War: Methods of Offence and Defence
From the 5th to the 15th century cavalry was supreme in warfare, and by 1300 the defensive in the form of the heavy armour of the knight and the moated and thickly-walled feudal castle had gained complete mastery over offensive weapons.
It may not be out of place here to point out that the advances in offensive and defensive armour in the past, just as to-day, depended upon the producer, and whatever the brilliancy of the leader or the expertness of the soldiery, in the last analysis the group that had access to the products of the best and most advanced craftsmen were the most successful in warfare. In different parts of Europe and the Near East there were famous workshops producing high grade weapons and armour, excellent examples of which are to be seen in the museums. The great skill that must have been employed in their production is an evidence of the technical capacity of the so-called “Dark Ages.” The product of these workshops, however, could only be purchased by the wealthy lords and nobles of the time, for the rigging out of a knight and his horse in the complete armour required was costly.
From the declining days of the Roman Empire onwards it became a race in armaments, in which the group possessing the heavier cavalry almost inevitably won. The mediaeval knight carried an enormous weight of metal, but it carried him to victory in his day.
There is not space available to explain in detail the changes and shifts of armoured infantry and lightly armoured horsemen that occurred in the development from the horse-bowmen and javelin throwers to the completely armoured knight, whose equipment was impervious to arrows or spears. It may be mentioned that it was the work of its armour makers that helped the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire centred in Constantinople) to hold out against the Barbarian and Saracenic invaders for centuries.
By the 9th century in Europe practically all fighting was done by horsemen. The feudal order grew out of the barbarian tribal organisation in which war was carried on under temporary war chiefs. Declining Rome bought the services of these chiefs in some instances by the grants of territory, in other instances territory was conquered and collectivist villages made subject to the conquerors. The fortification of bridgeheads, strongholds, and eventually the castle was the means that ultimately tied the wandering armed bands down to definite portions of land, and produced the hierarchy of service obligations that has gone by the name of feudalism.
In the hierarchy of feudalism the church was the largest owner of lands, and hence church dignitaries encased in armour were in the forefront of feudal wars, hacking, slaughtering and riding the defeated down with the best.
The knightly cavalry that ultimately developed had no real leaders; each noble was practically a law unto himself. This brought considerable confusion into the battles of the time, as the knight fought or declined to fight when and how he thought he would. Even when agreement had been reached as to the time a battle was to begin isolated groups often commenced the fight long before the main body had arrived on the spot.
In warfare there was little attempt at provisioning an army, dependence being placed upon plundering the country they entered. The principle of attack was the blind impetuous charge. Knights would charge anything; sometimes they landed into a wall or a swamp—hence Cervante’s satire of Don Quixote charging a windmill.
As infantry declined battles became rare, and were replaced by sieges of long duration. The heavily armed horsemen could not operate where there were natural obstructions. In fact, in one instance two armies were drawn up on opposite sides of a river and neither could cross in face of the other. One of the leaders thereupon courteously offered the opposing army an uninterrupted crossing in order that they might have a proper battle ! It was this very weight of armour that first brought the horsemen down when an offensive weapon was found that was able to pierce the best armour that could be produced.
Although war appears to have been the outstanding occupation of the Middle Ages, it must be remembered that no war could be carried on without production, and no wealth could be looted unless there were people regularly engaged in producing it. What the mediaeval lord fought for at bottom was power over increased quantities of the labour dues exacted from the feudal labourer. The feudal barons, developed from village head men and military chiefs installed by conquerors, once constituted, began to war on each other to increase territory. Thus petty barons were gradually wiped out and powerful dukes and lords developed in their places. The wars of the feudal barons were conducted as much against each other as against foreign powers, with the object of increasing power and possessions, much as the capitalists of our days enter into cut-throat competition with each other for a similar object, although they are also a privileged class with an identical interest as against the rest of the population.
By the end of the 9th century the equipment of men-at-arms consisted of a long lance made of ashwood, a steel sword and a long shield made of wood covered with leather. He wore a tunic covered with iron rings. In the course of time the iron rings on this tunic were improved and increased, until, by the end of the 11th century, it was replaced by a coat of mail, entirely composed or iron links, which extended from chin to knee, and which was called a hauberk. The head was protected by a helmet of steel, and the nose by a piece of steel.
This equipment was so heavy and complicated that long practice was necessary before the wearer could make use of it in warfare. Also a servant, who went by the name of squire or equerry, was required to carry the shield and lace the helmet and hauberk.
By the end of the 11th century these knights formed a hereditary privileged class, into which none could enter unless born into it. None could be armed as a knight unless he was the son of a knight. The craftsman and tiller of the soil, who paid in service for military protection, felt the iron heel of his protector grinding him down more and more heavily as the centuries passed, until he found in gunpowder the final means to overthrow this overpowering mass of iron at a time when its usefulness was also passing away.
Owing to the development of the crossbow, the bolt from which could penetrate the coat of mail, the latter gave place to plate armour in the 14th century, which saw the highest development of personal defensive armour. The rider was encased from head to foot in solid steel, the only openings being at the joint of the limbs and in the visor that protected the face. As this armour was so complete only a small oblong shield was carried, which gave the knight more freedom to handle his lance. The horse was also afflicted with quantities of plate armour.
Thus accoutred the knight cruised like a modern battleship. The unfortunate tenants of these lords, a proportion of whom were forced to follow the knight into battle, had practically no protection and were armed with the most primitive weapons—often only pitchforks and the like. They acted as the scouts and attendants and suffered the worst miseries of the prevailing type of warfare. Sometimes when these tenants were moving ahead, trying to make contact with the enemy, the knightly chivalry would become impatient and charge through and over them to get at the foe. Likewise, when the knights, in defeat, decided to abandon the battle, they would turn about and ride their lowly followers down in their indifferent haste to get away.
