[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

handguns because cannons that were built for the old powder would explode (Pope 1965:
44). This powder could be carried by soldiers without separating and was a good deal
more resistant to moisture then the old powder (Pope 1965: 44).
Original firearms were not very powerful or accurate, but they improved over
time. By the mid-16th century the use of muskets had all but eliminated the use of armor;
to make armor thick enough to protect against a musket ball also made it very heavy.
Troops eventually stopped wearing their armor because it was too cumbersome (Norman
1964: 83-84). In the modern age, firearms are the principle weapon of infantry around
the world. Where most other medieval weapons have fallen out of service, the firearm
has evolved and endured.
135
Tactics of the Middle Ages
This document traces the tactical developments of the Middle Ages, roughly the
period of time between the 7th and 15th centuries. It focuses on the tactics of western
Europe but contains sections that contrast these with the developments in the east.
Early Middle Ages: The Dominance of Heavy Cavalry
In the early Middle Ages, cavalry combat did not have a monopoly over warfare,
as it later did. Nor was it as rigidly codified: a variety of tactics were prevalent, instead
of the single  shock combat charge with a lance that came to overshadow the rest. A
horsed knight would carry a spear, and wield it by thrusting downward at the enemy, or
by throwing it as a javelin. It was equally common, during this period, for the knights to
dismount before a battle, in the same way mounted infantry were accustomed to doing.
This remained the tradition in England, where, well into the heyday of cavalry, in the 12th
and 13th centuries, many knights would fight on foot alongside the infantry. This is
exemplified by such battles as Tenchebrai in 1106 (Norman & Pottinger 1979: 40).
In continental Europe, however, cavalry tactics were evolving in a way
that would permanently change medieval warfare. The stirrup had been introduced to
western Europe sometime in the 8th century. At the same time, the saddle was evolving
to become more supportive, with a rigid cantle (back plate). The synthesis of these
elements created a condition where the mounted knight was firmly locked in place while
riding. He did not have to worry about keeping his balance, but at the same time, because
the stirrups were inconveniently far forward and because of his bulky armor, he could not
136
easily rise from the saddle in order to engage in swordplay. (Keen 1999: 188) It is worth
noting that the stirrup was adopted slowly in Europe, and in a patchy way, not in a
singular revolutionary overhaul of technique. (Hooper & Bennet 1996: 154) Perhaps the
stirrup first became popular to augment the skill of the inexperienced. It was not nearly
as relied upon in the east, where skilled horsemanship was valued and the mounted
combatant used his agility and freedom of movement to his advantage.
The lance remained the favored weapon of the mounted knight; and some time in
the 10th or 11th century a new tactic was developed which spread quickly, and eventually
supplanted all other mounted combat techniques: the couched lance. The couched lance
was held firmly by the rider s right arm, tucked under his armpit. (Nicolle 1995: 78) The
knight would then charge, depending on the momentum of himself and his horse firmly
locked together by saddle and stirrup, to penetrate the defenses of the enemy. Previous to
this, a charge would be made more slowly, and the knights would ride into battle with
shorter spears, which were not held immobile, instead gripped underarm or swung with
an over-arm thrust. By the 12th century, however, armored cavalry used couched lances
almost exclusively.
The tactics of the charge itself were fairly straightforward. Armored knights
would charge straight toward their opponent, in conrois formation. This denoted a small
but dense squadron of riders, many of which would attack together in battailles,
formations of riders staying in line. (Hooper & Bennet 1996: 154) This charge came
after the enemy had been weakened by volleys of arrows. Sometimes the cavalry would
feign retreat, to gain a tactical advantage.
137
Once the cavalry had charged into action, it would often retreat and prepare for a
subsequent charge, until the enemy was sufficiently weakened. The battle then continued
in close quarters, with the sword and mace. In the ensuing mêlée the knights sometimes
dismounted to attack. Although developments in saddles and armor made it increasingly
rare, a horsed knight could also make use of the stirrups, standing up in them to swing his
weapon downward. (Hyland 1994)
Several factors tempered the usefulness of this newly specialized heavy cavalry.
Armored cavalry was valuable in battle, but outright battles were sometimes rare. Many
times the enemy was holed up in a castle, and a siege was called for, in which cavalry did
not have much use. Furthermore, a straightforward charge of armored cavalry was only
applicable and effective on level ground against an enemy that was out in the open.
When such circumstances did arise, the battle was often a small-scale, local affair for
which few knights could be summoned.
Nor did the use of heavy cavalry guarantee victory in large-scale warfare.
Cavalry was susceptible to the attacks of archers with longbows, or to crossbowmen, and
the charge could be seriously impeded by infantry bearing pikes. A rigid formation of
pikemen became a standard infantry tactic, in response to the growing use of heavy
cavalry. Popularized by Swiss armies, the pike and the tactics associated with it were
applied throughout continental Europe by the later 14th century. (Norman & Pottinger
1979: 127)
For these reasons, cavalry was, in fact, dependent on a supporting infantry.
Archers and crossbowen were needed to counter the archers of the enemy, who could
damage the charge before it landed. They were also vital in creating holes in the enemy s
138
defense. A charge could not succeed against an enemy infantry that was still locked
together holding pikes. This formation needed to be disturbed and weakened by a hail of
arrows, or else the charging men and horses would all simply be impaled.
The continued necessity of infantry to support the knightly cavalry was not
recognized by many of the knights, who preferred chivalry to strategy. They held
contempt for infantry, both as enemies in battle and in their own armies. The knightly [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]