WARS OF THE EARLY MEDIEVAL

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, its eastern counterpart in Byzantium continued to exist, and its struggle for survival with the Arabs, and then with the Turks and Bulgarians, is a fascinating story. In 622, Muhammad led his supporters from Mecca to Medina, initiating the Arabian and Islamic expansion. The first military victory was won by the prophet himself, but the most prominent leaders of the Islamic campaign were to become Khalid ibn al-Walid and Amr ibn al-Asu. For a hundred years, the Islamic empire stretched from the Aral Sea to the upper Nile and from the borders of China to the Bay of Biscay. Only one power, Byzantium, in that century could withstand the Arabs, but even it lost the southeastern part of its empire. Then, when the Arab advance, reaching southern France, fizzled out, the Franks again occupied a prominent place. And finally, in the VIII century. Viking raids on Britain and Western Europe began. A notable phenomenon in military history Western Europe in the VII - XI centuries was a steady development of cavalry.

The Arabs carried out their conquests thanks to the skillful use of camel and cavalry troops in convenient terrain, open spaces of North Africa and Western Asia. But their battle formations and battle tactics were very primitive, and their means of defense were rather meager. Usually they were built in one, sometimes in two or three dense rows, parts were formed from different tribes. The number of Arabs and their appearance led to fear. As one Byzantine military leader noted, “They are very brave when they are confident of victory: they hold the line firmly and bravely resist the most violent attacks. Feeling that the enemy is weakening, they strike the final blow by common desperate efforts. " The foot troops were for the most part incapable of combat and poorly armed, the force of the Arabs was cavalry. At the beginning of the VII century. The cavalry was lightly armed and extremely mobile, but in the centuries that followed, the Arabs learned a lot from their most stubborn opponents, the Byzantines, and increasingly relied on mounted archers and spearmen, protected by chain mail, helmets, shields and greaves.

The defensive structures of Constantinople, practically preserved until the capture of the Turks in 1453.

But the best qualities of the armies of Islam were not in equipment and organization, but in moral foundations generated by religion, mobility thanks to camel transport and endurance developed by difficult living conditions in the desert. The loyal followers of Muhammad were extremely close to the idea of ​​"jihad", a holy war. There was also an economic reason for the Arab aggression, old story overpopulation of the Arabian Peninsula. Over the centuries, southern Arabia became drier and its inhabitants moved northward. Arab population explosion in the 7th century was the fourth, last and largest Semitic migration. As before, migrants, naturally, first rushed to the fertile crescent of the Middle East with its fertile lands, and only then splashed out beyond the Euphrates and Nile valleys. They went far beyond the territories that they conquered in ancient times, not only because of their large numbers, but also because almost everywhere the conquered peoples met them as deliverers. Their tolerance, humanity and impressive civilization converted almost as many peoples to their faith as they conquered by force. With the exception of Spain, they conquered in the 7th century. the areas have preserved Islamic religion and culture to this day.

The first obstacle for the Arabs was Byzantium. In the VIII - XI centuries. the Byzantine army and navy, in fact, were the most combat-ready force in the European and Mediterranean space. In 668, and then annually from 672 to 677, the Arabs attacked the Byzantine Empire at various points. They invaded its borders, but each time the Byzantine fleet ultimately defeated the invaders. Arab and Byzantine galleys were more or less identical. The great battle dromon had a hundred rowers stationed in two rows of benches. The rowers in the top row were armed, and the crew was supplemented by marines. But the ships of the Byzantines were better equipped, were armed with "Greek fire" - an incendiary mixture that was fired through a pipe on the bow or thrown in pots with ballistas.

The high point and turning point in the war between the Arabs and the Byzantines was the siege of Constantinople in 717-718. When the Arabs captured Asia Minor, Emperor Theodosius III went to a monastery, but at this critical moment, the professional military Leo the Isaurian (Syrian) took over the leadership. He quickly restored and strengthened the impressive fortifications of Constantinople - before the use of gunpowder, such walls were inaccessible to the assault and the city could only be taken by siege. Since Constantinople was surrounded on three sides by water, it seemed that everything depended on the balance of forces of the opposing fleets, and the Arabs had a huge numerical superiority here. However, Leo boldly and ingeniously led the twelve-month defense of the city, and when the siege was lifted, the Byzantine fleet pursued the enemy as far as the Hellespont, where the Arabs were caught in a storm and a small fraction of their forces survived. This proved to be an unforgettable disaster for the Arabs. Thanks to the subsequent victory at Akroin in 739, Leo forced the Arabs to finally leave the western part of Asia Minor.

The successes of Leo the Isaurian were achieved thanks to the increasing combat capability of the army and navy over a long period of time. From the time of Belisarius, the main force of the Byzantine troops was heavy cavalry. The warrior was protected by a long, from neck to hips, chain mail, a round shield of medium size, a steel helmet, plate gauntlets and steel shoes. The front row horses were also protected by steel bibs. All the horses were under large comfortable saddles with iron stirrups. The armament consisted of a wide sword, a dagger, a small bow with a quiver of arrows, and a long spear. Sometimes a battle ax was attached to the saddle. Like their Roman predecessors and unlike others western armies, until the 16th century. Byzantine troops wore the established uniform: a cape over armor, a pennant at the end of a spear and a plume of a helmet were of a certain color that distinguished a particular military unit. To afford such equipment, the horseman had to be of considerable wealth. All commanders and for every four or five soldiers relied on a batman. It was also expensive, but it made sense so that the warriors could focus on purely military duties and, thanks to good nutrition, keep fit. Rich history Byzantine Empire indicates that a little comfort does not harm the combat requirements.

The functions of the foot troops were limited to the defense of mountainous terrain and garrison service in fortresses and important cities. Most of the light infantry were archers, the heavily armed infantry had a spear, sword and battle ax. Each unit of 16 people was relied on two carts to transport weapons, food, kitchen utensils and an entrenching tool. The Byzantines maintained the classical Roman practice of building fortified camps at regular intervals, and were invariably at the forefront of the army. engineering troops... For every 400-man unit, there was a medical officer and six to eight paramedics. For each carried out from the battlefield, the porters received a reward - not so much for humanitarian reasons, but rather because the state was interested in the early restoration of the combat capability of the wounded.

The cornerstone of the Byzantine military system was operational-tactical training: the Byzantines took cunning and skill. They rightly believed that the methods of fighting should vary depending on the tactics of the enemy, and carefully studied the techniques of a potential enemy. The most important military works of that time are the "Strategicon" of Mauritius (c. 580), "Tactics" of Leo the Wise (c. 900) and the instruction on the conduct of the border war by Nicephorus Phocas (who conquered Crete and Cilicia from the Arabs, in 963 - 969 years of the former emperor).

Mauritius reorganized the structure and system of manning the army. He developed a hierarchy of units and units from the simplest unit of 16 soldiers to the "meros", a division of 6-8 thousand soldiers. There was a corresponding hierarchy of commanders, with the appointment of all commanders above the centurion in the hands of the central government. After the Justinian Wars, the number of Teutonic mercenaries in the Byzantine army was greatly reduced. The empire did not have universal military service for men, but there was a system that required the regions, if necessary, to send a certain number of people for military training and active service. Border areas were subdivided into districts called "klissurs", which, for example, could consist of a mountain pass and a fortress. Commanding the klissour has often served as a stepping stone to a successful military career. In the poem of the X century. Digenes Akritas describes life on the border of Cappadocia, where the warlike feudal lords who ruled in the country made endless raids into the Arab territories of Cilicia and Mesopotamia.

The tactics of the Byzantines were based on inflicting a series of blows from heavy cavalry. According to Lev the Wise, the cavalry had to be divided into the first, fighting echelon, the second support echelon and a small reserve behind the second, as well as units pushed far ahead on both flanks, with the task of overturning the opposing flank of the enemy or defending their own. Up to half of the available forces were allocated to the first echelon, the rest, depending on the tactical situation, were distributed in depth and on the flanks.

Naturally, there was a wide variety of tactical battle formations. Against the Slavs and Franks, as well as during major Arab invasions, foot and horse troops often acted together. In such cases, foot troops were stationed in the center, and the cavalry was on the flanks or in reserve. If the enemy was expected to start a battle with a cavalry attack, the light troops hid behind the heavy infantry, "in the same way," Oman notes, "as a thousand years later the musketeers of the 16th and 17th centuries hid behind their spearmen." In mountainous terrain and in gorges, foot troops were positioned in the shape of a crescent, heavily armed units blocked the enemy in the center, and light infantry showered the enemy with arrows and spears on the flanks.