The heavy armour presented many difficulties. It was impossible for the knightly cavalry to operate effectively in rough or hilly country. There was also the problem of breeding powerful enough horses to carry the enormous weight. For example, England could not provide sufficient of these horses and had to import them from Normandy.
The first weapons to pierce the best plate armour produced were wielded by foemen drawn from sections of society outside and below the privileged knightly circles—the pike-men of Switzerland and the longbow-men of England.
In the 14th century pike-men of Switzerland met and defeated at Morgarten a large body of knights under Leopold of Austria who were attempting to invade Switzerland. This began the ascendancy of infantry over cavalry once again, and the formation used was reminiscent of the Greek and Roman phalanx. In a few years the Swiss pike-men became supreme on the Continent as a fighting force.
The pike-men formed into a phalanx of enormous depth and depended for success upon the tremendous force of their impact upon the enemy. They used ashen pikes, eighteen feet long, with a head of steel that extended another foot, which was held with both hands wide apart at the level of the shoulder. Before the line of pike-men there extended the points of the first, second, third and fourth line of pikes, thus making a bristling hedge of points, almost impossible to penetrate. The Swiss pike-men were strong and hardy mountaineers, kept formation, and rushed swiftly upon their opponents, delivering an impact which the knightly cavalry were unable to resist. When the knights, in their turn, attempted to charge the steel hedge, the point penetrated their armour or knocked them off their horses. Once the knight was unhorsed he was in a hopeless position, owing to his unwieldy equipment. The Swiss also possessed a fearsome weapon in the halberd, which had a blade like a hatchet, that could cleave through any armour. When the halberd men got among the dismounted knights they hewed them to pieces.
Thus the Swiss, by shock tactics and a new weapon, brought the horsemen down.
The other offensive weapon was the missile fired from the longbow of the English archer. The weakness of the crossbow was due to the length of time it took to wind up the arbalest. The English archers, however, with a six-foot bow could fire several arrows at charging horsemen and bring numbers of them down before they could get within striking distance. These bows were so powerful that the arrows would pierce armour at a considerable distance.
At Crecy and Poitiers, in the middle of the 14th century, the English archers scored their first successes, when they were mainly responsible for the victory of the English army over the French.
Thus mediaeval chivalry started upon its decline. The hitherto impregnable fortress was now also to meet a weapon that rendered it obsolete as a form of defence, and again the means—gunpowder—was to be used by infantrymen.
In the tenth century the castle was not of great strength. It consisted of a wooden tower built on an elevation and surrounded by a ditch and a stockade. A sloping plank led up to the door, which was several feet above the ground. In the course of time this stronghold was considerably improved and stone replaced wood in the buildings. By the fourteenth century the castle had become a fortress of considerable strength and almost impossible to capture by the best siege instrument before the use of gunpowder. Sometimes they were built on precipices, like Dunluce Castle in the North of Ireland. In the centre was the huge tower, the abode of the lord; this was surrounded by an enclosure to house cattle, granaries, stables and the lodgings of the servants and men-at-arms. Then came the castellated wall of enormous thickness—twenty to thirty feet. Outside this, again, was an encircling moat, only crossed by a drawbridge, which, when raised, prevented access to the gates. Beyond this, again, there were further obstructions.
When an enemy approached these powerful defences he was met by missiles of various descriptions fired or hurled through the openings at the top of the walls. At one time a platform ran around the top of the walls, from which boiling water and burning faggots descended upon the heads of attackers who attempted to ram or undermine the walls, but that platform was superseded by strong towers built out from the walls at the corners. Through loopholes in these towers the defenders were able to fire upon anyone who succeeded in reaching the foot of the walls.
The siege weapons employed in the Middle Ages are thus described by Duncalf and Kreg, in “Parallel Source Problems of European History” :
“The ram was a large beam or log, which was suspended by ropes or chains from solid perpendicular beams. When drawn back it was allowed to swing against the walls. It was necessary to cover the men who worked the ram with some kind of protection, as the defenders dropped stones from the top of the walls. By the use of the ram the wall was shaken down or a hole was made through it.
There were various kinds of engines for hurling stones or shooting javelins. Ropes or cords were so twisted that when suddenly released they hurled a stone or other missile. Other machines were like large crossbows, and-shot javelins and stones. The petrarea was a machine which hurled stones as missiles. The tormentum was an engine operated by the use of twisted cords, by torsion.” (P. 111.)
“Mantlets were used to shelter the men who were attacking. They were usually made of wickerwork or basketwork of twigs and rods so as to be light enough to carry easily. They were generally covered with hides as a protection from the firebrands hurled down from the walls. Such shields could be held over the men who were working close to the wall, or could be used by men when making an assault. These mantlets seem to have been of great service to the crusaders at Jerusalem.” (P. 125.)
The siege .machines were also mounted in wooden towers covered .with hides, that were built to a height level with the walls. These towers were pushed up to the walls so that the attackers could pass on to the walls and enter the castle or city.
The privileged classes of antiquity were cultured, but the chief characteristics of the flower of mediaeval chivalry appear to have been armour, arrogance, ignorance and the pursuit of plunder. When the rough, uncultured knights of Europe set out on the first crusade at the end of the eleventh century the taking of the holy sepulchre out of the hands of the infidel was only a pretext behind which their real plundering aims were hidden. The ambitions and mercenary jealousies of the leaders made it doubtful whether the crusaders would ever reach Jerusalem. As they saw the wealth and splendour of the East they were so delighted and astonished that they wanted to settle on the rich territory they had invaded and forget the religious enthusiasm that they professed. It was only the pressure from the ranks that forced the leaders on.
GILMAC