get that the daily ration of the army brings 580 carts. For a month of campaign (30 days), 17,400 carts will be required, respectively. To visualize, if these wagon carts are put in increments of 10 meters, then they will stand almost 170 km away,
from King's Landing to Winterfell (distance - approx. 1200 km)
According to the charters of the 18-19 centuries, the normal daily march was about 25 km at the speed of movement of a foot army. In reality, the army usually moved at a speed of 15-20 km per day. During a forced march, they could walk up to 50 km per day, but they could not go at that pace for a long time.
To illustrate, let's calculate what kind of convoy an army of 10 thousand people needs for a month of campaign. We multiply 10,000 by 2.5 kg and multiply by 30 days and we get = 750,000 kg. Accordingly, 3,750 convoy carts. That's not all. Now we take into account that the guards (one per cart) also need to be fed. And the horses need to be fed. Let's say the horses themselves can graze on the opposite meadows. However, where to find ahead of time pastures for horses on a hike?.. To simplify the calculations, let's digress from this problem. Taking into account the fact that the wagon trains consume no less than soldiers, we get 6,000 wagon workers and, accordingly, a wagon train of 6,000 wagons loaded with food for a month of campaign for 10,000 soldiers. By the way, moving in one column, such a convoy will stretch for 60 km.
Of course, our calculation is approximate, in practice there are factors both reducing the size of the convoy and increasing it. But in any case, the overall scale of the disaster can be imagined.
Of course, the army could be fed at the expense of the local population. However, in the Middle Ages, the population density was low (for example, in the 17th century, a village of 2-3 courtyards was typical) and the immediate vicinity could not feed an army of several thousand people. That is, in principle, it was probably possible to feed oneself by robbing the local population, but then one should have stopped the campaign and ransacked the surroundings for food for people and horses.
In connection with the above, the size of the armies must be reduced by 10 times.
"Amateurs do tactics. Professionals study logistics" (c)
What is your opinion on this matter?
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 lard, 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.
Up to 1 kilogram per day was allocated to each 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 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 admiral of the squadron, for Good work all rowers could pour another bonus glass. 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.
Medieval battles slowly moved from skirmishes of poorly organized military units to battles using tactics and maneuvering. In part, this evolution was a response to the development of different types of troops and weapons and the ability to use them. The first armies of the Dark Middle Ages were crowds of foot soldiers. With the development of heavy cavalry, the best armies became hordes of knights. Foot soldiers were used to ravage agricultural land and do hard work during sieges. In battle, however, the infantry was under threat from both sides, as the knights sought to face the enemy in duels. The infantry in this early period consisted of feudal recruits and untrained peasants. Archers were also useful in sieges, but they also risked being trampled on the battlefield.
By the end of the 15th century, the military leaders had made great strides in disciplining the knights and building armies that acted as one team. In the English army, the knights grudgingly recognized archers after they had demonstrated their worth in in large numbers battles. Discipline also increased as more and more knights began to fight for money and less and less for honor and glory. Mercenary soldiers in Italy became famous for long campaigns with relatively little bloodshed. By this time, soldiers of all branches of the military had become property that should not be easily parted with. Feudal armies looking for glory have become professional armies, more interested in surviving in order to spend the money they earn.
Cavalry tactics
The cavalry was usually divided into three groups, or divisions, which were sent into battle one after the other. The first wave was supposed to break through the ranks of the enemy or break them so that a second or third wave could break through. If the enemy fled, a real massacre began.
In practice, the knights acted in their own way to the detriment of any plans of the commander. The knights were chiefly interested in honors and glory and were not shy about funds in the front rank of the first division. Complete victory in battle was secondary to personal glory. Battle after battle, the knights attacked as soon as they saw the enemy, destroying any plans.
Sometimes the warlords dismounted the knights in order to better control them. This was a common course of action in a small army that had little chance of countering attacks. The dismounted knights supported the fighting power and morale of the regular infantry. Dismounted knights and other foot soldiers fought over stakes or other military installations designed to weaken the power of cavalry attacks.
An example of the undisciplined behavior of the knights was the Battle of Crécy in 1346. The French army outnumbered the English by several times (forty thousand and ten thousand), having significantly more mounted knights. The English divided into three groups of archers, protected by stakes driven into the ground. Between these three groups were two groups of dismounted knights. A third group of dismounted knights was held in reserve. Genoese mercenary crossbowmen were sent by the French king to fire on the English infantry, while he tried to organize his knights into three divisions. However, the crossbows got wet and were ineffective. The French knights ignored their king's efforts to organize as soon as they saw the enemy and went berserk with shouts of "Kill! Kill it! Having lost patience with the Genoese, the French king ordered his knights to attack, and they trampled crossbowmen on their way. Although the battle went on all day, the English knights on foot and archers (who had kept their bowstrings dry) prevailed over the mounted French, who fought in a disorderly crowd.
By the end of the Middle Ages, the importance of heavy cavalry on the battlefield declined and became approximately equal to the value rifle troops and infantry. By this time, the futility of an attack against a properly placed and disciplined infantry had become clear. The rules have changed. Palisades, pits against horses and ditches became the usual defense of armies against cavalry attacks. Attacks against numerous formations of spearmen and archers or shooters from firearms left only a pile of crushed horses and people. The knights were forced to fight on foot or wait for a suitable opportunity to attack. Devastating attacks were still possible, but only if the enemy fled disorganized or was outside the protection of temporary field structures.
Infantry Tactics
For most of this era, rifle troops consisted of archers using several types of bows. First it was a shortbow, then a crossbow and a longbow. The advantage of archers was the ability to kill or injure enemies from a distance without engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The significance of these troops was well known in ancient times, but this experience was temporarily lost in the era of the dark Middle Ages. During the early Middle Ages, the warrior-knights who controlled the territory were the main ones, and their code required a duel with a worthy enemy. Killing with arrows from a distance was shameful from the point of view of the knights, so ruling class did little for the development of this type of weapon and its effective use.
