Historical battles of the Middle Ages. Great battles of the middle ages

Medieval battles slowly transitioned from skirmishes between poorly organized military units to battles involving tactics and maneuvering. In part, this evolution was a response to development different types troops and weapons and the ability to use them. The first armies of the Dark Middle Ages were crowds of foot soldiers. With the development of heavy cavalry, the best armies became crowds of knights. Foot soldiers were used to ravage agricultural land and hard work in sieges. In battles, however, the infantry was threatened from both sides, as the knights sought to meet the enemy in duels. Infantry in this early period consisted of feudal recruits and untrained peasants. Archers were also useful in sieges, but they risked being trampled on the battlefield.

By the end of the 15th century, military leaders had made great strides in disciplining knights and creating armies to act as a team. In the English army, the knights grudgingly recognized the archers after they had demonstrated their worth in a large number of battles. Discipline also increased as more and more knights fought for money and less for honor and glory. Mercenary soldiers in Italy are best known for long campaigns with relatively little bloodshed. By this time, soldiers of all branches of the army had become property that was not easy to part with. Feudal armies seeking glory turned into professional armies, more eager to survive in order to spend the money they earned.

Cavalry tactics

The cavalry was usually divided into three groups, or divisions, which were sent into battle one after the other. The first wave was supposed to break through the enemy ranks or break them so that the second or third wave could break through. If the enemy fled, a real massacre began.

In practice, the knights acted in their own way to the detriment of any plans of the commander. The knights were mainly interested in honors and glory and were not shy about means in the first row of the first division. Complete victory in battle was a secondary matter compared to personal glory... Battle after battle, the knights rushed to the attack as soon as they saw the enemy, destroying any plans.

Sometimes the warlords rushed the knights in order to better control them. It was a common course of action in a small army that had little chance of opposing attacks. The dismounted knights bolstered the combat strength and morale of the regular infantry. Dismounted knights and other foot soldiers fought from behind stakes or other military installations designed to weaken the power of cavalry attacks.

An example of the undisciplined behavior of the knights was the Battle of Crécy in 1346. The French army outnumbered the English by several times (forty thousand and ten thousand), having significantly more mounted knights. The British were divided into three groups of archers, protected by stakes driven into the ground. Between these three groups were two groups of dismounted knights. A third group of dismounted knights was held in reserve. Genoese mercenary crossbowmen were sent by the French king to shoot at the English infantry, while he tried to organize his knights into three divisions. However, the crossbows got wet and proved ineffective. The French knights ignored their king's efforts to organize as soon as they saw the enemy and drove themselves into a frenzy with shouts of “Kill! Kill! " Having lost patience with the Genoese, the French king ordered his knights to attack, and they trampled the crossbowmen on their way. Although the battle lasted all day, the English knights and archers on foot (keeping their bowstrings dry) prevailed over the French cavalry, who fought in a disorderly crowd.

Towards the end of the Middle Ages, the importance of heavy cavalry on the battlefield declined and became approximately equal to that of rifle and infantry. By this time, the futility of an attack against a properly deployed and disciplined infantry had become clear. The rules have changed. Palisades, pits against horses, and ditches became the usual defenses of armies against cavalry attacks. Attacks against numerous formations of spearmen and archers or riflemen with firearms left only a pile of crushed horses and men. The knights were forced to fight on foot or wait for a suitable opportunity to attack. Devastating attacks were still possible, but only if the enemy was fleeing disorganized or outside the protection of temporary field installations.

Rifle tactics

For most of this era, the infantry force consisted of archers using several types of bows. First it was a short bow, then a crossbow and a long bow. The advantage of archers was the ability to kill or injure enemies from a distance without engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The importance of these troops was well known in ancient times, but this experience was temporarily lost in the dark Middle Ages. The main ones during the early Middle Ages were the warriors-knights who controlled the territory, and their code required a duel with a worthy enemy. Killing with arrows from a long distance was shameful from the point of view of the knights, so the ruling class did little to develop this type of weapon and its effective use.