The Byzantines were the best warriors of the early Middle Ages in Europe, but the least conspicuous. This is because their strategy was mostly defensive and they preferred to rely more on their head than their muscles. They never entered combat until the circumstances were clearly in their favor, and often resorted to such tricks and tricks as spreading false information or instigating betrayal in the ranks of the enemy. They constantly had to resort to defensive actions: either to keep the Arabs out of Asia Minor, then to keep the pawnshops and Franks from invading the Italian provinces, and not to let the Slavs, Bulgarians, Avars, Magyars and Pechenegs in Greece and the Balkans. Thanks to constant combat readiness and vigilance, they managed to successfully hold the borders, this was their main task, and only very rarely did Byzantium act as an aggressive power.

The most formidable enemies of Byzantium were the Arabs. But the Arabs never really appreciated organization and discipline. Although their armies were to be feared due to their large numbers and mobility, they were mostly congregations of aggressive and assertive savages who could not resist the systematic attacks of the slender ranks of disciplined Byzantine warriors. The leaders of the Byzantine provinces also created an effective border security system. As soon as there were reports of the movement of the Arabs, they gathered their forces. Foot troops blocked the paths, and the cavalry, gathered in the center, had to watch out for the invading forces, continuously attacking them. If the commander saw that he was inferior in strength, he had to avoid open combat, but create obstacles to the enemy by all other means - if possible, harass him with small raids, defend crossings and mountain passes, clog wells and put obstacles on the roads. In these cases, troops were recruited in remote provinces, and over time, a well-trained army of, say, 30 thousand horsemen opposed the Arabs. After their defeat at Akroin in 739, the Arabs were more troubling than a threat to the security of the Byzantine Empire.

After 950 the Byzantine emperors Nikifor Phoca and Basil II launched an offensive against the Arabs and Bulgarians. In 1014 Vasily completely destroyed the Bulgarian army, receiving the title of Bulgarian fighter. He blinded 15 thousand prisoners, leaving one-eyed from each hundred to take them to their king.

In 1045 Armenia was annexed. However, in the middle of the XI century. a new adversary, the Seljuk Turks, began to exert pressure on the borders. Turks in western Asia were considered natural horsemen. They made up numerous bands, armed mainly with bows, but often also with spears and scimitars. Attacking, they rushed ahead of the enemy's front, showering him with clouds of arrows and delivering short painful blows. In the spring of 1071, the emperor Roman Diogenes with 60 thousand soldiers moved to Armenia, where he was met by 100 thousand Turks under the command of Alp-Arslan. The novel hastily abandoned traditional Byzantine discretion and thoroughness. At Manzikert, the flower of the Byzantine army was destroyed, and the emperor himself was captured. The Turks poured into Asia Minor and in ten years turned it into a desert.

V Western Europe the history of the Franks developed along a pattern that did not differ much from the Byzantine one. Having an army in which the cavalry was increasingly dominant, they successfully stopped the Arab advance, but then, following a period of military and cultural superiority, weakened under the pressure of the barbarian Viking tribes.

For two centuries after the victory of Clovis at Vugla in 507, which established their rule over Gaul, the Franks did not change their military organization. Agathius describes the means of warfare between the Franks during the Merovingian dynasty (c. 450 - 750) as follows:

“The equipment of the Franks is very rough, they have no chain mail or greaves, their legs are protected only by strips of canvas or leather. There are almost no horsemen, but the foot soldiers are brave and know how to fight. They have swords and shields, but they never use bows. They throw battle axes and spears. The spears are not very long, they are thrown or simply struck with them. "

Throwing axes of the Franks, like the tomahawks of the Red Indians, were carefully hung out in order to throw them with high accuracy or use them in close combat. For two centuries, the armies of the Franks fought with just such a weapon, attacking in discordant ranks of foot soldiers. Most of the battles took place between themselves. True, when it became necessary to deal more often with various other armies, other means began to be used. At the end of the VI century. wealthy warriors began to use metal armor.

In 732 Abd-al-Rahman with the Arab army advanced in the north to Tour. Karl Martell gathered the forces of the Franks and moved on the Arabs who were retreating with the booty. When Abd-al-Rahman attacked, “the northerners stood as a wall, as if they were frozen together and struck the Arabs with swords. In the midst of the battle were the mighty Austrases, they found and killed the Saracen king. "

It was a defensive battle won by the infantry. They did not pursue the enemy. It cannot be argued that the Franks, like the Byzantines, stopped the Arabs. It's just that the Arabs have advanced as far as their resources would allow.

In 768, the grandson of Charles Martell, known as Charlemagne, ascended the throne of the King of the Franks. At first, there were many dangerous riots in the kingdom, and if aggressive neighbors did not respond to gentle treatment, the only course of action was complete submission. Charlemagne considered himself a world ruler, appointed by God to govern secular affairs on earth. Its missionaries moved along with the troops, often directly acting as a psychological strike force. He wrote to the Pope: “Our task is to use holy piety to defend the Holy Church of Christ by force of arms. Your, holy father, your task is to raise your hands to heaven, like Moses, to pray for the assistance of our troops. " Thanks to the high combat capability of Charlemagne's troops and his tireless work, peace and tranquility came to the west of Europe, which she had not seen since the Antonine dynasty. Military successes were a precondition for advances in economics, justice and culture.

However, Charlemagne often resorted to extremely brutal measures, such as the murder in 782 in Verdun in one day, four and a half thousand rebellious Saxon pagans. From 768 to 814, Charlemagne undertook military campaigns almost every year. His Holy Roman Empire over time covered the territory that is now occupied by France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, West Germany, most of Italy, northern Spain and Corsica.

The army of Charlemagne was very different from the army of his grandfather, the main difference was the transformation of heavy cavalry into a striking force. The cavalry was needed in far-off large-scale campaigns against such enemies as horse archers among the Avars or heavily armed spearmen in Lombardy. The importance of the cavalry was recognized long ago, but the costs of its maintenance were beyond the strength of the Franks. In addition to expensive armor, the knight had to maintain an appropriate horse, strong enough to carry a knight in full armor, trained enough not to be frightened or carried in battle, and fast enough to attack quickly. Such horses were specially bred and prepared. Even the costs of maintaining and feeding in the winter were very significant. And the knight himself needed at least two servants: one to keep the weapons in order, the other to look after the horse; moreover, the knight needed a lot of time for preparation and the service itself. Under the Merovingian dynasty, no Frankish ruler was wealthy enough to support an army of heavy cavalry.

This and other problems were solved with the development of feudalism. The peculiarity of this system was that the lord, whether it was a king or a powerful person, gave land or protection to a vassal, receiving in return an oath obligation to provide special services, often military ones. Charlemagne largely feudalized his kingdom. Such a device attracted those who were wealthy and those who sought protection during these turbulent times. With the confusion that followed after the death of Charlemagne in 814, when the empire fell apart, and Europe was haunted by the attacks of the Magyars and Vikings, society turned into a kind of honeycomb, into a system of cells held on to mutual obligations: protection and service. The impact of feudalism on military affairs was twofold. On the one hand, the vassals who possessed significant land holdings could afford, and this was required of them, to equip chivalry. On the other hand, bonds of loyalty and mutual interest contributed to increased discipline in the army.

The core of the Franks' army was heavy cavalry. Not particularly numerous, she was distinguished by high professionalism. All knights had chain mail, helmets, shields, spears and battle axes. The old Frankish "people's militia" has not completely disappeared, but the number of foot troops has decreased, and the fighting efficiency has increased thanks to better weapons. On the "field of Mars", the annual training camp of the Frankish army, it was not allowed to appear with one club - one had to have a bow. Charlemagne achieved a level of training, discipline and general organization that was not seen in the West after the barbarization of the Roman legions. An interesting document has survived, by which Charlemagne in 806 summoned one of the important vassals to the royal army:

“You will arrive at Stasfurt on Bode by May 20 with your men, ready to serve in any part of our kingdom where we indicate. This means that you will come with weapons and equipment, full uniforms and a supply of food. Each rider must have a shield, spear, sword, dagger, bow and quiver. The carts must have shovels, axes, picks, iron-tipped stakes and everything necessary for the army. Take provisions for three months. On the way, do not harm our subjects, do not touch anything except water, wood and grass. Make sure that there are no omissions, because you value our favor. "

Little is known with certainty about the battle formations of the Franks. Probably, the probing of the enemy and the first skirmishes were assigned to the foot archers, and the decisive blow was inflicted by all the cavalry. Perhaps the success was more likely accompanied by good training and armament of troops and strategic acumen of Charlemagne than tactical skill. The solidity of his conquests was primarily ensured by the creation of a system of fortified points along the borders and in troubled areas, usually on highlands near rivers.

