Ask me about military History

[TheokinsJ]

Since a young age I've been obsessed with ancient and medieval history, reading about the Roman army and knights in the middle ages ect, and so I thought I'd share my knowledge with anyone who wants to know about battle tactics, weapons, military history and practically anything to do with war in ancient and Medieval times.

 

[Mask]

Hmm... what's a tricky question to test you with... I'll go with a few which I know the answers of, for fun:

1) What is the correct name for that spiked ball on a chain on a stick people call a morning star?

2) How far back were man-carried guns used in warfare?

3) In the boardgame chess, what military unit is the Pawn based off?


That last one is a mean one. The first one is based off one of my own mistakes. Looking forward to this thread. I'd love to help you with answering questions here and there, if I can.

 

[TheokinsJ]

Hmm... what's a tricky question to test you with... I'll go with a few which I know the answers of, for fun:

1) What is the correct name for that spiked ball on a chain on a stick people call a morning star?

2) How far back were man-carried guns used in warfare?

3) In the boardgame chess, what military unit is the Pawn based off?


That last one is a mean one. The first one is based off one of my own mistakes. Looking forward to this thread. I'd love to help you with answering questions here and there, if I can.

Can't say I know the name of the first, only that it resembles a mace quite closely, and was usually a peasant weapon, rarely used by knights who used swords on horseback.
However as to the second I believe guns were used in Europe back in the 1400s (although not widely used till mid 1500s and later), I know that medieval cannons were being used in the mid 1300s and early 1400s, and therefor the europeans had already got the recipe of gunpowder from the chinese, I'm guessing around 1300s guns were used in China? Cannons would have been used much earlier than that, as the chinese invented fireworks and used them for military purposes.
As for the Chess question, I am guessing that the pawn was originally based off peasants or perhaps pikemen? This is purely a guess based on the placement of them on the board, they are the front line which usually would have been infantry men-at-arms. Still, I'll be fascinated to hear the answers and perhaps you would be so kind to enlighten others with your knowledge as well.

 

[Mask]

It is simply known as a (military) flail, or sometimes nicknamed knightly flail. The examples with a spiked ball for a head tended to be very sophisticated weapons, and so so wouldn't have been common among peasants. I had to do some digging, but managed to find a three ancient illustrations: http://www.mediumaevum.com/75years/Two men with club and flail.JPG
Manuscript Miniatures: Image
http://www.enluminures.culture.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht5/IRHT_085851-p.jpg

That's about right for guns, I think--there's a problem in lack of distinction between man-carried firearms and cannon. There are some unconfirmed accounts from earlier periods as well, so it might change if we dig up anything else on that subject in the future.

Pikemen, for the pawn. The reason pawns attack diagonally, and can't advance if another pawn is directly in front of them, was due to the murderous nature of pike vs. pike. Casualties are extremely severe, if both sides are willing to engage. So, normally, when faced with another pike unit, the troops would refuse to advance. They were, however, willing to attack the flanks of an unready pike unit.
An exception to those rules, were the Swiss. They built a terrifying reputation among military forces of the world, because they were willing to enter suicidal pike battles without hesitation. It got to the point where enemy pikemen would flee if faced with Swiss pikes, since they knew the Swiss were going to fight to the death.


Hope those answers are satisfactory. I'm sorry if they're a little vague. I've been feeling under the weather lately.

 

[wordwalker]

It is simply known as a (military) flail, or sometimes nicknamed knightly flail. The examples with a spiked ball for a head tended to be very sophisticated weapons, and so so wouldn't have been common among peasants.

I think "morningstar" is technically the name for a spiked head, whether it's on a flail or a simple mace, and gets (mis?)used for either weapon if it's spiky enough.

 

[Mask]

That would make a lot of sense. Not sure if it is the case, though. It seems that morning star might refer directly to a wide variety of clubs.

 

[Sia]

Hi, theokins. Tell me how shield walls work when everyone's left-handed, please? (Well, not everyone everyone but close enough)

 

[Nobby]

I don't think shield walls work like that, at least not in the saxon style...

 

[Sia]

But is that because it's not something you can flip or because in our world, most people are right-handed?

