History Forum / General / Medieval Period / July 2009

1.    Introduction and general background

There are certain aspects of a medieval military history that are so
conspicuous by their absence from the numerous books on a medieval
warfare that one may suspect a conspiracy of silence among so-called
“professionals” of this genre.

To understand importance of the issues that we are going to discuss,
it is necessary to discuss some ‘generic’ features of a medieval
warfare that existed beyond and above the local specifics [1].

It was wisely said in the early XIX century that, unlike the people,
horses don’t have a sense of patriotism and, as a result, must not
starve. Taking into an account that most of the Middle Ages most of
the people did not have patriotism either, the same rule can be
retroactively applied to the medieval combatants.  Taking into an
account that “eating” was routinely accompanied by heavy drinking,
these two related processes put certain restrictions on how medieval
wars had been fought. Quite obviously, the military leaders should
select the right time spot during which their warriors could (a) move
and (b) distinguish friend from foe [2].

To get a complete understanding of a daily routine, let’s look at the
typical schedule of a medieval noble while on a warpath. Well, to
think about it, it is rather difficult to do this because the
beginning of a day would greatly depend on 2 related factors: (a)
availability of a booze and (b) time when overnight drinking came to
the end [3]. At some point between a sunrise and lunch time, the
medieval army [4] was more or less in a state of wakening up. As
anybody who ever suffered from the morning hangover knows [5], the
only thing you are thinking about at this point is, shall we say,
“change of status” [6] and not the active physical exercises like a
warfare. Any loud noise, for example a sound of trumpets, is a torture
and your vision is too blurred to distinguish Lion Salient from Lion
Rampant Reguardant or Tuna Naiant from Tuna Embowed. By the very
optimistic estimates, this process should take couple hours, followed
by attending a morning prayer [7], relieving yourself and trying to
figure out where did you left your armor and sword [8]. Approximately
by noon your vision is (more or less) cleared and you need to have a
lunch [9] with the following refreshing nap, after which you are in a
fighting shape until dinner. At this critical point, the marshals
(voyevodas, whoever), providing they are more or less vertical, would
try to arrange an army in a battle order [10].

Putting a typical feudal army into an order was a long and cumbersome
process described by Verbruggen in the excruciating details. First of
all, it had to be figured out WHERE this exercise should take place:
the area should be big enough and completely flat so that it could be
easily confused with a jousting field [11]. When such a suitable place
was located, the marshal would order the trumpeters to play a sequence
of the signals: “Relieve yourselves!” [12], “Get dressed!” [13],
“Mount the horses!”, “Proceed slowly to the assembly area!”, “Shut up
and wait to be placed!” [14], “Tighten up!” [15], “Start moving in a
slow step!”, “Slower!”, “Even slower!” [16], and “Where do you think
you are going?” In the case when the enemy was too dumb and the clash
really happened, the side which had a tighter formation was, usually,
a winner [17] and, after disentanglement, army could proceed to the
dinner [18].

Obviously, all of the above required a lot of a physical exercise and
having them in a good shape before the battle was crucial. This brings
us to an issue of after-lunch nap.

2.    Importance of taking a nap

Generations of the warriors all over Europe considered mid-day nap as
being extremely important not only due to the related physical
advantages [19] but also because having it provided certain
psychological edge.

A sight of the opponent happily snoring in a direct vicinity of an
enemy, in most cases left the said enemy with a huge inferiority
complex. Also, unless being TOTALLY stupid, enemy understood that, if
being suddenly woken up, an opponent could react with an extreme
violence [20] well beyond the boundaries of a traditional cruelty. The
most reasonable course of actions was to take a nap somewhere nearby
so by the time of battle you are in as good a shape as your opponent.

Of course, it must be said, that all of the above required certain
“cultural framework”: both sides should be aware of the napping-
related aspects of warfare. If such an understanding was absent on one
side, things could go out of control. One of the best-known examples
is what happened in a real-life at Roncesvalles to Roland and his
napping friends [21] another example would be one of the many not
quite successful encounters between the Russians and the Mongols,
which happened on the river appropriately called “Piana” [22]. After
having a decent lunch, the Russians took a nap and the culturally-
insensitive Mongols took an unfair advantage of it.

On a positive side, having a nap was considered something of an
indicator of a superior culture and, as a result, this habit was
gradually adopted by at least some of the less developed nations. For
example, during one of the endless Frankish campaigns the Saxons
crawled into their fortified camp to find the entire garrison
peacefully snoring. An example looked so attractive that, instead of
killing all the enemies, the Saxons joined the nap. After this, it
took only few decades of a constant fighting to submerge them into a
superior Frankish culture.