However, it gradually became clear that archers are effective in the highest degree useful both in sieges and in battle. Though reluctant, more and more armies gave way to them. William I's decisive victory at Hastings in 1066 may have been won by archers, although his knights have traditionally received the highest honors. The Anglo-Saxons held the slope of the hill and were so protected by closed shields that it was very difficult for the Norman knights to break through them. The battle went on all day. The Anglo-Saxons ventured out from behind the shield wall, in part to reach the Norman archers. And when they came out, the knights knocked them down easily. For a time it seemed that the Normans were about to lose, but many believe the battle was won by the Norman archers. Harold, king of the Anglo-Saxons, was mortally wounded by a successful shot, and the battle was over shortly thereafter.

Foot archers fought in numerous battle formations of hundreds or even thousands. A hundred yards from the enemy, a shot from both a crossbow and a longbow could pierce armor. At this distance, the archers fired at individual targets. The enemy was furious with such losses, especially if he could not answer. In an ideal situation, archers would destroy enemy units by firing at them for some time. The enemy could hide from cavalry attacks behind a palisade, but he could not stop all the arrows flying at him. If the enemy came out from behind the obstacle and attacked the archers, friendly heavy cavalry entered the battle, well, if in time to save the archers. If the enemy's formations simply stood still, they could gradually move so that the cavalry got the opportunity for a successful attack.

Archers were actively supported and subsidized in England, as the British were outnumbered in the war on the mainland. When the British learned to use a large contingent of archers, they began to win battles, even though the enemy was usually outnumbered. The British developed the "arrow shaft" method, taking advantage of the long bow's range. Instead of shooting at individual targets, archers with long bows fired at enemy-occupied areas. Firing up to six rounds per minute, 3,000 longbow archers could fire 18,000 arrows at numerous enemy formations. The impact of this boom shaft on horses and people was devastating. French knights during the Hundred Years War spoke of the sky blackened by arrows and the noise that these projectiles made when flying.

Crossbowmen became a notable force in the mainland armies, especially in the militia and professional troops formed by the cities. The crossbowman became a ready-made soldier with minimal training.

By the fourteenth century, the first primitive handguns, handguns, had appeared on the battlefields. Subsequently, it became even more powerful than bows.

The difficulty in using archers was to ensure their protection while firing. In order for the shooting to be effective, they had to be very close to the enemy. English archers brought stakes to the battlefield and hammered them into the ground with mallets in front of the place from which they wanted to fire. These stakes gave them some protection against enemy cavalry. And in the matter of protection from enemy archers, they relied on their weapons. They were at a disadvantage when attacking enemy infantry. Crossbowmen took huge shields equipped with supports into battle. These shields were used to make up walls from behind which people could shoot.

By the end of the era, archers and spearmen operated together in mixed formations. Spears held off enemy hand-to-hand troops, while rifle troops (crossbowmen or gunners from firearms) fired at the enemy. These mixed formations have learned to move and attack. The enemy cavalry was forced to retreat in the face of a disciplined mixed army of spearmen and crossbowmen or gunmen. If the enemy could not strike back with their own arrows and spears, the battle was most likely lost.

Infantry tactics

Infantry tactics during the dark Middle Ages were simple - to approach the enemy and engage in battle. The Franks threw their axes just before approaching in order to chop down the enemy. The warriors counted on victory at the expense of strength and ferocity.

The development of chivalry temporarily overshadowed the infantry on the battlefield, mainly because disciplined and well-trained infantry did not exist then. The foot soldiers of the armies of the early Middle Ages were mostly poorly armed and poorly trained peasants.

The Saxons and Vikings came up with a defensive tactic called the shield wall. The warriors stood close to each other, long shields pushed aside, forming a barrier. This helped them defend against archers and cavalry, which were not in their armies.

The infantry resurgence took place in areas that did not have the resources to support heavy cavalry — in hilly countries like Scotland and Switzerland, and in growing cities. By necessity, these two sectors found ways to bring effective armies to the battlefield with few or no cavalry. Both groups found that horses would not attack a barrage of sharp spikes or spearheads. A disciplined army of spearmen could stop the elite heavy cavalry of wealthier nations and lords for a fraction of the cost of a heavy cavalry army.

The battle formation shiltron, which was a circle of spearmen, was used by the Scots during the Revolutionary Wars at the end of the thirteenth century (reflected in the movie "Braveheart"). They realized that the Shiltron was an effective defensive formation. Robert the Bruce suggested that the English knights fight only on swampy terrain, which made it very difficult for the heavy cavalry to attack.

