The tactics of medieval men-at-arms

[Mark G]

I would certainly be happy to find that the 'lance' orgnaisation was in part designed to ensure that the proper knights had the front row, and the second row was the knights retainers.  I have never been happy with the wargamer decision to split them out into full knights and separate men at arms on the basis of equipment alone.

The necessity of a minimum a second rank to secure the front line make the notoriously snobbbish catholic gendarmes of the FWoR insisting on a single line only more vulnerable. 
Its important to remember that the impact of the charge had to be met with some counter impact - as cavalry who stand and fire always loose - but equally the Huguenots here not only fire, but also short-charge, keep an even frontage and have a depth to exploit the isolation of gendarmes passing through irregularly - and if only one rank of gendarmes, any pistol hit creates a break in the line.

the meissonier painting of French Cuirassiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cuirassiers_1805_Meissonier_Chantilly.jpg

shows 2 ranks to a single line (those are guns in the rear), and if we could expect to see full knights in the front and then lesser armed/nobled but still viable fighting men in the second rank, I think that would make a lot of sense.

the question is, what medieval descriptions do we have of lances being re-organised on the field itself?

And can we take the examples of repeated charges as indicative of this being the normal knightly thing to do?

H+M squadrons repeatedly charging are in part because they always kept reserve squadrons to ensure there was another line ready to go as the first pulled back - this use of local reserves is not something I am sure we can demonstrate in medieval so easily.

[Erpingham]

I would certainly be happy to find that the 'lance' orgnaisation was in part designed to ensure that the proper knights had the front row, and the second row was the knights retainers.  I have never been happy with the wargamer decision to split them out into full knights and separate men at arms on the basis of equipment alone.

This may vary depending on when and where.  Separate bodies of sergeants, varlets and costilliers are mentioned in various times and places.  I'd be tempted to see this as a tactical option, rather than the default though.  For example, men-at-arms and varlets are drawn up separately at Agincourt.  However, a closer look shows the French have assembled small groups of cavalry on the wings - they have more than enough men-at-arms to be selective, so the varlets are not required.  The rest of the men-at-arms are in the infantry role.  They don't have any need to dismount the varlets to reinforce the infantry either, so they keep them back as a mounted reserve (though what they were expected to do is lost to us).  The selecting out of pure men-at-arms forces (the best men on the best horses) seems to happen often enough but whether the remaining less well equiped stayed in mixed groups is less well evidenced. 

[Erpingham]

Another source, albeit in the later period, is the Burgundian ordnance of 1473, usually considered the first medieval European document to describe weapons drills. It says this about men-at-arms

the captains of the squadrons and the chambres are from time to time to take some of their men-at-arms out into the fields, sometimes partly, sometimes fully armed, to practice charging with the lance, keeping in close formation while charging, (how) to charge briskly, to defend their ensigns, to withdraw on command, and to rally, each helping the other, when so ordered, and how to withstand a charge.

It should be noted that the activities of the other members of a lance were also described but the coustillier isn't mentioned.  An oversight, or because he would have been with the men-at-arms?

Note no fancy evolutions are mentioned.  The emphasis seems to be on weapon skills and, above all, group action.

[Patrick Waterson]

Bouvines might be an interesting battle to look at:

http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines

and

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/bouvines.htm  (scroll down about half-way for the battle and never mind the spelling!)

Sadly the page with online original sources (historical accounts link from Wikipedia article) has links that are no longer functioning.  Still, Wikipedia has a pretty picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bataille_de_Bouvines_.jpg

The battle seems overall to have been a kind of mediaeval Marengo, with fighting and success going to and fro, and many cavalry-cavalry and cavalry-infantry actions in addition to the central infantry clash.  Swords, axes and lances are all used, and both King and Emperor are unhorsed and rescued.   A stand by Reginald of Boulogne involved using 700 Low Countries pikemen and a small but determined force of knights which repeatedly sortied from and retired to the cover the pikes provided.

What observations can we make from this or any other suitable period battle?

Patrick

[Erpingham]

For sources on Bouvines, try here

http://web.archive.org/web/20110605003651/http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/bouvines.htm

Some of this was represented in the Bouvines article of our Battles series on this forum.

I personally find Bouvines a hard battle to unravel, as the actions of the various units seem almost like random motion.  One thing to note is a lot of the cavalry melees bog down, with knights churning about.  Men fight with swords and maces but also grapple and stab with daggers.  Infantry get in under the horses and hamstring or disembowel them.  This is not the fluid through and back stuff we looked at earlier.

The use of infantry to form an enclosure in which cavalry can rally is, IIRC, a tournament trick.  It was more common to use the infantry as a wall, behind which cavalry could rally  (although I've never worked out why the pursuers didn't just go round the edges, like the retreating knights did).

[Jim Webster]

The use of infantry to form an enclosure in which cavalry can rally is, IIRC, a tournament trick.  It was more common to use the infantry as a wall, behind which cavalry could rally  (although I've never worked out why the pursuers didn't just go round the edges, like the retreating knights did).

