From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: Warfare in the Middle Ages 
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:32:46 GMT

In article <725614928snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec24.034607.26765@fcom.cc.utah.edu> syl5487@u.cc.utah.edu writes:
>
>  > 
>  > How important were archers and crossbowmen during the middle ages?
>
>There was the battle of Falkirk (I think) where the Scots were forced 
>to sit stationary in large "pike-blocks" or schiltrons due to the 
>presence of English cavalry, and were shot to peices by longbowmen.

Yep, the same can be said about the Halidon Hill.

>Generally medieval missile troops could provide real trouble for their 
>opponents, but they were very vulnerable to heavy cavalry.  The 
>English solved this by hiding behind stakes.  Most other nations 

Only after the battle of Agincourt. The real English solution of the problem
was to intersperse units of dismounted knights with the archer units, thus
providing staying and hacking power the archers lacked. Archers shot and
men-at-arms fought.

>used such troops in much smaller numbers, so they could be protected 
>by spearmen.  King Richard I (the Lionheart) used mixed crossbow/spear 
>units against the Moslems in the Outremer.

Yep, this was also the Italian solution (to have first ranks pavisiers
with long spears and rear ranks crossbowmen), as did the Teutonic Order
in the Baltic countries.

>Contrary to popular belief, the longbow had no great advantage over 
>the crossbow.  The standard method of using crossbows was for one chap 
>to load, while another took the loaded crossbows and fired them.  When 
>the loader got tired they could swap duties.  With this sort of drill 
>the rate of fire for 2 men with crossbows was comparable to longbows 
>over a period of 10 minutes or more.  Moreover the fire was 
>"steadier", as the firer had no strain to hold as he took aim, and 
>both could be protected by large shields (pavise) or mantlets for most 
>of the drill.

The crossbow was the "secret weapon" of the Teutonic Order. Because of its long
range, it outshot the foot and horse bows badly, therefore giving advantage
for the super-heavy cavalry to charge the hapless Lithuanians. Their opponents
never seemed to adopt the weapon (f. eg. the Prussians never understood how
it worked). 

Horse archery was more a nuisance than a real threat. The range of cavalry
bows was remarkably shorter than the foot bows and the fire density of the
horse archery was smaller (missiles hit/square meter*minute) with the mounted
archery than with the foot archery. Generally also the arrows shot with the
horse bows were lighter, thereby having less penetrative power, than with the
foot bows; having hit a dozen time in a battle and surviving was not uncommon
in the Crusader-Turks battles.

Horse archers were skirmishers, and little else. Their job was to ride in
front of the enemy, irritate it into battle by shooting at their ranks, and
evade as the enemy charged, letting heavier cavalry (lancers/cataphracts)
deal with the disorganized enemy. If the terrain favored the lights, these
tactics could be murderously effective. if the terrain was somewhat closed,
the light cavalry could be easily rolled over with the heavy cavalry, like
knights. The Lithuanians seemed never to learn this fact: they lost each
and every battle against the Teutonic Order at open field.

Europe is by terrain much more broken and close than Asia, and therefore it
hardly is surprising very little light skirmishing cavalry evolved here
during the Middle Ages: there just was no room for employ them, unlike the
steppes of the Asia. True, there were mounted crossbowmen and even handgunners,
but never in really significant numbers. The only place in Europe where light
cavalry was employed in numbers, was Spain: both Andalusians and Spaniards
employed light jinete cavalry (javelineers, which are much more efficient
than bows) in large numbers there, balanced with heavy hidalgos.

One subject not yet covered are slings. Although childish-looking, a sling is
harasser's dream: simple yet effective, and good even against armored foe: a
slingshot can cause considerable damage (broken bones etc) by impact, like mace
and its range was rather long. An improvement of this was staff sling, which
was even stronger a weapon and was used in numbers, especially in Spain.

--++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo FINLAND              ++ Edward III. All you need is an  ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like Duke of Alencon.     ++
Newsgroups: alt.war