Medieval Florence

[Erpingham]

An interesting article by William Caferro on the army of medieval Florence.

[Patrick Waterson]

It seems to centre upon the role and prominence of the 'lance' without really attempting to understand how it was used.  Interesting nevertheless and a fair nutshell summary of Florentine military history.

[Denis Grey]

If one visits Dante's house and climbs to the top floor, it turns out that he was a writer as well.

[Erpingham]

It seems to centre upon the role and prominence of the 'lance' without really attempting to understand how it was used.  Interesting nevertheless and a fair nutshell summary of Florentine military history.

Well, we do have Villani's description of the early (1360s) English lance

Their armor was almost uniformly a cuirass and a steel breastplate, iron arm-pieces, thigh- and leg-pieces; they carried stout daggers and swords; all had tilting lances which they dismounted to use; each had one or two pages, and some had more.  When they take off their armor, the pages presently set to polishing, so that when they appear in battle their arms seem like mirrors, and they so much more terrible.

            Others of them were archers, and their bows were long and of yew; they were quick and dexterous archers, and made good use of the bow.  Their mode of fighting in the field was almost always afoot, as they assigned their horses to their pages.  Keeping themselves in almost circular formation, every two take a lance, carrying it in a manner in which one waits for a boar with a boar-spear.  So bound and compact, with lowered lances they marched with slow steps towards the enemy, making a terrible outcry - and their ranks can hardly be pried apart.
....... And they were the first to bring into Italy the fashion of forming cavalry in lances [of three men each] instead of in the old system of helmets (barbute) or flags (a bandiere).

To this we can add the contemporary description of Azario, who says that two or three men held the lance and the longbowmen were positioned at the back of the formation. 

So, we can see we are dealing with very close order tactics, slow but noisy advances, archers separate but, at least when the men-at-arms advanced to fight, supporting from the rear, pages holding the horses ready.

If we want to be inquisitive, we might ask about the formation's structure.  Are the two men holding the physical lance the two fighting men of the administrative lance?  If so, what is the depth of this formation and is it made up of several double ranks, each holding a lance?  Or are the two men holding the lance both the main men-at-arms in different lances and behind them are their two armed servants and behind them the lance brigade's archer contingent?

Incidentally, anyone wanting to know more about the Companies of Adventure at this time and how they were equipped and fought could do worse Caferro's biography of John Hawkwood.  He deals with the Villani and Azario descriptions on p.48.

[Duncan Head]

Well, we do have Villani's description of the early (1360s) English lance

Surely the precise question that Caferro doesn't address is, was the Florentine lance used in the same way as the English lance? Because they are by no means all English. And was that - dismounting, chiefly - the reason for the drift to lances, or coincidental?

[Erpingham]

Well, we do have Villani's description of the early (1360s) English lance

Surely the precise question that Caferro doesn't address is, was the Florentine lance used in the same way as the English lance? Because they are by no means all English. And was that - dismounting, chiefly - the reason for the drift to lances, or coincidental?

Well dismounting seems to have caught on across the whole spectrum of nationalities.  And, of course, an English company could include members of other nations (Germans, Hungarians and Italians especially), so there was plenty of opportunity for cross fertilisation.

As to why they went over to three man lances, I don't think Caferro could say for certain.  I'm not convinced it has a tactical rather than administrative rationale.  Was it that the English turned up organised in a certain way and the Florentines accepted it as a convenience, found they could work with it and found it helpful? 

[Duncan Head]

Was it that the English turned up organised in a certain way and the Florentines accepted it as a convenience, found they could work with it and found it helpful?

I haven't checked Mallett yet, but Wikipedia says that he cites use of lance-units in Italy before the English turn up; and as far as I know, pre-Hawkwood English armies in England or France aren't organised into lances. So even if the three-man lance was new to Florence, it looks as if it may have originated in Italy and been adopted there by the English.

Perhaps one page holding two men-at-arms' horses is an efficient modular organization for dismounting, but surely pre-lance men-at-arms in "banners" had pages too?

[Erpingham]

Was it that the English turned up organised in a certain way and the Florentines accepted it as a convenience, found they could work with it and found it helpful?

I haven't checked Mallett yet, but Wikipedia says that he cites use of lance-units in Italy before the English turn up;

True - on p.37.  He associates the English development as relating to fighting on foot.

and as far as I know, pre-Hawkwood English armies in England or France aren't organised into lances. So even if the three-man lance was new to Florence, it looks as if it may have originated in Italy and been adopted there by the English.

I agree - the English don't seem to have gone in for three man lances in France.  The French formally adopt them later in the 14th century, so are probably not the originators either.  An origin in Italy is possible, possibly by the Germans (with whom the English are connected in their early adventures in Italy)? German cavalry were in two man barbute early in the 14th century.

Perhaps one page holding two men-at-arms' horses is an efficient modular organization for dismounting, but surely pre-lance men-at-arms in "banners" had pages too?

I suspect that banners had an equal number of men-at-arms and pages.  I don't know enough to know whether the pages were on the payroll.  I think the innovative bit about the lance was not the pages but the package - a whole operational sub unit, with a higher proportion of teeth to tail.  Given a lot of what you needed mercenary cavalry for was to ride about destroying things, a lesser combatant could do this as well as a more expensive man at arms.  He can back up a front of proper men-at-arms in a stand up fight well enough. 

If I have a minute, I might dip into the long discourse in the footnotes of Delbruck about the origins of the barbuta and the gleve, see if that tells us anything.

[Erpingham]

Well, I've had a bit of time to study a few things but not with any great result.  There are certainly records referred to by Delbruck of German gleven of several combatants and horses in the early fourteenth century but he also records the term first came into use in 1364    According to Fowler, men-at-arms in mercenary companies in France, Burgundy and Spain were also numbered in glaives or lances in the 1360s but again no clarity that this meant a three man lance - in fact it seems it may just refer to the men-at-arms accompanied by a page or servant.

So essentially we're dealing with a time of change in which terms are used to mean different things, which makes it hard to nail an evolutionary sequence.