However, it gradually became clear that archers are effective and extremely useful both in sieges and in battle. Though reluctantly, all more armies gave them a place. William I's decisive victory at Hastings in 1066 may have been won by archers, although his knights traditionally received the highest honors. The Anglo-Saxons held the slope of the hill and were so protected by closed shields that it was very difficult for the Norman knights to break through them. The battle went on all day. The Anglo-Saxons ventured out from behind the shield wall, in part to get at the Norman archers. And when they came out, the knights knocked them down easily. For a while it seemed that the Normans should lose, but many believe that the battle was won by the Norman archers. Harold, king of the Anglo-Saxons, was mortally wounded by a well-placed shot, and shortly thereafter the battle was over.
Foot archers fought in numerous battle formations of hundreds or even thousands of people. At a hundred yards from the enemy, a shot from both a crossbow and a longbow could pierce armor. At this distance, the archers fired at individual targets. The enemy was furious from such losses, especially if he could not answer. In an ideal situation, archers would break up enemy formations by shooting at them for some time. The enemy could hide from cavalry attacks behind the palisade, but could not stop all the arrows flying at him. If the enemy came out from behind the barricade and attacked the archers, friendly heavy cavalry would step in, well in time to save the archers. If the enemy formations simply stood still, they could gradually move so that the cavalry had an opportunity for a successful attack.
Archers were actively supported and subsidized in England, as the British were outnumbered when waging war on the mainland. When the British learned to use a large contingent of archers, they began to win battles, even though the enemy usually outnumbered them. The British developed the "arrow shaft" method, taking advantage of the range of the longbow. Instead of shooting at individual targets, archers with longbows fired at areas occupied by the enemy. Shooting up to six shots per minute, 3,000 archers with longbows could fire 18,000 arrows at numerous enemy formations. The impact of this boom shaft on horses and people was devastating. The French knights during the Hundred Years' War spoke of the sky blackened by arrows and the noise these projectiles made as they flew.
Crossbowmen became a prominent force in the mainland armies, especially in the militia and professional troops formed by the cities. The crossbowman became a soldier ready for action with minimal training.
By the fourteenth century, the first primitive hand-held firearms, the handguns, appeared on the battlefields. Subsequently, it became even more effective than bows.
The difficulty in using archers was to ensure their protection while shooting. In order for the shooting to be effective, they had to be very close to the enemy. English archers brought stakes to the battlefield and hammered them into the ground with mallets in front of the place from which they wanted to fire. These stakes gave them some protection from enemy cavalry. And in the matter of protection against enemy archers, they relied on their weapons. They were at a disadvantage when attacking enemy infantry. Crossbowmen took into battle huge shields equipped with supports. These shields formed the walls from behind which people could shoot.
By the end of the era, archers and spearmen acted together in mixed formations. The spears held the enemy hand-to-hand troops, while the rifle troops (crossbowmen or shooters from firearms) fired at the enemy. These mixed formations have learned to move and attack. The enemy cavalry was forced to retreat in the face of a disciplined mixed force of spearmen and crossbowmen or gunners. If the enemy could not strike back with their own arrows and spears, the battle was most likely lost.
Infantry tactics
The tactics of the infantry during the dark Middle Ages was simple - to approach the enemy and engage in battle. The Franks threw their axes just before approaching to cut the enemy. Warriors counted on victory through strength and ferocity.
The development of chivalry temporarily overshadowed the infantry on the battlefield, mainly because disciplined and well-trained infantry did not exist then. The foot soldiers of the armies of the early Middle Ages were mostly poorly armed and poorly trained peasants.
The Saxons and Vikings developed a defensive tactic called the shield wall. The warriors stood close to each other, moving long shields that formed a barrier. This helped them protect themselves from archers and cavalry, which were not in their armies.
The resurgence of the infantry took place in areas that did not have the resources to support heavy cavalry, in hilly countries like Scotland and Switzerland, and in growing cities. Out of necessity, these two sectors found ways to bring effective armies to the battlefield with little or no cavalry. Both groups found that horses would not attack a barrage of sharp stakes or spearheads. A disciplined troop of spearmen could stop the elite heavy cavalry units of wealthier nations and lords for a fraction of the cost of a heavy cavalry troop.
The battle formation of the shiltron, which was a circle of spearmen, began to be used by the Scots during the wars of independence at the end of the thirteenth century (reflected in the movie "Braveheart"). They realized that the shiltron was an effective defensive formation. Robert the Bruce suggested that the English knights fight only on swampy terrain, which made it very difficult for heavy cavalry to attack.
The Swiss spearmen were widely known. They essentially revived the Greek phalanxes and made great strides fighting with long polearms. They created a square of spearmen. The four outer ranks held their spears almost horizontally, tilted slightly downwards. This was an effective barrier against cavalry. The rear ranks used bladed poles to attack the enemy as they approached the formation. The Swiss were so well trained that their unit could move relatively quickly, thanks to which they were able to turn the defensive formation into an effective offensive battle formation.
The response to the appearance of the battle formations of the spearmen was artillery, which punched holes in the dense ranks of the troops. The Spaniards were the first to use it effectively. The Spanish shield-bearers armed with swords also successfully fought with the spearmen. They were light armored soldiers who could easily move among spears and fight effectively with short swords. Their shields were small and handy. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Spaniards were also the first to experiment, combining spearmen, swordsmen and firearms in one battle formation. It was an effective army that could use any weapon on any terrain for both defense and attack. At the end of this era, the Spaniards were the most effective military force in Europe.