 

[CupofJoe]

If you were talking about a "Roman" or "Greek" style shield wall... I don't think there would be much difference except that it might be weaker on the right flank as traditionally they were see of as weak on the left.
if there was a more 50/50 split in handedness then I can think of two options..
1 - An army/general/nation would pick one hand to be dominant and you have pretty much as before
or
2 - Tactics might evolve around the benefits of having two "cutting edges" as it where... Triangular or pointed formations that wouldn't have a weak side, concave formations that could wrap around an enemy more easily and convex formations that could almost focus their effectiveness...
I'm not an expert in handedness or shield wall tactics - so I can't really work it all out in my head...

 

[TheokinsJ]

Hi, theokins. Tell me how shield walls work when everyone's left-handed, please? (Well, not everyone everyone but close enough)

In Roman and greek times, most boys would have been trained to use the weapons right handed. There would have been very few, if any left-handed swordsmen and warriors, because as CupofJoe has said, the culture would have been directed towards either left handed or right handed, and everyone would have been trained to use weapons with the appropriate hand, regardless of which one they favoured the most. Even if they were left handed from birth, they would have been forced to change their ways and use spears and swords in their right hand- this would not have been difficult to achieve, as most boys were trained young, around the age of seven or so (In the case of the greeks). However if everyone was left handed, there would be no change to the formation with shields, other than it would be flipped as others have said.
The phallanx formation would be reversed and formations such as the 'tortoise' (can't remember it's proper name) done by the romans would also be identical to those of a right-handed army, only flipped again.

 

[Sia]

Yeah, roman/greek shield wall. However, that does sound interesting about 1 and 2... I'll find ways to figure that out as well...

 

[Wolfram]

What would the medieval hierarchy be for soldiers, knights, captains? ect... Kind of like modern day equivalent to privates, sergeants, commanders ext, but for old times. Top to bottom in a list if possible.

 

[TheokinsJ]

In the modern army, ranks work much better than in medieval times. It's much easier now days to keep track of who's who by uniforms, although back in medieval england, for example, the ranks worked very different. At the top of the hierarchy in the King's army, there would have been a Chief-Constable, also known as a Commander in Chief. He had authority over local commanders and captains who oversaw the garrisons of major castles and forts. Basically he was the king's right hand man, he controlled the army, much the same as the equivalent of a general in modern times. Below the Commander in Chief there wasn't much else, a marshall who was responsible for financing the army and setting up camps, and then the local captains and commanders (usually lords) who led knights and foot soldiers such as Pikemen and archers.

If you look far enough back into history you will find evidence of the terms 'sergeant' and 'colonel' being used and many other modern ranks- however these were not as common and sound out of place in a medieval army. Basically the ranks amongst the soldiers were very simple; you were a knight or you weren't. If you were a knight you wore armour, had a lance or sword and a horse. If you weren't, you would almost certainly be on foot. There would have been other ranks too, men who commanded units of foot soldiers and men who held banners and flags who shouted orders and gave directions- however their names are not commonly used, and they most certainly were not distinguished from their fellow soldiers in any way. So, ranks in medieval times, ranks were few and vague, hope you found this helpful.

 

[skip.knox]

Sergeant was actually fairly common in both England and France by the 13thc or so. One problem with questions about anything "medieval" is that we're talking about a thousand years and multiple cultures. It'd be like someone in 3013 asking what were "Europeans" like in 2013. It's a very broad question and almost anything said will be both true and untrue depending on time and place.

I don't think "colonel" appears until very late.

BTW, some useful books
Charles Oman, The Art of War in the Middle Ages (very old but very readable)
Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages
Maurice Keen, Medieval Warfare
Helen Nicholson, Medieval Warfare
and, well, hundreds more. Bernard Bachrach, Kelly De Vries, David Nicolle
Don't neglect the Osprey books--Nicolle wrote several of those
And, in general, try out this search strategy. Enter your search string, the word 'bibliography', and the filter for edu. Example:
"medieval warfare" bibliography site:.edu
You can put your search of choice between the quotes.

 

[skip.knox]

Oh, and another good research is De Re Militarii. Google that. Excellent site.