The Swiss spearmen are widely known. They essentially revived the Greek phalanxes and made great strides with long polearms. They created a square of spearmen. The four outer ranks held the spears almost horizontally, tilting slightly downward. This was an effective barrage against cavalry. The rear ranks used shafts with blades to attack the enemy approaching the formation. The Swiss were so well trained that their squad was able to move relatively quickly, so they were able to transform the defensive formation into an effective battle formation.

The response to the appearance of the battle formations of the spearmen was artillery, which punched holes in the dense ranks of the troops. The Spaniards were the first to begin its effective use. The Spanish shield-bearers, armed with swords, also successfully fought with the spearmen. They were soldiers in light armor who could easily move among the spears and fight effectively with short swords. Their shields were small and handy. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Spaniards were also the first to experiment, combining spearmen, swordsmen and gunners from firearms in one battle formation. It was an effective army that could use any weapon on any terrain for both defense and attack. At the end of this era, the Spaniards were the most effective military force in Europe.

From the very fall of Rome until the end of the 15th century, war remained a constant and integral part of the life of medieval society. Invasion of the Visigoths into the Roman Empire in 376. and their victory over the Roman troops in the battle of Adrianople in 378 became a kind of turning point: from that time on, the barbarian invasions of Western Europe began to intensify. For the Visigoths came the Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans, Alemans, Franks, Angles, Saxons and, as a result, the Huns - a tribe that served as a kind of accelerator of the process, prompting other peoples to withdraw dares and go to the West. The western part of the Roman Empire disappeared as a single state, its place was taken by many tribal formations, the ephemeral boundaries between which were constantly changing.
This is how, in fact, as is commonly believed, the Middle Ages began. Although, of course, historical awareness this fact and views on a rather long time period in the life of mankind, poorly illuminated by original sources, changed under the influence of the era. Of course, the invasions of the Visigoths played an important role in the fall of the Roman Empire, and the defeat and death of Emperor Valens in the battle of Adrianople actually divided the empire into two halves. However, the fall of Rome could not have occurred as a result of a single event, the process proceeded progressively and stretched out in fact for another whole century. The barbarian armies, too, apparently did not differ so much from the Roman ones, as is commonly believed, that is, they were not less disciplined, less bureaucratic in terms of organization, less armed and had worse armor. In fact, many of the warriors picked up the martial arts while serving in the Roman armies, sometimes acting against other barbarians or ... other Roman troops.
At first, they used Roman weapons and armor, but rather soon they changed the bronze plate or scaly protective vestments adopted by the Romans for iron chain mail, and short Roman swords and throwing spears for longer cutting swords, as well as noticeably lengthened spears for stabbing blows and axes or axes.
The barbarians - let's call them that - also had unwritten codes of honor, rules of conduct in battle, which permeated their concepts of everything in the world, the heroic deeds were sung in songs and legends and were directly reflected in the names of people, both male and female. ... Warriors were considered the elite of society. Their life was valued especially highly in a system where everything was measured by the so-called vira and they were buried with their weapons and the most expensive trophies. The tribal leaders of the barbarians, or their kings, also acted as warlords.

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. In a hundred years, the Islamic empire has spread 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, in the 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 a final blow by common desperate efforts. " The foot troops were for the most part incapable of combat and poorly armed, the strength 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 relied more and more 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 principles 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 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 eventually defeated the invaders. Arab and Byzantine galleys were more or less identical. The great battle dromon had a hundred rowers spread over 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 into 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 to 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 thighs, 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, which distinguished a particular military unit. To afford such equipment, the horseman had to be of considerable fortune. 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 the 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 medical orderlies. 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. In the empire, there was no 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 the country made endless raids on the Arab territories of Cilicia and Mesopotamia.

The tactics of the Byzantines were based on a series of attacks by 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 it was expected that the enemy would begin the battle with a cavalry attack, the light troops hid behind the heavy infantry, "just the same," notes Oman, "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 finest 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 inciting treason among the enemy. They constantly had to resort to defensive actions: either to keep the Arabs out of Asia Minor, or 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 chiefs 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 captives, 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 discarded 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.

In 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 stabbed 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 to 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 marched 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 Austrazians, it was they who sought out 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. The Arabs simply advanced as far as their resources would permit.

