# Medieval Warfare Questions and Answers



## Ankari (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm starting this thread as a response to a comment from a beta reader.  If anyone knows the following, please share:


I am under the assumption that most ancient battles (before modern technology) were fought either in early morning or afternoon.  Is this correct?
Wars were not fought in the winter or harvesting time, is this correct?
What are common ways for a general to communicate with his lieutenants?
Having an army full of plate-wearing soldiers would be vastly expensive and unlikely, correct?


Thanks!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 24, 2012)

I'll hit on communications and armor but my knowledge is likely lesser than some of the excellent historians in this forum.

Battlefield communications: Flags of differing designs which meant different things. For example, Archers Forward or Cavalry Charge. Also, I believe they used horns, a practice which continued into the armies of the industrial revolution and is still used today for ceremony.

Armor: An army of soldiers fully decked out in plate would not only be ungodly in expense but also impractical from a strategic standpoint. Archers were vital to medieval warfare. Light scouts needed to move quickly. The soldiers dressed in full plate would be the exception, not the rule. These men were knights & lords, often expected to supply their own arms, armor, and mounts. Most men of that time could never even consider the cost for one of these items.


----------



## Xavier (Oct 24, 2012)

Hi Ankari,



> •I am under the assumption that most ancient battles (before modern technology) were fought either in early morning or afternoon. Is this correct?


That depends on which period of history your actually refering to?  You would need to pin point a least a rough period, either ancient, darkages, Medieval etc before that could really be answered.



> •Wars were not fought in the winter or harvesting time, is this correct?


Again, that would depend on the period.  later periods didn't matter, earlier periods did.



> •What are common ways for a general to communicate with his lieutenants?


earlier some had runners, medieval period they used banners, horns, whistles, drums etc, they are some, depends on the period.



> •Having an army full of plate-wearing soldiers would be vastly expensive and unlikely, correct?


Most armies didn't have them.  Each person historically was responsible for their own weapons and armour and could have afford that type of gear.  Again, it depends on the historical period your looking at to be able to get specific answers.

Sorry, I know Im being pedantic, but as a Living History person you rarely operate on generalities.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks Xavier, 

I'm basing my world around the 1000 to 1100 AD period.  Is that a good start?


----------



## FatCat (Oct 25, 2012)

Are you basing any tactics/techniques from any historical armies?


----------



## Ankari (Oct 25, 2012)

FatCat said:


> Are you basing any tactics/techniques from any historical armies?



Tactics are open.  My world has magic that would expand the possible tactics.  But I try to base them on established tactics.


----------



## Xavier (Oct 25, 2012)

Hi Ankari, your looking at what was the ending dark age era moving into the medieval period.  I'm going to assume your looking at the European area rather than the Middle East.  1066 was the invasion of William the bastard or conquerer from Normandy into England.

On that basis the answer to your questions would be.

1.  They were predominantly started after the sun came up.  It was more a thing for the knights and nobles to be able to face their enemies in personal and honourable combat.  This of course all depended on what actually happened, ie: running into your enemy might cause a fight to begin but not always.  Saxons in England were a bit different, but not much.

2.  Correct, where possible wars stopped from harvesting time and over the winter, because the majority of people fighting in e wars were serfs or standard everyday people that needed the harvest to sustain them through the harsh European winter.  Later periods this changed or in the event of an urgent issue like an attack that occurred win that period.  It caused major issue through winter though if all the harvest wasn't bought in.

3.  Some banners had come in at this period, but it was predominantly runner, sent on horse back or foot to run and tell the commanders what needed to be done or changed.  Sometimes horns or drums were used, depending upon the commander and the nationality.  Runners where the best, but was usually word of mouth because many couldn't read or write back then, even the nobility could barely read or write.  That was effectively the domain of the clergy.

4.  Blunt answer, there was no plate armour around that time.  The main armour was padded gambersons or coats, especially the poor, most didn't even have that, remember they were farmers more than anything and the Lord didn't provide them with gear.  Men at arms might have had a bit of mail armour, maybe a shirt, knights may have full haulburgs (sp) and Nobility may have had some mail and perhaps some plate or leather Lamellar or scale armour, may have had it in metal but unlikely.  The predominant armour would have been a mail shirt, Plate armour in that period, unheard of 

Hope that helps, feel free to email me or post here if you would like more info.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 25, 2012)

Thanks Xavier, 

A few follow up questions then:

1) So when nations started having permanent armies, they would fight any time of the year?  I always thought that winter, especially in the colder climates, deterred warfare.

2) Supposed the technology existed, as TAS stated, it wouldn't be logical or economically possible for an army to wear full plate.  Right?


----------



## Ankari (Oct 25, 2012)

Another question:

How does screening work exactly?  I always read this in novels.  A contingent of soldiers would screen the main body of the army.  The intention is that the contingent somehow veils the main army from the eyes of the enemy.  But how?


----------



## FatCat (Oct 25, 2012)

I'd say that most of what you have is correct. Nighttime battle is usually avoided in these times, the lack of sophisticated communication makes large-scale night combat improbable. The army full of plate-armor is something that should be derived from worldbuilding sense, imo. Horns, banners, ect. would be the norm for communicating while on the battlefield. Common sense should play a big part in this, imagine yourself in this scenario, with the given technology, what would be the best form of communication? The addition of magic is a big role in this, in my mind the first and foremost thing in any tactician's mind would be how to give orders effectively. 

That being said, fantasy is fantasy. As long as these events are natural, no worries. You have to sort out in a common sense way how things would develop in your world. If 'mages' have the ability to communicate telepathically, then that would be a huge boost to any general. Sounds and flags have gone the way of the dodo for a reason. Miscommunication is a very important factor in war, look at the charge of the light brigade. Trust your story, think critically, and everything will develop as it should.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 25, 2012)

> I'd say that most of what you have is correct. Nighttime battle is usually avoided in these times, the lack of sophisticated communication makes large-scale night combat improbable.



The more specific question is "Did they avoid high noon?"


----------



## FatCat (Oct 25, 2012)

Screening is recon, you have people out in front of your main body of troops to gauge the situation. Spies, specially trained operatives, all the sort would fall into this category. There have been many times in history where 'screening' has been successful and many times when it hasn't. The 'screeners' of an army are usually cavalry, due to their mobility. They survey the opposition in numbers, while spies would usually be placed within the opposition's  ranks to gauge moral. Gettysburg is a good example of screening gone wrong, the cavalry that was supposed to be the eyes of the Confederacy went on a 'fun run', destroying train links and other communication outposts. While they were doing this, the main force of the Union army was on the march and eventually took the high ground. 

It is important, in my mind, to have a good sense of how communication works in your world, as it is the most important part of conducting warfare.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 25, 2012)

Thanks FatCat.

I always thought that screening was the opposite of what you described.  I thought an army set up a screen to hid their numbers from the enemy scouts.  



> It is important, in my mind, to have a good sense of how communication works in your world, as it is the most important part of conducting warfare.



Yes, this is 90% settled.  In most cases, my reference to the 1100 AD is appropriate for communication capabilities as well.


----------



## FatCat (Oct 25, 2012)

Screening is something that happens as a forefront of any tactical maneuver. Any insight into a military campaign reveals a heavy reliance on scouts. The Indian-Settler wars, as example, exemplify this. Knowledge of troop numbers and positioning is key to any military conflict, which is why generals from present to antiquity have hired local guides as resource to their strategy. 

There are deception tactics which have been used time and time again to fool "screeners'. A common scenario of this is lighting a ton of campfires. From a distance, an enemy 'screener' would calculate the number of troops based on this. They would report a high number of enemy troops due to what they've seen. Thus, the general would be wary of in his tactics of opposing a force depending on size. If you haven't read the Art of War, I recommend so. Not only is it fascinating, you get a very bare-bones common sense way of plotting a campaign.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 25, 2012)

Thanks FatCat.  Your explanation clarifies much of the confusion I had about authors using "screening."


----------



## FatCat (Oct 25, 2012)

Screens can be the opposite of what I have described as well. I vaguely remember a scenario in which one general marched his meagre forces for three days in front on an enemy fort. The commanding officer saw this, and decided that in no way could he militarily accomplish holding the fort. Although the forces marching outside the fort were small, the deception remained the same. From all that I've read on warfare, the basic summation remains the same. Common sense rules the field. You can have highly trained soldiers, but without proper direction they fail. You can have a rag-tag force of individuals that win. It all depends on how the battle is set. Reconnaissance is one of the most fundamental forms of developing strategy. 

A friend of mine once commented on how bizarre it was that in the Revolutionary war soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder and endured the waves of bullets. The understanding behind this is that control is the only way to effectively maintain battle order, while guerilla warfare may be more individually successful, it in no means impedes an army of major objectives. While the style of warfare remains the same (Art of War is a must read, not only for tactics but principles in life) the changes in technology are just as important. 

The only thing, in my mind, to remember when writing a military campaign, is common sense. Put yourself in the characters shoes, know what options are available. Military history is full of generals going against the 'norm', and succeeding. Then again, there are examples in which 'arm-chair generals' review the facts and wonder why such a manuvoer would be preformed. Relax, you know your characters. Do what makes sense, and it'll turn out fine.


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 25, 2012)

FatCat said:


> A friend of mine once commented on how bizarre it was that in the Revolutionary war soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder and endured the waves of bullets.


Fairly recently I read that the British thought it unfair that the "colonial rebels" did not stand and fight but took pot shots at them and then ran away. Use what you've got
What gets me is that 130+ years later the British [and everyone else] were still trying the shoulder to should approach against machine guns...



