Myths of medieval warfare

[Erpingham]

Readers who have noted some of my past writings and comments here will know I have an interest in "Well known facts of history" that are, in fact, of dubious authenticity and often made up or misinterpreted by later authors.  I'm tempted to produce a short piece for Slingshot on a few. To keep it short, I'll avoid anything about longbows (you could write an entire book on longbow myths) and will stick to military history.  Just as a taster, here is a list by Dirk Breiding, famed arms & armour expert, from an article he wrote in 2010

• Only knights wore armor—Wrong
• Armor was so expensive, only princes and the high nobility could afford it—Wrong
• If armor is (highly) decorated, it is for ceremonial use, not for war–Wrong
• Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer virtually immobile (and, by implication,
anyone wearing armor had to have almost super-human strength)—Wrong
• Knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with cranes—Wrong
• It took years to make a single armor—Wrong
• Wearing armor makes it dificult to go to the toilet—Wrong
• The military salute originated from the raising of a visor—Very doubtful
• Women never fought or wore armor—Not entirely true
• Only knights were allowed to carry swords—Not entirely true
• Armor became obsolete because of firearms—Not true without qualiication

Some of these I expect will make the article, along with other recent favourites like the houndscull and the Battle of Lake Peipus.  But, if anyone has their own favourites, please flag them up, preferably with a debunking reference

Incidentally, if anyone likes the idea and wants to apply it for a different period (like Classical warfare) or even tackle the related but narrower topic of wargamer history v. actual history, I'm sure they'd make a great article too.

[Imperial Dave]

indeed but I will leave that to others....

[Erpingham]

Still mulling this article.  What form will it take, will I have a surge of mental energy that will enable me to write it etc.  However, the "History Myths" genre continues elsewhere.  A recent book by a Dutch scholar includes a chapter debunking the consumption of potatoes in Medieval Europe. I was a bit shocked by this, as I was taught in school sixty years ago that potatoes came from the New World after Columbus. But it does show the problem expands beyond the wargames world.

[Nick Harbud]

What a large and lovely can of worms to open!  I can just picture all the various myths writhing around in front of me.

Just to complicate the very straightforward list in your original post, what type of armour will you be considering?  I mean, the medieval period includes mail hauberk through to hardened steel plate and everything in between.  Whilst accepting that some of the myths (and their debunking) do not depend upon the type of armour selected, it may be as well to narrow the scope of your article to bring out particular points. 

For example, I am quite willing to believe that neither chainmail not plate armours rendered the wearer immobile.  However, when did women (not just Joan of Arc) start to wear armour and was there any preference for style or type through the ages?

Good luck with the article!

[Erpingham]

what type of armour will you be considering

I wasn't actually going to do much on armour. Some of Breiding's examples are probably too well worn for even medieval wargamers to have missed they are myths.  For example, there are Youtube videos out there showing men completing assault courses in full plate armour.  The weight comparisons of early 20th century troops equipment and fully armoured men-at-arms were done at least as early as the 1980s, probably earlier. I will do the hounscull and touch on a few other mail-related confusions. The "knights and cranes" myth is probably too familiar to most these days but its origins are interesting.

As to women wearing armour, I can think of a few examples (Eleanor of Aquitaine on occassion, Matilda of Canossa, , Dulle Griet - others no doubt I could dig out) but probably won't focus on that one.

I think I will do "Shire horses are descended from destriers" just for fun

Finally, forewarned - this won't be a great treatise - just a few examples and a call to critically approach information.  Breiding has quite a bit to say about museum curators and art historians and their duty to counter misinformation (this being his profession).

[Jim Webster]

The Catalan Company armoured women to defend their camp when attacked by Genoese and Byzantines

https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/muntaner_goodenough.pdf

[Erpingham]

Because of my interest in "fake " history, I couldn't resist getting the book with the medieval potato myth 

Jo Hedwig Teeuwisse : Fake History - 101 things that never happened

Not much in our area of interest and only two items of military interest - horned Viking helmets and the arrow in Harold's eye.  We should note, though, this is a generalist, not military or medievalist work, so not really surprising.  It's still fun though.

[Erpingham]

While on the subject of military myths, we will all recall the scene in Olivier's Henry V with the knight being lowered into his saddle with a crane.  I'm sure no-one here believes this but some may think that Olivier invented it for dramatic effect.  Not so.  There are a number of explanations for it around but the best I found so far is by Robert Woosnam-Savage here. Yet another Victorian contribution to medieval history.

[Jim Webster]

While on the subject of military myths, we will all recall the scene in Olivier's Henry V with the knight being lowered into his saddle with a crane.  I'm sure no-one here believes this but some may think that Olivier invented it for dramatic effect.  Not so.  There are a number of explanations for it around but the best I found so far is by Robert Woosnam-Savage here. Yet another Victorian contribution to medieval history.

Enough spikey bits on the horse armour in the illustration to satisfy even a 40K figure modeller 

[gavindbm]

How about 'medieval infantry was useless against (easily defeated by) mounted knights'.

[Erpingham]

How about 'medieval infantry was useless against (easily defeated by) mounted knights'.

As it happens, I was wondering about something on the "Age of Cavalry". I think that something of the old attitudes of Charles Oman back in 1885 still pervade at least wargamer history

Troops like the Scotch Lowlanders, with their long spears, or the Saracen auxiliaries of Frederick II, with their cross-bows, deserved and obtained some respect on account of the uniformity of their equipment. But with ordinary infantry the case was different; exposed, without discipline and with a miscellaneous assortment of dissimilar weapons, to a cavalry charge, they could not combine to withstand it, but were ridden down and crushed. A few infantry successes which appear towards the end of the period were altogether exceptional in character. The infantry of the 'Great Company,' in the East beat the Duke of Athens, by inducing him to charge with all his men-at-arms into a swamp. In a similar way the victory of Courtrai was secured, not by the mallets and iron-shod staves of the Flemings, but by the canal, into which the headlong onset of the French cavalry thrust rank after rank of their companions.

Note how tactical competence of the infantry has been reduced to some luck with terrain.

We might also note he said

When the enemy came in sight, nothing could restrain the Western knights: the shield was shifted into position, the lance dropped into rest, the spur touched the charger, and the mail-clad line thundered on, regardless of what might be before it. As often as not its career ended in being dashed against a stone wall or tumbled into a canal, in painful flounderings in a bog, or futile surgings around a palisade.

I think this created a persistent myth which turned up in many wargames rules - impetuous knights.

In fact, even Oman moved away from being quite so extreme in his two volume 1924 version of the Art of War in the Middle Ages.

Calling it a myth, though, is a tough one because academic military historians are divided about the relative importance of cavalry and infantry pre 1300 and whether there was an Infantry Revolution in the 14th century. So you have the Bachrach's and their school proclaiming infantry was alway the dominant force on the battlefield, whereas the counter-revisionists saying "Hang on a minute - rubbish infantry might have been a myth but knightly cavalry was the decisive arm."  Perhaps needs more of an examination in its own right than putting in there among the myths, though.

[Erpingham]

Here's another one deserving a mention.  This is from the website of a reputable organisation, the Rare Breeds Survival Survival Trust

"Originally referred to as the Great Horse, the Shire was of enormous importance in Medieval Britain carrying knights into battle."

Although most would suggest the Great Horse is one of the ancestors of the Shire Horse, the Shire Horse breed is an 18th century one whose more immediate ancestor is the Friesian Black Horse, surprisingly enough a heavy draft breed.  While this is a bit academic, we do get this back projection of knights mounted on big shire type horses with their heavily feather feet. 

[gavindbm]

How about 'medieval infantry was useless against (easily defeated by) mounted knights'.

.........

I think this created a persistent myth which turned up in many wargames rules - impetuous knights.

Impetuous knights would be a great topic.

[Keraunos]

There is an excellent book by Paul Cohen "History in three keys", which explores the Boxer Rebellion through three different types of history.  First is the record of history as lived experience.  Second is history as analysis - the realm of the scholar trying to make sense of the records of lived experience, archaeological finds and so on.  Finally is history as myth, the stories we tell ourselves and others to enlist the past in service of our present needs.  The latter is the dominant key.

[Erpingham]

Having now submitted the article, I was interested to see this piece by Daniel Jaquet.  As it duplicates a large section of the article, take it as a preview