In the IX century. in the absence of knowledgeable kings of war, the army of the Franks loses its positive traits... Leo the Wise describes the features and weaknesses of the Franks as follows.

“Franks and pawnshops are overly fearless and insolent. The slightest step back is considered shameful, and they will fight whenever you force a fight on them. When their knights are forced to dismount, they do not flee, but stand back to back and fight against their opponents far superior to them. Cavalry attacks are so terrifying that, if there is no complete confidence in their superiority, it is best to evade a decisive battle. You should take advantage of their lack of discipline and organization. Both on foot and on horseback, they attack in a dense, clumsy mass, unable to maneuver, because they are not organized and trained. They quickly become confused if they are unexpectedly attacked from the rear or from the flanks - this is easy to achieve as they are extremely reckless and do not bother to set up patrols and conduct proper reconnaissance of the area. In addition, they camp as necessary and do not make fortifications, so that at night they can be easily interrupted. They cannot stand hunger and thirst, and after a few days of hardship they leave the system. They have no respect for their commanders, and their superiors cannot resist the temptation of bribes. Therefore, in general, it is easier and cheaper to wear down the Frankish army with small skirmishes, protracted operations in uninhabited areas, cutting supply lines, rather than trying to end them with one blow. "

The empire of Charlemagne began to disintegrate soon after his death due to the weakness of power and raids from three directions at once during the 9th and 10th centuries. - Arabs, Magyars and Vikings. The biggest threat to Europe now came from the Scandinavian Vikings.

The invasions of the Vikings, or Scandinavians, began at the end of the 8th century. At first, the raids that took place throughout Europe were carried out, it seems, mainly for the purpose of plunder, but later many conquerors settled in the lands they had conquered. In 911, the king of the Franks ceded land to them, which was later called Normandy, and ultimately the whole of England became part of the Scandinavian empire of the Danish king Knud (995-1035). Meanwhile, the Vikings also invaded Iceland, Greenland and America, Spain, Morocco and Italy, Novgorod, Kiev and Byzantium.

The strength of the Vikings lay in their nautical skills. Their ships were at the level of the highest technical achievements and were the subject of their greatest pride, and they themselves were very skillful and hardy sailors. The "Gokstad Ship" found in the excavation is 70 feet long and 16 feet wide, built of oak and weighing 20 tons. Its design is the most perfect. On long journeys, the Vikings went under sail, but in battle they used oars. Yellow and black shields were alternately hung along the sides. By the X century. the ships became much larger in size, some of them accommodating up to two hundred people and could sail 150 miles per day. The provisions were preserved with salt and ice.

The Vikings have always fought naval battles near the coast. They usually consisted of three stages. First, the commander carried out reconnaissance and chose a position to start the attack, then, maneuvering, he began to approach. During the battle, the captain was always at the wheel. When the flotillas converged, shelling began, usually the enemy was showered with a hail of arrows, but sometimes they simply threw pieces of iron and stones. And finally, the Vikings went on boarding, and the outcome of the battle was decided by hand-to-hand combat.

After that, the fleet remained the operational base for raids into the interior of the territory. Usually the Vikings moved upstream of important waterways, bypassing the countryside and plundering monasteries and cities on both banks. They moved up as long as the river remained navigable or until they met fortifications that impeded further movement. Then they anchored or dragged the ships ashore, fenced off with a palisade and left the guard, after which they began to plunder the surroundings. At first, when the enemy troops appeared, they returned to the ships and went downstream. Later they became bolder. But since their forces were small and the main target was plunder, they avoided major battles. Over time, they began to build fortified points, where they often returned. These palisade and ditched coastal and even floating camps, defended by Viking war-axes, were extremely difficult to capture.

The Vikings were probably poorly armed when they started their invasions. One of the main goals of their plundering was the extraction of weapons and armor, and by the middle of the 9th century. they captured a lot of both, and besides, they themselves mastered their production. Almost all Vikings had chain mail; in other respects, their armor was similar to that of the Frankish. At first, wooden shields were round, but later took the form of kites and were often painted in bright colors. The battle ax was a powerful offensive weapon. It was not a light tomahawk of the Franks, it was a powerful weapon - a heavy butt and blade made of one piece of iron, mounted on a five-foot-long ax. Sometimes, fragments of runes were applied to the blades. In addition, the Vikings used short and long swords, spears, large bows and arrows.

The Vikings were mainly on foot, preferring to use their large axes on foot. Mobility on land was achieved through the use of horses captured in the district for transport purposes. The most favorite battle formation was a solid wall of shields, such a tactic, of necessity, was defensive, because they had to resist the cavalry on foot. Usually, they chose their own camp, the opposite bank of the river or a steep hillside, as the place of battle. As professional warriors, feeling the shoulder of a comrade-in-arms, they always prevailed over the hastily recruited villagers who opposed them. All Vikings were distinguished by their height and possessed exceptional physical strength. Among their ranks were two particularly terrifying types of warriors. The first included berserkers, who, surprisingly, apparently belonged to the category of specially selected madmen, distinguished by extraordinary strength and ferocity. Others, equally surprising, were the "maidens with the shield"; they included Webjörg, who “fought the champion of Soknarsti. She slapped him hard, slapped his jaw open. To protect himself, he took his beard into his mouth. Vebjörg performed many great deeds, (but) in the end she fell, covered with many wounds. "

Towards the end of the 9th century, the Franks and the British began to adapt to Viking tactics. In the preceding years of chaos, feudalism developed at a rapid pace, and the Franks could now muster a large force of combat-ready cavalry. In 885 - 886 Paris successfully withstood a major Viking siege. And in England, Alfred the Great (died 899), in order to stop the Danish Vikings, created a system of powerful fortifications. Instead of cavalry, however, he relied on an elite force of heavy infantry, which proved to be victorious at Ashdown and Edington. He also, unlike the Franks, took steps to create a powerful fleet modeled on the ships of his enemies - the Vikings. From the time of Alfred to the middle of the XX century. England constantly possessed powerful naval forces to rely on.

And the annexation of England by Knud in 1016 was a political event, not a military one. By that time, Western Europe, finally free from the ongoing 750 years of incessant barbarian raids, was already breathing easier.

From the book Jewish Atlantis: The Secret of the Lost Tribes the author Kotlyarsky Mark

From Antiquity to the Middle Ages Where are the Lost Tribes? In the first Book of Kings it is said that, driven away by the king of Assyria, they abide behind Euphrates. However, today no one can say with certainty to which places the Assyrian Empire spread and where

From the book Indians of North America [Life, Religion, Culture] the author White John Manchip

From the book Slavs [Sons of Perun] author Gimbutas Maria

Chapter 2 THE NORTH CARPATHIAN CULTURE OF THE BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGES The general course of cultural development in the North Carpathian region was practically the same as in the entire northern European plain. Until 1200 BC NS. the area was influenced by the Central European

CITY IN THE LATE MEDIEVAL ERA The Eastchip Market in the Tudor era. Pay attention to the number of butcher shops. Meat in London has always been great

From the book Earth without people author Weisman Alan

Chapter 13 A World Without War War can doom Earth's ecosystems to hell: the Vietnamese jungle is evidence of this. But without chemical additives, war, surprisingly, often became the salvation of nature. During the Nicaraguan Wars with the Contras in the 1980s, when the

From the book The Myth of Absolutism. Changes and continuity in the development of the Western European monarchy in the early modern period the author Henshell Nicholas

VALOIS AND EARLY BOURBONS. HERITAGE OF THE MIDDLE AGES The history of France in the early modern era began with events that in modern real estate agencies are called contracts of exchange. Until the end of the 15th century, large provinces such as Brittany and Burgundy

From the book Origins and Lessons Great Victory... Book II. Lessons from the Great Victory the author Sedykh Nikolay Artyomovich

Chapter 1. The beginning of the war So, the thunder struck. We did not manage to avoid a mortal battle with the West, represented by Hitlerite Germany and its official and unofficial satellites, since this battle in those conditions was historically inevitable.

From the book What did the "talking" monkeys talk about [Are higher animals capable of operating with symbols?] the author Zorina Zoya Alexandrovna

Bonobos versus common chimpanzees and the role of early language acquisition As Kanzi began to show spontaneous language acquisition and continued to develop in his 11 / 2-21 / 2 years, two obvious questions arose. First, is it really

From the book Ukrainian Nationalism. Facts and Research author Armstrong John

Chapter 13 After the War In 1954, when this book was printed, it was nine years after the end of World War II in Europe. Many events have taken place in Ukraine over these nine years. Put together extensive testimonies from expatriate sources,

From the book The world could be different. William Bullitt tries to change the twentieth century the author Etkind Alexander Markovich

Chapter 1 The World Before the War Born in 1891, Bullitt belonged to a Philadelphian family of those who are called aristocratic in America: his ancestors were Huguenots on their fathers, Jewish on their mothers, but both were among the early settlers on the East Bank.

From the book London. Biography author Ackroyd Peter

A city in the late Middle Ages. Eastchip Market in the Tudor era. Pay attention to the number of butcher shops. Meat in London has always been great

From the book The Great Naval Battles of the 16th-19th Centuries [Some Principles of Naval Strategy] author Corbett Julian

Introduction THEORETICAL RESEARCH OF WAR. THE USES AND LIMITATIONS OF WAR On the surface, nothing could be more meaningless than the theoretical study of war. There is even a certain antagonism between the mentality tending towards theoretical leadership and the fact that

From the book Fights for Leningrad the author Alexander Modestov

Chapter 1 THEORY OF WAR The result of the work of any researcher - detailed map the area in which he traveled. But for those who after him started working in the same field, this card is the first place to start. It's the same with strategy. Before you start studying it,

From the author's book

Chapter One Main events on the eve of the war and at the beginning of the war. Facts and Opinions As you know, Kaiser's Germany and Austria-Hungary suffered a crushing defeat during the First World War. According to the Versailles Peace Treaty, France was returned

Battles of the Middle Ages

Regardless of whether the generals were striving for an open and decisive confrontation or not, battles were a characteristic feature of the wars of the Middle Ages. Contemporaries have always written about them with enthusiasm. In these descriptions one can feel the exciting drama of knightly duels, the heroic deeds and bravery of the warriors are especially delighted. The role of knights in battle has been the subject of scientific debate. Historians-revisionists in the 1980s – 1990s. downplayed the role of heavy cavalry, while emphasizing the importance of the infantry, long ignored due to the fact that most chroniclers focused their attention on the valor of generals and princes. John France led the "crusade" against the revisionists, convincingly showing that many of them went too far, so undeservedly belittling the importance of cavalry, whose strength - he argues - has always been in its mobility. Naturally, despite all the turmoil associated with the "military revolution" of the Late Middle Ages, the equestrian knight continued to be an essential component of the armies throughout the period. When Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494, half of his army was heavy cavalry. The huge funds spent on the maintenance of such an army were associated with the honor that the knights have so far received.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle - both infantry and cavalry were vital components of any army. In the history of the wars of the Middle Ages, there are many victories of cavalry over infantry, and vice versa. Thus, the heavy cavalry decided the outcome of the Battle of Hastings in 1066; it took only a dozen knights for Jaffa in 1192 to drive off the Muslims; and it was the Muslim heavy cavalry that influenced the outcome of the Battle of Nikopol in Bulgaria in 1396, leading to the massive surrender of the French. The thesis "military revolution" is supported by the more frequent victories of infantrymen over mounted warriors in the XIII-XIV centuries. This happened at Courtras in 1302, at Crécy in 1346 and Murten (Switzerland) in 1476, when the cavalry of Charles the Bold could not prevent the beating of his troops by Swiss pikemen. But the infantry had defeated the cavalry much earlier. In 1176, long before any "revolution", the cavalry of Emperor Frederick the Great was defeated by foot troops of the Lombard League at Legnano, not far from Milan. A decade later, in 1188, in a battle near the town of Gisor in Normandy, English foot soldiers repulsed two attacks from the French cavalry, considered the European elite. The History of William Marshal notes how the French “ rushed to attack"And were met by the Angevin infantry," which did not run away from a frenzied onslaught, but met them with spears". Apparently, there were no casualties among the infantrymen.

Perhaps even more instructive are the battles of the early 12th century, as at Bremuel in 1119, when Henry I ordered his knights to dismount and, merging with the infantry, was able to defeat the French cavalry. William of Tire reports that during the second crusade in the late 1140s. German knights out of habit dismounted during the battle. The chronicles write that the Franks fought on foot as early as 891, at the Battle of Diehl in Belgium. The fact is that the knights were versatile warriors, they were formidable, professional killing machines that could adapt to combat both on foot and on horseback.

Arguments over the superiority of infantry over cavalry and vice versa can be misleading. Only a few battles can be described as a clash between horse and foot in pure form. In the overwhelming majority of battles, including those mentioned above, the outcome (if such could be precisely determined at the end) was decided by the tactical formation and combat abilities of cavalry, infantry and archers, as well as their ability to interact with each other. Various units in the troops performed corresponding functions, which could change depending on the circumstances. The heavy cavalry was designed to deliver a powerful blow that could split the enemy ranks, or, as in the Battle of Hastings, to simulate flight in order to lure the infantry over to itself. But, as mentioned above, the knights could also defend themselves on foot. Archers and spearmen fired at the enemy, thereby facilitating the task of the cavalry, and, of course, they were used to defeat the enemy's cavalry. The infantry provided a wall shield for the cavalry, but the infantry was also used to attack, advancing in the second echelon after the cavalry. Knights could also advance on foot (something that the French did not really learn to do until 1415, as Agincourt demonstrated). You cannot discount a lot of other factors that determine the outcome of a battle: the commanding talent of the commander, morale, skillful location on the ground, the training of the troops and discipline, and so on.

The last of these factors - discipline - deserves special attention, since the command structure and its violations have often influenced the modern understanding of atrocities committed during the conduct of hostilities. Effectiveness in moments of combat often depends on discipline and strict observance of orders. Yes, there is some truth in the fact that medieval armies were partly made up of fearful peasants who were ready to take flight, and the knights were eager to get to the enemy. Yet Charles Oman's point of view that the knights were just young amateur aristocrats who threw themselves into fights in a disorderly fashion, barely smelling blood, is just a parody that, unfortunately, is still alive today. In a recently published essay on the pursuit of fame nobel laureate physicist Stephen Weinberg writes about “ recklessness on a scale that even a medieval knight would find incredible". It was vitally important for the cavalry to maintain order of battle: a successful attack depended on the enormous weight and power of the cavalry, moving in close formation. The importance of this was recognized by both military leaders and writers. Young Edward III, during the Werdale Campaign in 1327, informed his subjects that he would kill anyone who dared to attack without proper order. Joinville gives an example from the beginning of the 13th century: during the first campaign of Saint Louis to Egypt, Gauthier D'Autres disobeyed a strict order, violated the formation and was mortally wounded. Neither the chronicler nor the king felt much sympathy for him.

Naturally, such momentary prowess often manifested itself in battles. In the campaign to Jaffa in 1191, the army of the crusaders under the start of Richard the Lionheart was repeatedly subjected to painful injections from the Muslims. Richard sent out an order to maintain order of battle at all costs, despite the provocations of the enemy. The Knights Hospitallers, who, being in the rearguard of the army, bore the brunt of the Muslim attacks, suffered more losses (mainly from enemy archers) and lost more horses than other Crusader units. Without waiting for the signal for a counterattack, two knights - one of them, according to the chronicle, was called Marshal - spurred their horses and rushed to the enemy. The entire cavalry of the Hospitallers immediately rushed after them. Seeing this, Richard threw his own knights into the attack. If he didn’t do it, a disaster could happen. A sudden counterattack, and most importantly, the number of knights participating in it, did its job, and the crusaders utterly defeated the Muslims. Inspired by this success, Richard led his army further. (However, such bravado had its limits: the same Richard died in 1199 during the siege of a French fortress).

Orders were given not only verbally, when they could be misinterpreted. They were recorded on parchment, and in great detail. Roger Howden cites the draconian rules established by the same Richard to maintain discipline on ships sailing to the Holy Land:

Anyone who kills someone will be tied to the dead and, if this happens at sea, will be thrown overboard, and if on the ground, he will be buried alive with the dead. If legal witnesses confirm that someone drew a knife against a comrade, then his hand should be cut off. If someone hits a comrade without spilling his blood, then he should be dipped into the sea three times. Swearing or blasphemy is punished with fines according to the number of offenses. A person convicted of theft should be shaved, smeared with tar, rolled up in feathers and disembarked as soon as possible.

Richard wasn't the only one issuing such decrees. Any crusader soldier noticed gambling was to be flogged, stripped naked, for three days in a military camp. The sailors got off with a lighter punishment: in the morning they were dipped into the sea.

The rules of conduct in war were typical of the Middle Ages: Richard II issued his decrees in 1385 at Durham; Henry V - in 1415 at Harfleur. These decrees were aimed at protecting the civilian population and the clergy, they prohibited ruin and looting. As for Henry, he wanted to enlist the support of the people of Normandy as loyal and reliable subjects. But not all such directives were well thought out. Twenty years later, Sir John Falstaff issued orders for an emergency, unrestricted war - guerre mortelle, wars of extermination. He sought to brutally suppress the actions of the French rebels. The massacre and violence had to be officially sanctioned, as well as the complete disintegration of discipline in the military ranks.

Losing discipline on the battlefield could have provoked defeat. During any battle, there was a danger of transformation of cavalrymen into ruthless assassins, trampling and finishing off the fleeing infantry. Below is William Poitier's account of the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings.

[The British] fled as soon as they had the opportunity, some on horseback taken from their comrades, many on foot. Those who fought did not have the strength to flee, they lay in pools of their own blood. The desire to be saved gave strength to the rest. Many died in the thicket, many on the way of their pursuers. The Normans pursued and killed them, bringing the whole affair to its proper conclusion, at the same time trampling with the hooves of their horses both the living and the dead.

We have already seen that chivalry provided the holders of this status with significant protection and security, and it was the poor infantry that got the most. But this was not always the case: the very nature of the war, attitude towards the enemy, class hatred, religious beliefs, ethnicity and nationality - all this could seriously affect the level of losses. Philip Contamine explores this degree of risk in his classic War in the Middle Ages. In the West, he notes, an intra-communal war, even with the participation of the nobility, could be especially merciless - in such cases, prisoners were taken very rarely for ransom. The great chronicler-historian Froissard writes disapprovingly of the Frisians who openly resisted the troops of the British, French and Flemings in 1396: they refused to surrender, preferring to die free, did not take prisoners for ransom. As for the few captives they captured, they were not handed over to the enemy in exchange for their own. The friezes left them " die one by one in prison". "A if they think that none of their people was captured by the enemy, then all the captives will surely be put to death". It is not surprising then that “ according to general rule, - according to Froissart, - the loser bears the greatest losses».

Finding out detailed lists of losses is not easy, often impossible, especially when the level of losses is very high, and it is also quite difficult to confirm the data of one or another chronicle source. So, those killed in the Scottish battle of Dunbar in 1296, according to the statements of four chroniclers - contemporaries of those events, numbered 22,000, 30,000 and 100,000 people (two agreed on the most modest figure). And again we have to say that among the fallen, the nobles usually deserved the most attention, and for this reason the level of losses among the nobility is much better known. The combination of a chivalric code of honor and solid armor usually helped keep casualties among the knights at a lower level, so when almost forty English knights died in the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, it was considered a whole event. By the beginning of the 14th century, losses among knights and foot soldiers began to grow. In the defeat of the French at Poitiers in 1356, nineteen members of the leading noble families were killed, in addition to 2,000 ordinary soldiers; in the massacre at Agincourt, almost a hundred representatives of the nobility (including three dukes), one and a half thousand knights and almost 4,000 ordinary soldiers were killed. In both cases, the loss rate for the French cavalry was approximately forty percent. Suffice it to compare these losses with the result of the Battle of Bremuelle in 1119, during which Orderic Vitaly counted only three of the 900 knights participating in the battle. According to the general estimate, in the Middle Ages, the defeated armies suffered losses ranging from twenty to fifty percent of their manpower.

Studying the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo, Wellington turned to the human cost of war, stating that “ after losing a battle, the biggest misfortune is the battle won". Medieval chroniclers were not always inclined to such reflections, as the pictorial passage below demonstrates. It was written by an Arab chronicler who watched the Battle of Hattin in 1187, when Saladin defeated the Crusader army. These words would easily fit the description of any battle scene of the Middle Ages:

The hills and valleys were strewn with the dead ... The Hattin got rid of their souls, and the scent of victory mingled thickly with the stench of decaying corpses. I passed them and saw everywhere bloody body parts, cut skulls, mutilated noses, severed ears, severed necks, gouged eyes, slashed stomachs, viscera that fell out, blood-stained hair, stripped bodies, severed fingers ... ribs sticking out ... lifeless faces, gaping wounds, the last sighs of the dying ... rivers of blood ... Oh, sweet rivers of victory! Oh, long-awaited consolation!

As we will see below, this is not yet the worst massacre! Even the rivers of shed blood sometimes did not satisfy the winners.

the author Polo de Beaulieu Marie-Anne

Medieval man

From the book Medieval France the author Polo de Beaulieu Marie-Anne

Dwellings of the Middle Ages From a peasant house to a feudal castle The term “house” refers to the unity of buildings and free space around them, where members of one family lived and worked, and the family group itself. Our interests include only the first

From the book Medieval France the author Polo de Beaulieu Marie-Anne

Ghosts of the Middle Ages The image of medieval France, bristling with countless castles inhabited by ghosts, created in our imagination by Epinal's popular prints, has not yet lost its vitality, judging by many novels and sketchbooks.

From the book History of Rome. Volume 1 author Mommsen Theodor

CHAPTER VI THE WAR WITH HANNIBAL FROM THE BATTLE AT CANNES TO THE BATTLE AT REPLACEMENT. Undertaking a campaign in Italy, Hannibal set himself the goal of causing the disintegration of the Italic alliance; after three campaigns, this goal was achieved to the extent feasible. It was evident from everything that those

From the book Legalized Violence: The Truth About Medieval Warfare author McGlynn Sean

Sieges of the Middle Ages The routes of movement of armies in a campaign were usually dictated by the location of the castles. Troops moved from one castle to another, to free them from the siege of the enemy, or to besiege them themselves. Depending on the goals, it was supposed to replenish the number

From the book The Individual and Society in the Medieval West the author Gurevich Aron Yakovlevich

At the end of the Middle Ages

From the book Mysteries of the Kulikov Field the author Zvyagin Yuri Yurievich

Trotsky of the Middle Ages So, as we can see, for Oleg in the conditions of 1380, the choice is obvious. To speak for the Muscovites against the Tatars? But Moscow has shown itself to be an implacable enemy. The main thing is that it is further from the Horde, so if something goes wrong, pay Ryazan again, as it was

From the book A World History of Piracy the author Annunciation Gleb

Pirates of the Middle Ages Avilda, or Alfilda (Awilda, Alfilda), (4 ?? - 4 ??), Scandinavia Avilda grew up in royal family in Scandinavia. King Siward, her father, always dreamed of finding a worthy party for his daughter. As a result, his choice settled on Alpha, Crown Prince of Denmark. What is

From the book The Book of Anchors the author Skryagin Lev Nikolaevich

From the book History of Austria. Culture, society, politics author Vocelka Karl

The world of the people of the Middle Ages / 65 / The idea of ​​the "dark and gloomy" Middle Ages, despite many studies breaking this stereotype, is still characteristic of the popular image of this era and hinders the understanding of the originality of medieval culture. Of course, in

From the book Requests of the Flesh. Food and sex in people's lives the author Kirill Reznikov

In defense of the Middle Ages With the light hand of Petrarch, supported by the humanists of the Renaissance and the philosophers of the Enlightenment, Early middle ages(476 - 1000) are usually called "Dark Ages" and described in gloomy colors, as the time of the collapse of culture and savagery. And to the High

From the book From Empires to Imperialism [The State and the Emergence of Bourgeois Civilization] the author Kagarlitsky Boris Yulievich

The Bonapartists of the Middle Ages As you know, Bonapartist, or "Caesarist" regimes arise during the decline of the revolution, when the new elite, on the one hand, seeks to normalize the situation, putting the raging masses under control, and on the other hand, to consolidate some

From the book of 500 great travels the author Nizovsky Andrey Yurievich

Paths of the Middle Ages

From the book History of World and National Culture: lecture notes the author Konstantinova, SV

4. Painting of the Middle Ages Since the barbarian tribes constantly roamed, their early art is represented mainly by: 1) weapons; 2) jewelry; 3) various utensils.Barbarian masters preferred bright colors and expensive materials, while they were not more appreciated

From the book of Anchors the author Skryagin Lev Nikolaevich

From the book Tsar's Rome in the area between the Oka and Volga rivers. the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

15. Another reflection of the Battle of Kulikovo in the "ancient" Roman history as the battle of Clusia and Sentina. Apparently, the battle of Clusia and Sentina allegedly in 295 BC. NS. is a duplicate of the Second Latin War of Rome, allegedly 341-340 BC, which we have already described above. NS. Exactly

Great battles. 100 battles that changed the course of history Domanin Alexander Anatolyevich

BATTLES OF THE MIDDLE AGES

BATTLES OF THE MIDDLE AGES

Battle of Poitiers (I)

The century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 was a time of almost continuous Arab conquests. The shockwave of the Muslim explosion reached the borders with China in the east and to Atlantic Ocean in the West. The Umayyad dynasty, which replaced the four "righteous" caliphs, quite successfully advanced in several directions at once. But at the beginning of the 8th century, the first signs of attenuation of the Islamic wave appeared. In 718, the Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaur, in alliance with the Bulgarian khan Tervel, repulsed the onslaught of a hundred thousand Arab army against Constantinople. Thus, military parity was established on the Arab-Byzantine border. But in the far west, the Arab advance continued.

The invasion of Spain and then Gaul was led by the Umayyad dynasty; her troops under the command of Tariq Ibn Ziyad crossed the Strait of Gibraltar in 711 and soon established Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula. Already in 719, the Umayyad armies under the command of Al-Samh ibn Malik, the ruler of al-Andalusia, captured Septimania, the gateway from Spain to Gaul. The following year, Narbonne was captured, which became a stronghold for a further offensive. In 725, Burgundy was invaded; in 731, Aquitaine was defeated and plundered.

In these conditions, the defeated Duke of Aquitaine Ed turns to the last force capable of resisting the victorious Arabs - the Frankish kingdom for help.

In this kingdom, however, it is not the king who commands: by this time, all three of its parts were united under his rule by the mayor of Austrasia, Karl Martell. A talented commander and an outstanding organizer, Karl Martell restored the strength of the kingdom, began to create a truly regular army, founded a new branch of troops - the heavily armed cavalry (that is, in fact, became the father of chivalry).

In 732, the governor of the Umayyad caliph, Abd ar-Rahman, leads his fifty thousandth army on a new campaign against Gaul. The main target was the city of Tours, famous for its riches - nearby was the Abbey of St. Martin, one of the main Christian shrines of Gaul. On the way, the Arabs took and plundered Poitiers. Tours, which the Arabs were already taking in full view of Martell's army, which was approaching to help the city, could not resist their onslaught. Abd ar-Rahman, who did not have information about the number of Frankish soldiers and, moreover, understood that his army was extremely burdened with huge booty, decided to interrupt the campaign and ordered to retreat to Poitiers. However, the Franks, operating light, managed to get ahead of the enemy and block his path to retreat.

Charles's army was stationed on a large hill between the Maple and Vienne rivers, which covered the flanks. The basis of its battle formation was the infantry, built in a solid phalanx. In fact, the formation was an almost continuous square, which was probably the best formation to repel the attacks of the lightly armed Arab cavalry. Heavily armed cavalry was stationed on the flanks of the Frankish army, and archers were scattered in front of the front. Numerically, the Frankish army was apparently inferior to the Arab one (according to modern historians, Martell had about thirty thousand professional soldiers and, possibly, a significant number of militias who did not take part in the battle itself), but the comfortable position taken ahead of time at least equalized chances.

Karl Martell's victory over Abderram. K. Steiben. 19th century

The fateful battle for Western Europe began with a powerful attack by the Arab cavalry. The only coherent description of the events that followed is given by the Arab chronicler. “The hearts of Abd ar-Rahman, his leaders and warriors were full of courage and pride, and they were the first to start the battle. The Muslim horsemen several times swooped down with fury at the crowds of Franks, who courageously resisted, and many fell on both sides until the sun went down. The night divided the two forces, but at dawn the Muslims renewed their attack. Their horsemen penetrated soon to the middle of the Christian army. But many of the Muslims were preoccupied with protecting the booty piled up in the tents, and when a false rumor spread that some enemy warriors were robbing the camp, several detachments of Muslim cavalry turned back to the camp to protect their tents. It seemed to others that they were running away, and disorder began in the army. Abd ar-Rahman wanted to stop him and started the fight again, but he was surrounded by Frankish soldiers and pierced with many spears, so he died. Then the whole army fled, during which many people were killed. "

According to indirect information from European sources, it can be concluded that the battle lasted all day and, in addition to the courage of the phalanx composed in square, the fate of the battle was finally decided by the attack of heavily armed knights. In addition, a rumor about the seizure of an Arab convoy, which played a decisive role at the most tense moment of the battle, appeared hardly out of nowhere. Apparently, Karl Martell sent small mounted groups of scouts to the Arab convoy (this is reminiscent of the actions of modern sabotage groups of special forces!) In order to wreak havoc in the main camp of the Arabs and free the maximum possible number of prisoners, hoping to split the ranks of the enemy, and maybe even strike from the rear. In any case, he succeeded in causing panic among some of the Arabs.

The victory at Poitiers was of great importance. The onslaught of the Arabs, who had hardly met well-organized resistance in Europe before, was stopped. The death of the talented Arab commander and the related squabbles in the struggle for the right to become the new governor also played a role. Soon Karl Martell inflicts several more defeats on the Arabs, pushing them back to Narbonne. And the fall of the Umayyad dynasty that followed in 750 and the civil war in the caliphate caused by it finally stopped the Arab onslaught. In 759, the son of Karl Martell Pepin frees Narbonne, and already the grandson of Martell, who went down in history under the name of Charlemagne, finally throws the Arabs behind the Pyrenees, starting the seven-hundred-year period of the Reconquista.

From the book of 100 Great Military Secrets the author Kurushin Mikhail Yurievich

FIRST BATTLES IN HISTORY When did the first battle in world history take place? There is no exact answer to this question today, because there is no exact answer to the question: when did the first war in the history of mankind begin. There are only assumptions supported by archaeological

From the book Rokossovsky vs. Model [The genius of maneuver against the master of defense] the author Daines Vladimir Ottovich

ARITHMETICS OF THE BATTLE OF KULIKOV (Based on materials by D. Zenin.) How many warriors fought on the Kulikovo field? According to the tradition that goes back to the Zadonshchina, a story of the XIV century, it is generally accepted that Mamai brought "countless countless" soldiers to the Kulikovo field, while

From the book The Battle of Stalingrad. Chronicle, facts, people. Book 1 the author Zhilin Vitaly Alexandrovich

"Space" battles After the end of the Moscow strategic offensive operation On January 7, 1942, the Supreme Command Headquarters issued directive No. 151141 to the troops of the Western and Kalinin Fronts to encircle the enemy's Mozhaisk-Gzhatsk-Vyazma grouping. This

From the book General of the Army Chernyakhovsky the author Karpov Vladimir Vasilievich

HEROES OF THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD One of the most important factors of victory in Stalingrad battle is the heroism of the soldiers and commanders who, despite the numerical superiority of the enemy, have shown unprecedented staunchness in defense and decisiveness in the offensive.

From the book Description Patriotic War in 1812 the author Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky Alexander Ivanovich

The period of the Battle of Moscow While in the hospital, Ivan Danilovich, despite the high temperature and poor health, followed the situation at the fronts in the newspapers. Things were not going well everywhere. On September 10, the Information Bureau reported: “... The battle of Smolensk, which lasted more than

From the book of 100 Great Military Secrets [with pictures] the author Kurushin Mikhail Yurievich

Battles of Red Warring armies move towards Red. - Case of November 3. - Defeat of the Viceroy on November 4th. - Arrival of Prince Kutuzov to the Red. - Napoleon and Kutuzov are preparing to attack. - Battle of November 5th. - Business with Good. - Reasons forbidding attacking Napoleon

From the book World War II. Hell on earth author Hastings Max

First battles in history When did the first battle in world history take place? The beginning of military clashes was laid back in the Paleolithic, when groups of people armed with rough stone tools began to fight with their kind for food, women or land.

From the book Who helped Hitler? Europe at war against Soviet Union the author Kirsanov Nikolay Andreevich

Arithmetic of the Battle of Kulikovo How many warriors fought on the Kulikovo field? According to the tradition that goes back to the Zadonshchina, a story of the XIV century, it is generally accepted that Mamai brought “countless countless” soldiers to the Kulikovo field, while the Moscow prince Dmitry

From the book Great Battles. 100 battles that changed the course of history the author Domanin Alexander Anatolievich

21. Battlefield - Europe In November 1943, Hitler announced to the generals his strategic decision: the Eastern Front would receive no more reinforcements. He motivated the new strategy by the fact that in the East, the German army already holds a vast buffer zone separating

From the book Battle of Borodino the author Yulin Boris Vitalievich

Beginning of the Battle of Leningrad (10.07-30.09.41) Army Group North, deployed in East Prussia, consisting of 29 divisions, including 6 armored and mechanized ones, supported by 760 aircraft, delivered the main blow in the direction of Daugavpils and Leningrad. Her task was

From the book Lavrenty Beria [What the Sovinformburo was silent about] the author Sever Alexander

BATTLES OF THE ANCIENT WORLD Battle of Kadesh 1274 (1284?) BC NS. The Battle of Kadesh took place between the troops of the Egyptian and Hittite empires, led by Ramses II and Muwattali II, respectively. It took place near the city of Kadesh on the Orontes River - where the Syrian

From the book of Zhukov. Portrait on the background of the era author Otkhmezuri Lasha

FROM NEMAN TO THE BATTLE OF BORODINSK The Patriotic War of 1812 began by crossing the Niemen on 12 (24) June. The attempt of Alexander, who sent Balashov's mission to Napoleon, to settle the matter peacefully failed. At this time, the armed forces French empire totaled 1.2 million

From the book Bomb for Uncle Joe the author Filatyev Eduard Nikolaevich

Battles of ghosts Sergei Verevkin went even further in his book World War II: Torn Pages.

From the book Sergei Kruglov [Two Decades in the Leadership of the State Security and Internal Affairs of the USSR] the author Bogdanov Yuri Nikolaevich

The outcome of the battle for Moscow Despite the failure of the general offensive, the victory won by Zhukov near Moscow provided him with a complete special status, a special place in History. In the thirty-two months that World War II was underway, he became the first general to defeat Hitler's armies. AND

From the author's book

Continuation of the diffusion battle On January 6, 1948, the Special Committee considered the "Report of the head of laboratory No. 4 of the Research Institute-9 of the First Main Directorate under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, prof. Lange on the implementation of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of December 17. brya 1945 ". Fritz Fritsevich Lange reported that

From the author's book

10. Battles for the Caucasus and Stalingrad Despite the powerful preparation, starting from May 1942, there was a whole series of catastrophic defeats of the Red Army, caused by the desire of our commanders to attack everywhere and at once, which led to an unjustified dispersal of forces and

I continue a series of video publications about the military history of the Middle Ages.

One of the founders of the military-historical reconstruction, associate professor of the Institute of History, Ph.D. O.V. Sokolov and military historian, reenactor K.A. Zhukov about the battles of the Middle Ages. The most recent data from field and experimental archeology and scientific research on the battles of the Middle Ages: Battle of Hastings 1066, Battle of Lipitsk 1216, Battle of Kalka 1223, Battle of Kresi 1346, Battle of Visby 1361, Battle of Vorskla in 1399 and Novgorod-Livonian War of 1443-1448. ... In the video lectures, questions are revealed: the background and reasons for the battles, the place of the battles, the number and composition of the parties, tactics, the results of the battles and the impact on the future. Many myths and misconceptions, known to historians and archaeologists, but roaming in films and history textbooks, have been debunked. Audio versions of lectures are attached.

Battle of Hastings October 14, 1066- a battle that changed the history of not only England and Western Europe, but also had great importance for the history of Russia. The battle between the Anglo-Saxon army of King Harold Godwinson and the troops of the Norman Duke William ended with the defeat of the British and the conquest of England. The video lecture tells about the causes and course of the war, the course of the battle, the number and armament of the participants in the battle, the results of the battle and the impact on the history of Europe and Russia. Lecturer - military historian, reenactor Klim Zhukov

Audio version Battle of Hastings
Some sources from the lecture:
1. Guy Amiens. Song of the Battle of Hastings
2. Guillaume Jumieges. Acts of the Dukes of Normandy
3. Guy de Poitiers. Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the Angles
4. William of Malmesbury. History of English kings
6. Orderic Vitaly. Ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy
7. Robert Vas. A novel about Rollo
8. Planché J.R. The Conqueror and His Companions, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874
9. Florence of Worcester. Chronicle
10. Carpet from Bajo
11.

Lipitsk battle of 1216- the apogee of internecine war in North-Eastern Russia for power in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality after the death of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest. The battle between the younger sons of Vsevolod the Big Nest and the people of Murom, on the one hand, and the united army from the Smolensk and Novgorod lands, who supported the claims of the elder Vsevolodovich Konstantin to the Vladimir throne and led by Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny, on the other. One of the most violent and bloody battles in Russian history and an example of the "wrong war" of the Middle Ages. Lecturer - military historian, reenactor Klim Zhukov

Audio version of the Lipitsk battle of 1216

Battle of the Kalka River in 1223- a battle between the Russian-Polovtsian army and the Mongolian corps, a harbinger of the Mongol conquest of the Russian principalities. It ended with the defeat of the Russian-Polovtsian army, with a large number of dead princes and the highest aristocracy. Military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov tells about the prehistory and course of the battle, the number and armament of participants, and the consequences of the battle.

Audio version Battle of Kalka 1223

"Battle of Crécy or the Black Legend of Chivalry ", lecture of one of the founders of the military-historical reconstruction, associate professor of the Institute of History, Ph.D. Oleg Valerievich Sokolov. The Battle of Crécy on August 26, 1346 is one of the most important battles of the Hundred Years War (the conflict between the English kingdom and its allies, on the one hand, and France and its allies, on the other). The Battle of Crecy immediately became overgrown with black myths in relation to the French army and chivalry. Oleg Sokolov examines the background, course and results of the battle, simultaneously debunking the established myths

Audio version Battle of Crécy

Battle of Visby 1361- a battle between the army of the king of Denmark and the "peasants" of Gotland. The massacre, which showed that a poorly trained army does not mean anything against professional warriors. At the site of the battle, archaeologists found a mass grave of the dead, many in full gear. This find provided a huge amount of material for military historians on medieval weapons. Military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov talks about the Battle of Visby and archaeological finds

Audio version Battle of Visby

Battle of Vorskla in 1399- a battle between the united army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its Russian, Polish, German allies and the Tokhtamysh detachment under the command of Prince Vitovt, on the one hand, and the troops of the Golden Horde under the command of Khan Timur-Kutlug and Emir Edigei on the other. One of the largest battles of the Middle Ages, ended with the victory of the Tatar army and the complete defeat of the Lithuanian army. The consequences of the battle were of great importance for Eastern Europe - the fall of the role of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and the collapse of claims for the unification of Russian lands), the final discrimination of Tokhtamysh and his inability to fight for the khan's throne, the death of many Russian-Lithuanian princes, etc. About the reasons, the course of the battle, military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov tells about the composition of the participants, weapons and the possible place of the battle

Audio version Battle of Vorskla

Novgorod-Livonian War of 1443-1448 Why is it interesting? First, the longest war between Novgorod and the Livonian Order in the already complex history of their relationship. Secondly, this is the last war between Novgorod and the Livonian Order. And third, this is the last private war in Western Europe - at least in the Holy Roman Empire. Military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov tells

Audio version Novgorod-Livonian War

To be continued...

More video lectures on battles and weapons:

The Middle Ages is an era of continuous wars and bloody battles. It was these battles that determined the fate of millions of people. Alexey Durnovo put together five battles that made Europe what it is.

Who is against whom. Yorkie vs Lancaster.

Generals. Richard III. Henry Tudor.

Before the battle. The Yorkies won victory in the War of the Scarlet and White Roses and ruled England quite calmly. The throne was occupied by Richard III, the younger brother of the victorious king Edward IV. The problem was that Richard, under very dubious circumstances, deposed his nephew Edward V and more than once quarreled with prominent English aristocrats. The Lancastrian party, meanwhile, was led by Henry Tudor. His rights to this supremacy, as well as his origin, aroused strong doubts, but all other contenders for leadership had already been killed, so Tudor remained the only candidate. He took advantage of Richard's conflict with the feudal lords and attracted the latter to his side. Supported by Tudor and his stepfather Thomas Stanley - High Lord Constable of England.

The course of the battle. Richard III relied more on personal prowess than on the courage of his soldiers. The battle was in his favor, and he decided to get it over with. The king and his knights attacked the headquarters of Henry Tudor. It was a risk, but Richard believed he would be able to personally dispose of the pretender to the throne. He had every chance of this, but just at the key moment of the battle, Lord Stanley's men attacked the king from the rear. Richard received a spear in the eye, and it was this blow, as it turned out five hundred years after the battle, became fatal both for him and for the entire York dynasty.

Henry Tudor was crowned right on the battlefield

Results. Henry Tudor was crowned right on the battlefield. His victory ended the 30-year-old civil war in England, allowing the country to return to a peaceful life. Richard III is the last English king to die on the battlefield. His grave was discovered only in 2013.

Who versus whom: England vs Normandy.

Generals: Harold Godwinson. Wilgelm the conqueror.

Before the battle. King Edward the Confessor of England died without leaving an heir. Almost without hesitation, the Saxon nobility chose the most powerful of their ranks - Harold Godwinson - as the new king. The problem is that there were other contenders for the English throne: the Norwegian king Harald the Severe and dreamed of conquering England and the Norman Duke William, to whom the throne seemed to have been promised by Edward the Confessor himself. The Saxon army coped with the Vikings quite easily. At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, Harald the Severe was killed and his army put to flight. But before the Saxons had time to celebrate the victory, the Norman army of Duke William appeared from the south.

The course of the battle. The Norman army was better armed than the enemy. Suffice it to say that the Saxons had almost no archers, let alone crossbowmen. However, neither William's archers nor his heavy knightly cavalry could do anything with Harold's army, which occupied positions on the dais. This height was impregnable for the Normans, and the Saxons would have won if they had not left it themselves. When William's cavalry retreated, Harold's army rushed in pursuit. This chase arose spontaneously, the Normans managed to hold the line, stop the advancing ones and go on the offensive themselves. But the battle formation of the Saxons was disrupted, the height was unprotected, and therefore it was a matter of technology to finish off the enemy. Harold Godwinson fell on the battlefield with most of his troops.

The Norman conquerors considered the Saxons to be something like pigs

Results. Saxony and England were conquered by much more developed Normans, which led to dramatic changes in the life of the kingdom and its subjects. Suffice it to say that power was held by people who did not speak English and considered the Saxons, even the most well-born, to be something like pigs. Nevertheless, the years spent together led to the formation of a single nation, and the difference between the Saxons and Normans is now only reminded of single words in English.

Who versus whom: Kingdom of the Franks vs Umayyad Caliphate.

Generals: Karl Martell. Abdur-Rahman ibn Abdallah.

Before the battle. This was the time when the Arab states were constantly expanding their possessions, moving from the very west of Europe to the east. North Africa was already under their rule, as well as modern Portugal and Spain. The troops of the Omeyad Caliphate invaded the Kingdom of the Franks and reached the banks of the Loire. A little more, and this obstacle in their path would also be swept away. But Abdur-Rahman was opposed by an experienced commander Karl Martell, who was not the king in fact, but he was in fact. Martell had experienced, battle-hardened soldiers at his disposal, but his army was based on infantry, while the Arabs relied on cavalry.

The course of the battle. Martell managed to take a more advantageous position on the hill, but the outcome of the battle was decided by the trick he used. The Franks' infantry took the frontal blow of the Arab cavalry. She managed to withstand him, but the horsemen still broke through her ranks. At that moment, the Arabs learned that the Franks were attacking from the rear, and the cavalry rushed to help their own. In fact, only Martell's scouts approached the rear of the Umayyad army, but the cavalry retreat caused panic in Abdur-Rahman's army and quickly turned into a real flight. The Arab general tried to stop him, but was killed.

Karl Martell, by and large, saved Europe

Results. The Arab invasion of Europe was stopped. The Umayyad Caliphate no longer threatened the borders of the Kingdom of the Franks. The grandson of Karl Martell, Charlemagne, was already waging a war on enemy territory.

Who versus whom: England vs France.

Generals: Henry V. Charles d'Albret.

Before the battle. France could have forgotten that it was at war with England. V Hundred Years War then an era of long hiatus began. But the young English king Henry V recalled this conflict and his rights to the French throne. The invasion of his troops caught France by surprise, and the general battle, which took place at Agincourt in 1415, was to determine the further course of the campaign.

The course of the battle. As it turned out, previous defeats had taught the French commanders nothing. They again relied on knightly cavalry and again allowed the British to thoroughly strengthen their positions before the battle. As a result, the formidable English archers once again shot the flower of French chivalry, the frontal attack crashed against simple fortifications, and the counteroffensive turned into a massacre of defenseless subjects of King Charles VI.

At the beginning of the 15th century, the British again shot the flower of French chivalry

Results. Henry successfully completed the conquest of France and achieved his goal. He was proclaimed heir to the insane king Charles VI. France, of course, would have become part of England if not for the early death of Henry. The throne was eventually given to his son Henry VI, who was crowned king of both England and France. But the two crowns were too heavy for the little boy's head. As a result, he lost both, and France was saved by the triumphant appearance of Jeanne d'Arc and the insidious cunning of Dauphin Karl.

Who versus whom: Ayyubids vs Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Generals: Saladin. Guy de Lusignan.

Before the battle. The ruler of Egypt, Saladin, successfully united all the Muslim states of the Holy Land under his rule. His state included North Africa, Syria, part of the Arabian Peninsula and, of course, Egypt. All this created a serious threat to the existence of Christian states, founded about a hundred years earlier, after the First Crusade. Saladin approached Jerusalem, and the leaders of Christians tried to decide how exactly to give him battle. The original plan - to hold a siege in Jerusalem - was not accepted due to the tough position of Gerard de Ridfort, Grand Master of the Knights Templar. It was he who insisted that the battle should be taken in an open field. The nominal king of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan, supported Ridfor, not yet knowing that he was signing the death warrant for the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The course of the battle. One need not even mention the fact that there was no unity among the leaders of the Christian army. The Templar and Hospitaller Masters were reluctant to carry out Lusignan's orders, and Raimund, Count of Tripoli, himself claimed the supreme command. But this simplified Saladin's victory rather than defined it. Heat and thirst were far more important factors. The army of Lusignan made a transition through the sultry desert and did not manage to reach the water by sunset. The camp was set up in an open, unprotected area, and Saladin ordered dry bushes to be burned, which caused the headquarters of the Christians to be clouded with acrid smoke. Lusignan ordered the troops to line up, but Saladin got ahead of him and attacked first. It was a rout.

Before the battle, the crusaders nearly died of thirst

Results. Since the main forces of the three crusading states and two knightly orders were destroyed in the battle, the Christians were simply bled out. Saladin captured Jerusalem and launched an offensive. Undoubtedly, he would have knocked Christians out of the Holy Land decisively and irrevocably, had it not been for the intervention of Richard the Lionheart, who led the Third crusade... His appearance saved the crusaders from immediate defeat, but it was after the Battle of Hattin that it became clear that the defeat of the crusaders was a matter of time.