FatCat said:


> ...while  guerilla warfare may be more individually successful, it in no means  impedes an army of major objectives.


And it rarely holds land. 

Screening or Recon troops are essential at finding food, shelter and  possible routes for an army as well as looking out for the opposing  forces. If a valley has been razed or bridges destroyed  an army will  need to find an alternative and it wasn't unknown for armies to live of  the land while campaigning. 
And there will be screening troops behind your army - to make sure you are not out manoeuvred.


----------



## Xavier (Oct 25, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Thanks Xavier,
> 
> A few follow up questions then:
> 
> ...



1.  There was really no such thing as permanent armies in countries until around the Napoleonic period, England was one of the first.  Most other Countries had militia, civilians that served for a period of time, still usually went home in late spring though.  During the medieval period and up, especially in England and Europe under the feudal system, the closest thing to a standing army was the Nobilities households, which required them to have so many men at arms and knights to call on at any time.  There are recoded battles that occurred in winter, but they are few until you get to the Napoleonic period mostly.

2.  Not all no, about the only ones that would wear plate would have been the nobility and knights, perhaps some men-at-arms with partial plate.  Others might pick it up on the battle field.  Overall though, you wouldn't have a whole army in full plate armour, the cost would be beyond any "real" nations financial and economic ability.


----------



## Xavier (Oct 25, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Another question:
> 
> How does screening work exactly?  I always read this in novels.  A contingent of soldiers would screen the main body of the army.  The intention is that the contingent somehow veils the main army from the eyes of the enemy.  But how?



The Dark Age, Medieval period didn't really do it.  Best they had was scouts.  They would spy out the land ahead and look for the enemy etc, then warn the main body so they could attempt to go around, backtrack or order the,selves for battle.

If you look at the Napoleonic period though it was well and truly in to a degree, the French used Vorteguer (sp) and the British used the Riflemen.  They were skirmish units pushed out front to take out scouts when the army was on the mark or in full line battle, used to move out the front of the lined army positions to screen the main body from the enemy skirmishes.  It was mainly done then to stop the enemy skirmishes from picking off your own troops.


----------



## SeverinR (Nov 15, 2012)

FatCat said:


> There are deception tactics which have been used time and time again to fool "screeners'. A common scenario of this is lighting a ton of campfires. From a distance, an enemy 'screener' would calculate the number of troops based on this. They would report a high number of enemy troops due to what they've seen. Thus, the general would be wary of in his tactics of opposing a force depending on size. If you haven't read the Art of War, I recommend so. Not only is it fascinating, you get a very bare-bones common sense way of plotting a campaign.


Art of war is a very easy read for the content and time period, and being mostly philosphy and human nature.
It applies to so much of life, not only war.
Definately recommend for battles or just how to think about human nature.

The art of war:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...ACFCED46B90688161CD1AC&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3


----------



## Filk (Nov 21, 2012)

Also, sometimes the rarity of helmets would even make those wearing them stick out as good targets


----------



## Kahle (Dec 4, 2012)

1-Most battles would last as long as the light. At night there was the risk of fighting your own men, and the commanders couldn't gauge the progress of the combat. That said, some tricks were employed at night. A sieging force could use fire and torches to magnify the apparent size of their force, and some sieges involved night assaults upon walls, but those were rare. Sometimes invasion forces would land at night, guided to shore by beacons serving as small light houses-lit by traitors/spies etc.
2-Winter caused too many logistical errors, and people had a hard enough time finding food without an army eating everything in sight. Spring and fall were high campaigning times, and though summer was usually too hot, it would be an ideal time to strike at an unprepared enemy and destroy his food supply.
3-Usually the general and his bodyguard would take a tactical viewpoint on a hill or such, behind the archers. There were commonly used signals that each of the sub-commanders would have been familiar with-one horn for archers, two for retreat, etc. That or there was a standard approach to a battle. European knights had a love of the cavalry charge-which they rarely got to do. The archers would fire a barrage or two, followed closely by the cavalry, who were in turn followed by the infantry for the main battle. However, the cavalry charge-and as is said of most plans-they only lasted until that first contact.
4-Most forces were composite. A lone cavalry force could be decimated by archers and pikemen, while unprotected archers would be slaughtered by infantry and cavalry. Most European forces had about a 1:3:2 for cavalry, infantry, archers. Aside from mercenary companies, most infantry and archers would be conscripts. The crusaders in Outremer-the Holy Lands-had to combat the Muslim forces under Saladin, who employed massive numbers of light cavalry who could use both lances and bows to great effect. They would tire the crusading knights and pick at them with their archers while the Christians marched. The standing army came into play very recently in history. That said, the feudal system was designed to provide a monarch with a readily available fighting force. The king would have 20 earls to call upon, each of whom provided 10 barons, who each brought 60 knights-again, this was the ideal, rarely were all these forces available.


----------