Perhaps the first cavalry to rally were put at the edges ready to hit any pursuers in the flank?
It would be the sort of standard operating procedure that everyone would know about, so no one would bother writing down, and would mean that pursuers would be suitably wary

Jim

[aligern]

I thought at Bouvines that
1) The infantry in question were in a circle. (didn't later Flemish use a 'crown' formation
2) The circle opened to let knights charge out.

I Imagine that knights reforming on a supporting infantry line re let through it rather than going around the edges.

They are certainly let through it going forward.
Roy

[Erpingham]

I thought at Bouvines that
1) The infantry in question were in a circle. (didn't later Flemish use a 'crown' formation
2) The circle opened to let knights charge out.

Roy

Yes on all counts.  However, I don't know of another European battle where this was done.  Battles like Arsuf in the Crusades might be the nearest.  The forming a wall thing seems to have been more common.  I'm interested in the idea that the infantry let cavalry through gaps, which they opened or shut.  Do we have a battle account with a description of this being done?  Obviously, we don't want to get sidetracked down a line of infantry tactics (Medieval close-order infantry tactics as a break-out topic?) but this use of infantry as a stable base from which the cavalry battle can ebb and flow gets to the heart of some of Mark's questions about the fluidity of mounted combat and the withdrawal of parts of a line to regroup, while others sustained the fight.

[aligern]

This is from Ibn Al Athir's near contemporary description of the battle of Arsuf.  It refers a bit to cavalry tactics in that it shows the planning and discipline of the Frankish knights as they mass for the charge, charge and then make repeated charges and halts, reforming to avoid being caught disordered.
I think that there have to be several groups of knights doing this and several gaps opened to drive off all three wings of Saladin's main body.

The Battle of Arsuf
The Sultan was informed that the enemy had moved out towards Arsuf.  He rode out and drew up his divisions for battle, with every intention of bringing the enemy to a pitched battle that day.  He sent forward a picked body of skirmishers from each division. The enemy marched on until they were close to the woods and plantations of arsuf.  The skirmishers loosed their arrows against them and then the divisions pressed them close from every direction.  The sultan made them engage closely, but held back some in reserve.  The enemy were tightly beset and the fighting was fierce and blazed into flame from both sides. Amongst the enemy were dead and wounded and they quickened their march in the hope of reaching the site where they could camp.  Their situation became serious and the noose about them tightened, whilst the sultan was moving between the left wing and the right , urging men on in the Jihad.  Several times I encountered him, when he was attended y only two pages with two spare mounts and that was all.  I met his brother in a similar state, while the arrows were flying past them both.

The enemy's situation worsened more and the Muslims  thought they had them in their power.  eventually the first detachments of their infantry reached the plantations of Arsuf. Then their cavalry  massed together and agreed on a charge, as they feared for their people and  thought that only a charge would save them.  I saw them grouped together in the middle of the foot-soldiers.  They  took their lances  and gave a shout as one man.  The infantry opened gaps  for them and they charged in unison along their whole line.  One group charged our right wing, another our left and the third our centre.  Our men gave way before them.  It happened I was in the centre which took to wholesale flight.  My intention was to join the left wing, since it was nearer to me.I reached it after it had been broken utterly, so I thought to join the right wing, but then I saw it had fled more calamitously than all the rest. I determined to join the sultan's guard which was in reserve to support all the others as was customary. I came to him, but the sultan had kept no more than seventeen fighting men there and had taken the rest into battle, but the standards were still there and the drum was beating without interruption. When the sultan saw this reverse  that had befallen the Muslims, he returned to his guard and found there this scanty number.
He stood amongst them while men were fleeing on all sides, but he was commanding the drummers to beat their drums without stopping.  He ordered  men to rally to him, all those he saw fleeing. However, the Muslims were, in fact, in complete rout.  The enemy made a charge and they fled, but then the enemy halted for fear of an ambush, so our men halted and made some resistance.  Then there was a sec charge and our men fled, but fought as they fled. The enemy halted again and


Roy

[Erpingham]

Well, although there is much more that could be discussed, we seem, at least for now, to have reached a natural end to our discussion.  One thing perhaps we could have looked at further were the command and control aspects of mounted men-at-arms.  I've studied medieval warfare for quite a while now and I am reasonably sure that the wargamer stereotype of uncontrollable knights is a distortion.  Medieval men-at-arms by and large did what they were told and went where they were led.  That they could be led into some stupid places by some headstrong and vainglorious commanders is, however, not in doubt either.  Experience and cohesion comes into it too.  The men-at-arms of a condottiere company, or an ordnance company, got used to working together in the way that an arriere ban of local gentry did not. 

If you look at the working role of the later medieval man-at-arms, he is a jack of all trades.  He can deliver a cavalry charge certainly, but he can also ambush, raid, escort, scout and pursue.  I think early twentieth century military historians did him a disservice by comparing him to a tank.  Much more he stood in the line of later heavy cavalry.  Less capable of battlefield manoeuver perhaps but, when well led, not much less controlled either.