3.    Importance of having the right Leaders

An issue of a medieval _European_ leadership had been discussed by the
numerous “professionals” but mostly from a totally wrong perspective
[23]. Rallying to the similarly-looking standards [24] and trying to
figure out which of the numerous military orchestras is currently
playing your battle-tune [25] sound nice and well on paper but their
practical implementation (especially when you are still trying to
sober up after yesterday’s dinner) is somewhat questionable. You need
something easily recognizable, which brings us to an issue of a
leadership.

The most important thing was to have a leader whom you could easily
recognize [26] under almost any circumstances and with the minimal
requirements toward an education in the liberal arts. An ideal leader
should be big in size (“majestic”), preferably with a very loud voice
[27] and a habit of swinging some big piece of weaponry, to simplify
recognition even further. If, in addition, he was wearing something
like a gilded cuirass or a really big set of feathers on his helmet,
you simply could not wish a better leader in the terms of having a
rallying point. Traits which would, within a different framework,
considered as the handicaps [28], either did no matter or were
considered as some kind of (a little bit weird) advantage. As long as
you were tall, strong, loud-voiced, and, preferably, blond you had
most of the qualifications of a great military leader. Ah yes, you
also had to possess an excessive amount of a personal bravery to
excuse you for losing your troops in most moronic way [29].

OTOH, the small unimposing figures like Emperor Frederick II could not
and did not inspire either loyalty or enthusiasm.

4.    Importance of the sense of humor

The medievals usually had a well-developed sense of humor [30]. Just
as in the modern times, a big part of humor is job-related and, their
job being a war, a lot of humor was going in this specific direction.
One thing that can be said about the jokes of any specific time period
and culture is that most of them are not original. The same goes for
the medieval military humor.

It looks like (at least in XIII – XIV) the most popular military joke
was to cheat an opponent [31] out of battle. More or less it boiled
down to the following schema: you wait until a sunny, hot day, offer
your opponent a battle [32] and, instead of appearing, hide yourself
in the nearby bushes, watching your enemy staying under a hot sun with
a lot of iron on his person, while giggling sardonically. Strangely
enough, this worked time and again because by some unexplained reason
a cheated enemy just kept staying there until a complete exhaustion.

The second most popular joke was a reverse of the 1st one and was
especially popular in the Island of Miracles. The joking side would
take stand on some widely open place and allow the enemy to shoot into
them until enemy would die from exhaustion. To make the whole schema
even funnier, a joking side would not wear any protective armor and
arrange itself into the very dense formations so that even the most
incompetent opponent could not miss.

On a lesser scale, the humor could include playing soccer with the
heads of the killed enemies or baking your opponent alive and forcing
his followers to eat him. The really funny contributions made by the
Ottomans and Mongols can’t be overlooked either.

[1] Geographically, this covers space from Frankish Empire to Russia
and time span goes well beyond the Middle Ages.
[2] At least vaguely.
[3] Either due to a running out of “factor (a)” or because the
participants were too drunk to continue.
[4] Which, contrary to what Delbruck and Verbruggen though on this
subjects, consisted not only of the knights but also included the
lesser personages who followed the same behavioral pattern but with a
cheaper booze.
[5] Trying to be on a nice side, we’ll assume that D., V. and B never
experienced this condition due to its incompatibility with an academic
dignity and, as a result, were totally ignorant of certain facts of
life (assuming otherwise would mean that they were engaged in the
intentional distortion of the history).
[6] Depending on the specifics of a particular culture and available
nomenclature of the products, this change can be achieved by drinking
more booze, drinking brine and eating pickled products, eating hot
food (preferably meat-based) AND drinking more booze, drinking some
weird concoctions (not really helpful), drinking a lot of coffee (1st,
this would not help and 2nd, was not available yet during the early
Middle Ages).
[7] Providing the clergymen accompanying the army had been in a
condition to serve a mass.
[8] Or, in the case of the lower classes, your jerkin and goddendag
(or Morgenstern).
[9] Typically, this would mean eating some medium-sized animal or a
big bird accompanied by a moderate drinking (approximately 750 ml of
hard booze and/or 2 liters of wine and/or beer depending on
availability, weather and many other circumstances).
[10] Giving the dirty merchants and other deplorable but useful types,
time to replenish supply of the drinks. If they failed to do so, the
consequences would vary from a mass desertion to a total extermination
of a local population.
[11] Where, according to V, all training of the feudal cavalry was
happening.
[12] If not done, the battle order would soon disintegrate due to the
erratic dismounting and taking a leak. Only the most disciplined
troops, like Templars and Hospitaliers, had been trained to piss off
the horse. Judging by V’s omission, the knights of the Teutonic Order
were not up to the same standard.
[13] Meant: order your varlets to fix on you as much armor and
weaponry as they could locate by this time.
[14] Each feudal worth of notice should be personally escorted to his
place in a battle order. After reviewing the allocated spot, he had a
legal right to make an official complaint about this specific place
not being suitable for his rank and ancestry or about him being forced
to mingle with the people of a lower social status. Even if he did not
complain initially, he could do so after the neighbors had been placed
on his sides. The acceptable forms of protest included (but were not
limited to): (a) right to be extremely vocal about being forced to
stay side to side with the lower forms of life, (b) delegating this
function to a troubadour who was supposed to improvise a suitable poem
and recite it to everybody’s entertainment, (c) leaving the ranks with
or without a notice, (d) kicking marshal (and/or neighbor(s)) with a
battleaxe or some other heavy and sharp device.
[15] Tightening formation was mentioned in the previous chapters.
According to V., this was an interactive process, which included
throwing the objects of ever-decreasing size (a cow, a motorcycle, a
sheep, a watermelon, a cat, an apple, i-pod, a face tissue) on the top
of a gradually tightening knightly formation until a thrown item would
bounce off it. This was a long and tedious process which required a
lot of skill and the throwable objects.
[16] Advancing extremely slow and in an extremely dense formation was
extremely important psychologically. Just imagine a dense wall of the
really big tuna cans slowly moving in your direction! If this happens
fast, you may not have enough time to react and may stay where you
are. But a slow advance gives you plenty of time to recognize the
horror of what is going to happen and react accordingly by running
away. Usually, the side that advanced slower was winning well before
the real clash could take place; which is why the medieval battles
were relatively rare.
[17] There was a certain disadvantage in having a tight formation:
quite obviously, the only thing it could do was to ride forward. This
left the leaders with 2 main options: (a) to wait while the unit
circumvents the Earth (which could take a while) or (b) to stop it in
some remote spot, disassemble by issue commands listed above in a
backward order, then reassemble facing the proper direction and ride
back toward a battle field.
[18] Eating a big animal with unrestricted drinking.
[19] Besides being less bleary-eyed during the battle, you could also
stay at the dinner table for much longer.
[20] In the “Song” Roland and his buddies went absolutely berserk.
[21] Of course, this unfortunate event was anything but typical
because, unlike any self-respecting medieval army, the Basques did not
wear any armor and could snake to the napping spot totally unnoticed.
Anyway, the Annales Regii clearly explained that, tragic as it was for
the Franks, this event did not REALLY matter because the Basques had
been fighting contrary to the rules. Anyway, the fact that the Basques
“suddenly … vanished thanks to their knowledge of the terrain” makes
them losers because the side that remained on the field was,
rightfully, a winner.
[22] “Drunk”
[23] Depth of their knowledge preventing them from seeing “the big
picture”. Also, as was said above, we have to assume an absence of
certain types of a practical knowledge as incompatible with their
academic dignity.
[24] Some purely practical considerations: (a) most of the time both
sides had been using the same heraldry, which means that in at least
50% cases the images were almost the same on both sides; (b) the
knightly helmets seriously obscuring the vision, it would be extremely
difficult to see too much without taking the helmet off or raising a
visor (both options being rather unhealthy if exercised in the middle
of a battle); (c) taking into an account both (a) and (b), the battle
standards had to be fully unfolded and held stretched (by whom?) to
provide the combatants with a decent chance to see the picture; (d)
even with all if the above, this would not help too much to even
slightly myopic people (to recognize “sun in all his splendor” from,
say, “sun not very happy”, one had to see all the tiny details of
sun’s facial expression: IIRC, quite a few participants of one of the
battles of the Wars of the Roses suddenly found themselves on a
winning side by misreading this expression).
[25] Providing you have enough of a musical education to distinguish
“Venite, inginocchiatevi!” from a tune from “A Csárdáskirálynő”.
[26] By appearance, voice, silly behavior or their combination.
[27] Ideally, with a habit to swear in a clearly-distinctive manner.
[28] Like being drunk most of the time, being a total imbecile, being
blind, being “geographically challenged”, being “geopolitically
challenged”, etc.
[29] Compare reputation that Edward II got after running at
Bannockburn with one acquired by John the Good after staying at
Poitiers (they were in a direct proportion to an amount of damage done
to the respective country); not to mention (blind) King John of
Bohemia and his brilliant leadership at Crecy. St. Louis would be
probably a winner of this competition because he managed to lead not
single but 2 armies to a total self-destruction. OTOH, one can’t
totally disregard Richard I who almost beat Moses’ record of wandering
aimlessly in a very small desert instead of going directly to a point
of destination. Phillip the Fair should not be discounted either: in
both battles with his participation described by V., he spent most of
the time either flat on his back or trying to figure out how to mount
a horse, which did not prevent him from winning both, at least
formally.
[30] Not necessarily the same as the modern one.
[31] Especially of a lower social status so even if he took it
personally, it would not really matter.
[32] Not sure how this part was done, especially with the burghers.