Later medieval warfare in transition

[Mark G]

1453 would be my second choice date for ending medieval, coincidentally enough.

[Erpingham]

1453 would be my second choice date for ending medieval, coincidentally enough.

I think single date is convenient but hard to rationalise over a wide area.  1453 - end of Roman Empire.  A psychological point but a significant change in the way warfare was conducted in Europe? 

I think, from a military point of view, you've got to be looking at the way warfare happened.  We've condemned technological determinism but we can't ignore new weapons and tactics as an element.  Social changes and their impact on command and control are significant too - we see an increasing professionalism and the rise of permanent armies.  Logistics and financial control in states improves, which facilitates professional standing armies and larger forces.  There is an increasing body of literature on waging war (as opposed, say, to behaving as a knight). As I and others have said earlier, it is difficult to give a single date where everything changes, easier to map a period of change from one "Way of War" to another (although doesn't Hanson claim a Western Way of War that stretches from Hoplites to GIs?) - so I'd prefer a transitional or intermediate period.

There are sub-questions about a Society cut off point (could be a convenient date, could be a fuzzy edge) and how to best game this intermediate period.  Phil has done quite a bit of work recently showing DBA 3 works, at least for Bosworth.  I'd be interested to hear other opinions on suitable rules.

[Andreas Johansson]

I think, per my comment on the other forum (or per the implication it contained), that Richard's attempt to charge pike with heavy cavalry implied that he thought the medieval rules were still in play

If so, Francis thought the same at Marignano, and seemingly was right.

[Mark G]

I just ignore that bit of Hanson

- it is the sort of silly thing you put on the back of a book to sell it to chat show interviewers - "look, shock and awe is as
intrinsic a part of democracy now as it was for the Greeks, lets beat back those nasty undemocratic eastern hordes with a single cataclysimic battle and get back to jabbering about pork belly futures in the market again".

it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, there are plenty of sucessful western examples of conquering by playing a long war strategy, and equally good examples of eastern sucess via a single decisive day of battle approach. 

its quite a good theory for the Greek cities in the earlier period, but not as an overarching super narrative of west vs east.

mind you, you probably guessed I don't think much of these eastern vs western super narratives narratives anyway, by now...

[Patrick Waterson]

I think, per my comment on the other forum (or per the implication it contained), that Richard's attempt to charge pike with heavy cavalry implied that he thought the medieval rules were still in play

If so, Francis thought the same at Marignano, and seemingly was right.

The French at Marignano also deployed in the traditional mediaeval three 'battles': vanguard under the Constable of France, main battle under the King and rearguard under the Duc d'Alencon.  Francis I seems to have been operating with the mediaeval rulebook with a rules supplement for pikes and massed cannon. 

[Tim]

(Sorry I am late to this debate having asked for it - been battlefield walking at Flodden...)

I believe that (as usual) Duncan has succinctly summarised it

'
With Mark G suggesting that Swiss pike-blocks may mark "the beginning of a new tactical system" and others arguing that Bosworth and even Flodden feel mediaeval rather than early-modern, I am inclining to see a distinct period that is neither classically mediaeval nor really "pike and shot", running from Morat (at least - possibly earlier in the Low Countries?) to Marignano. The massive pike-blocks of the later Flemings, the Swiss and the Flodden Scots then denote an ultimately abortive "tactical revolution", the pike-and-shot era's 1905 rather than its 1917.
'

I think that it is about a style of warfare that the technology allows.

The Ancient warfare ends when Pike and Shot (meaning gunpowder firearms requiring minimal training beyond the rote learning of the loading sequence) are being deployed on the same side in a battle but without integration into a combined arms construct.  Anything before that is an ancient battle with newer toys...  Infantry can SOMETIMES defeat fully mounted opponents but only in a limited set of circumstances.

You then have a transitional period where Pike and Shot are deployed on the same side but where the Shot are not a formed body intergrated into a tactical system with the Pike.  This CAN be part of the society remit IM(nv)HO.  Here the Infantry have the full range of options to defeat the mounted provided the combined arms holds together but because it is not an integrated combined arms construct it has many limitations.  It starts approximately the middle of the 15th C and ends with the introduction of Spanish Colunela and Esquadron (Tercio) system.  Flodden falls into the earlier period, Bosworth fits here (and thanks to Phil for the steer).

After that you are into Pike and Shot warfare, which reaches its logical conclusion with the socket bayonet where the Pike and Shot become one.

It is not about the technology but about what the technology allows you to do with combined arms.

[Erpingham]

(Sorry I am late to this debate having asked for it - been battlefield walking at Flodden...)

Worth the wait . I suppose that's because I largely agree with your analysis   Hope the weather was good for Flodden.

[Tim]

Antony

The weather was superb, and walking the battlefield REALLY aids understanding of what occurred.

(As a side benefit I also got to meet up with a member of a 1513 battle group, so perhaps more to come...)