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 in the west of Europe, peace and tranquility have come, which she has not seen since the days of the Antonine dynasty. Military successes were the condition for achievements in the economy, 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 maintaining it 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 took a long time to prepare and the service itself. During 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 plagued 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" did not completely disappear, but the number of foot troops was reduced, and the fighting efficiency 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 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 appear in Stasfurt on Bode by May 20 with your people, ready to carry military service in any part of our kingdom that we point to. 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 should have shovels, axes, pickaxes, 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 the kings knowledgeable in military affairs, the army of the Franks loses its positive qualities. 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 the enemy forces 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 not 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 always fought sea 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, the shelling began, usually the enemy was showered with a hail of arrows, but sometimes they were simply thrown with 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. 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 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. Fenced in by palisades and moats, these 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 robberies 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 mostly 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 were now able to 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 North America[Life, religion, culture] the author White John Manchip

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

Chapter 2 NORTH CARPATHIAN CULTURE OF THE BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGE General course 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 AGE The Eastchip Market in the Tudor era. Pay attention to the number of butcher shops. Meat in London has always enjoyed 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 a testament to 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 the Philadelphian family that is called aristocratic in America: his ancestors were Huguenots on their fathers, Jews 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 enjoyed great

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

Introduction THEORETICAL STUDY 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 guidance 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 is detailed map the area in which he traveled. But for those who, after him, began work 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

Medieval battles

Regardless of whether the generals were striving for 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 wars in the Middle Ages, there have been 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 city of Gisor in Normandy, English foot soldiers repulsed two attacks from the French cavalry, which was 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 twelfth 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 Tyrski reports that during the second crusade at the end of the 1140s. the German knights dismounted out of habit 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 it 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 their respective functions, which could change depending on the circumstances. The heavy cavalry was designed to deliver a powerful blow that could split the enemy's 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. The 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 that medieval armies partly consisted of fearful peasants, 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 manner, barely smelling blood, is just a parody that, unfortunately, is still alive today. In a recently published essay on the pursuit of fame, Nobel Prize-winning 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 the appropriate 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, he will be thrown overboard, and if on land, 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 must be dipped into the sea three times. Swearing or blasphemy is punishable by 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 Harfler. 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 inhabitants of Normandy as loyal and reliable subjects. But not all such directives were well thought out. Twenty years later, Sir John Falstaff was giving 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 perished in the thicket, many on the way of their pursuers. The Normans chased 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 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 internal 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 about 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, killed in the Scottish battle of Dunbar in 1296, according to the statements of four chroniclers - contemporaries of those events, there were 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 durable 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. TO early XIV over the centuries, casualties 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 Bremule in 1119, during which Orderic Vitaly counted only three of the 900 knights participating in the battle killed. According to the general estimate, in the Middle Ages, the defeated armies suffered losses in the amount of 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 a 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, disfigured noses, severed ears, chopped necks, gouged eyes, ripped stomachs, viscera that fell out, blood-stained hair, stripped bodies, severed fingers ... ribs sticking out ... lifeless faces, gaping wounds, the last breaths 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 most terrible 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” denotes 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 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 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 farther from the Horde, so if something goes wrong, pay Ryazan again, as it was

From book The World History piracy the author Annunciation Gleb

Pirates of the Middle Ages Avilda, or Alfilda (4 ?? - 4 ??), Scandinavia Avilda grew up in a 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 Reznikov Kirill Yurievich

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 dark colors, as the time of the collapse of culture and savagery. Yes, 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 tribes of the barbarians 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 "antique" 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

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 Lipitsa 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 reasons 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 Jumièges. Acts of the Dukes of Norman
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 background and course of the battle, the number and weapons of participants, and the consequences of the battle.

Audio version Battle of Kalka 1223

"Battle of Crécy or the Black Legend of Chivalry ", lecture by one of the founders of the military-historical reconstruction, associate professor of the Institute of History, Ph.D. Oleg Valerievich Sokolov. Battle of Crecy on 26 August 1346 one of the most important battles 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 have found a mass grave of the dead, many in full gear. This find gave a huge amount of material for military historians on medieval weapons. About the Battle of Visby and archaeological finds tells the military historian and reenactor Klim Zhukov

Audio version Battle of Visby

Battle of Vorskla in 1399- the 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 How 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 thirdly, 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: