Talk:Medieval warfare/Archive 1

message: In this text it says that all peasant revolts were supressed.
Two border cases might be cited, both from a book by Barbara Tuchman about two successful uprisings. I shall try and get that book to read and confirm this, because the accounts that I have seen on the internet do not mention peasants, whereas I am sure Barabara Tuchman refers to these as peasant uprisings.
In one account of the "The battle of the 400 golden spurs" Battle of the Golden Spurs, the peasants did away with the elite knights of France. It took several years before France could retaliate, as I recall it, under St Cyr.
I seem to recall that some have described the some Swiss uprisings as being performed by peasants, leading eventually to a Switzerland without Habsburg interference. The peasants may not have been totally alone, but the term "peasant uprising" might still apply. 
Would anyone mind me citing these?
DanielDemaret 22:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead...actually, I just had a class about peasant violence, I could send you the reading list if you want. It had some stuff about Swiss uprisings, the Hundred Years' War, and the 1381 revolt in England. Adam Bishop 17:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: There is one - Popular revolt in late medieval Europe. Adam Bishop 17:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peasant uprisings

message: Um...how early are we going with this?  I ask because if we start adding in any old Germanic/Barbarian people, we're going to get a lot of folks who were allied with and trained by the Romans...which I would call late antique... Also, are we limiting this to Western Medieval? Someone is bound to want to throw in Japanese for comparison (eventually), I'm sure.  Comments? Opinions? JHK
Hmmm. I think Europe is quite enough to deal with (the middle ages are hardly an era elswhere anyway). When to start? Pick a suitably early date. 700? What is the definition of medieval? --Anders Törlind
Typically, the European Medieval Period is considered from 476 CE onward - at least, that's how it's taught at the university level.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.190 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope: how early?

message: Excellent question on the Medieval period. Many date it from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, until the gunpowder age. The Mongols and Vikings for example fall within this general Medieval period. Indeed both these peoples clashed with the well known medieval armored knights and defeated them in numerous battles. I have added sections on both. More needs to be done on the Turks and other Asiatic forces. All of thse peoples clashed with Westerners during the Medieval period. Indeed one of the biggest issues of that period was precisely that- fighting against other non-Western forces, via the Crusades. No realistic history of Medieval warfare can credibly afford to leave out such important peoples, battles, and warfighting methods.
Also added a section on the rise of infantry ending th long dominance ot the cavalryman- a staple of any history of medieval warfare
Enriquecardova 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important warrior peoples missing

message: Re: Islam, Turks, and Moors -- which shall we use?  And speaking of which, are Turkish influences Medieval or Early Modern (goes back to the where are we focusing question...)? JHK
-----------
Each one were seperate groups , even though they all followed Mohamet (Islam)
1. The ones that came frome the south west to Spain and France and were stopped by the Franks.
    Called Moors
2. The Golden Horde Ghengis Khan , Liegnitz Silesia stopped at the gates of Berlin
        Don't know how many  of these were Muslim
::not many.  The Mongols took up Islam over the next hundred years, and only the ones that had settled down to rule former Islamic territory. --MichaelTinkler
3. Several times Turks on Vienna etc
I think each group should be mentioned seperately and not lumped together
user:H.J.
::Agreed. I have added extra sections to discuss some peoples in more depth like the Vikings
Enriquecardova 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology: Islam, Turks, or Moors

message: Removed the following :
:One of the reason the potato became popular food in western europe was that the potato's were buried and unedible for most of the year, allowing them to survive a plundering army.
Potatoes were not introduced into Europe until the second half of the sixteenth century, whereas the Middle Ages is generally agreed to end sometime in the fifteenth century. Gandalf61 08:29, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
The most commonly used dates to mark the "end" of the Middle Ages are either 1453 (Fall of Constantinople/Byzantium) or 1492.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.190 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: potato

message: A lot of nice work is being done on this article, but I have an issue with some of the naval warfare bits - Lepanto, Henry VIII's fleet, and the Spanish Armada aren't medieval. I suppose they could be mentioned as examples of post-medieval developments. I didn't want to remove it entirely because it is pretty long, but as it is written right now it seems like it is saying the late 16th century is still the middle ages. Adam Bishop 15:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur- these events aren't really medieval... I suppose they give some information about medieval warfare by saying what hadn't happenned yet. We do need more material on naval warfare in the actual medieval period. -FZ 16:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly my edits that you are complaining about :) I see what mean, although it does depend on how you define medieval (yes, I suppose the Mary Rose and the Spanish Armada are really examples of early modern naval warfare, but I'm not sure that there is another article where they would be more at home).  Would it be clearer to explain that medieval naval warfare pre-dated the effective use of cannon on ships, and go on to explain the massive changes that came about soon thereafter? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval warfare

message: Is there some way to align the series boxes better? It doesn't look very good right now (at least on Netscape)...one should be below the other, or maybe directly beside each other, but I don't know how to do it. Adam Bishop 15:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I've tried swapping their order, using a table, and putting the templates on the same line, but the preview never looks quite right, so I just left it as it was.  There may be a format issue with one of the boxes that inserts an extra blank line.  The other alternative it to put one lower down in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series boxes 

message: As someone has noted in the article, is there any reason why knights are singled out? I understood knighthood to be more of a feudal title than a battlefield command or a type of soldier. I suggest that the Organization section be broken up into "Nobility/Men-at-arms", "Peasant/serfs" then "Cavalry", "Infantry". Infantry and cavalry often consisted of both nobility and serfs, but nobles and serfs had very different roles in forming and organizing a medieval army. --kudz75 05:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: (How valuable is it to call out knights and heavy cavalry separately?  There would appear to be a large overlap between the two, in that knights were generally heavy cavalry, even if it didn't always work the other way around.)
(knights were not allways heavy cavalry, some of them fought on foot and in some areas the people who perfomed the same task a knights were not heavy cavalry (note the siphi (might have spelt that wrong sorry) of the Ottoman empire who like knights were given land by their rulers in return for military service however they were light cavalry))
I cut this from the article and put it here, because it seems like discussion ought to be on the discussion page. Whoever wrote it can sign it if they'd like. Apol0gies 18:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to this, even if it's old. Heavily armed cavalry, armed with lances and a varied assortment of hand weapons played a significant part in the battles of the Middle Ages. The heavy cavalry mainly consisted of wealthy knights and noblemen who could afford the equipment. Heavy cavalry was the difference between victory and defeat in many key battles. Their thunderous charges could break the lines of most infantry formations, making them a valuable asset to all medieval armies. This is a)wrong in fact, on practically all points, and b)not written in an encyclopedic style. "Thunderous charges" - please? --OliverH (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights/Heavy Cavalry 

message: I noticed that Japan is mentioned in the introduction, but I don't see anything about it in the actual article. The military history of feudal Japan should fit quite nicely within the time frame, considering that there was not much war actually being waged after the Tokugawa unification and that European medieval history goes way into the 16th century for som parts of Europe (like Sweden). And not a word about China either.
I know that proper articles on the military history of both China and Japan have been written, but why keep them seperated? I think this is a good opportunity to avoid the same old retelling of the same old eurocentric perspective of medieval history. - karmosin 06:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
..............
Without getting into any debate on eurocentrism, there is plenty of room for everybody if the focus is on warfare. If a broad "world history" timeline approach is taken yours is a reasonable view. After all Medieval European history was heavily involved with non-Western peoples like the Turks via the Crusades. It would be good if a section were added on feudal Japan, to compare and contrast the warfighting methods and weapons there to those in Europe. I have added just such a section on the Mongols. The Mongols clashed with the knights of Europe in the 13th century, liquidating several Polish and Hungarian armies sent against them.
Enriquecardova 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Where these other cultures had a definite impact on Western history during the time period in question then they need mention. The main focus could still be on the European context keeping what you say in mind. It should be noted that the Britannica mentions the Mongols in its article on warfare, during the Medieval period. Enriquecardova 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the concept? 

message: What is "the burger" in personal equipment? It's been listed there for 4 years now and no one has removed it, so I guess it's legitimate, but I don't know. Adam Bishop 16:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: =) --None-of-the-Above 18:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The burger 

message: Reasons: perhaps not factually accurate or verifiable; the coverage is not broad, the Medieval Warfare should not be limited to knights, longbows, Mongols and Vikings; the space allocated to different topics in the article is so unbalanced that it amounts to POV; no images, and it is on a subject where appropriate images are easily available; there is a section header with no text below and "notes" appearing at the end of a section. 
Well, that was negative, so I had better balance it with some constructive comments. Most importantly, balance the article content and fix the lack of breadth. Have a look at how Keen and Nicholson divide their space. It is nothing like the way this article does. Verbruggen's Art of Warfare in Western Europe gives a lot of weight to knights, but again the content of his work is nothing like this article. Contamine devotes a sixth or so of the main text to judicial, ethical and religious aspects of war, topics not exactly prominent here. For statements which may be controversial, add inline references using Cite.php or similar. For claims of revolutionary change and importance, i.e. knights, stirrups, gunpowder, explain why it was important or revolutionary, if indeed it was, and cite sources who say so. Don't rely too much on older works like Oman and, to a lesser extent, Contamine. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: Please see the 'Great Stirrip Controversy' for information about the importance of the stirrup to the development of the Feudal Order and its significance as a Military Innovation. The thrust of the matter is that the stirrup was a refinement of, not a requirement for, the mounted use of the lance and other weapons and perhaps a slight refinement at that...--M.J.Stanham 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stirrup 

message: I think the article still puts the role of infantry short. According to my reading of the pertinent literature, there was no time in which a well-disciplined infantry could not repel a cavalry charge. More importantly, critical to the success of practically all campaigns is the seizing and keeping of key locations, a task for which infantry is critical. You won't see a destrier ride up a castle wall, but you will see an infantry man climb a ladder. A knight with a lance won't take down a gate, but a bunch of axemen will. The key point in the later middle-ages is that disciplined infantry becomes more and more common as A)the rise of the cities brings about city militia and B)the advent of mercenary companies brings the professional soldier out of the realm of nobility and thus creates well-trained and thus well-disciplined infantry. The key point, however, is that this training brings about the possibility of an infantry offense on the free field, where earlier, it was mostly capable of holding a position and letting the enemy attack break up. The "mass of pikes" has existed for quite a while and even a mass of shields is enough to break a cavalry charge. However, when the mass of pikes or the mass of shields gets moving, it usually had difficulties retaining formation. That's what changed with the return of drilled infantry. --OliverH 10:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is largely true and the role of infantry in medieval warfare is currently being redressed in academic discourse. It appears to be taking some time to filter through, though. Although Oman's thesis is now largely unsupported, it remains influential.--M.J.Stanham 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Verbruggen already had first notions that there might be more to infantry than was thought 50 years ago, though he didn't quite follow through on it. But Bachrach &Cie have been around for a while, too. Unfortunately, popular literature still serves to spread the notion that Hastings was the proof of the superiority of cavalry when it was, in fact, more like the opposite. Unfortunately, especially with laypeople, the "big" names like Oman and Delbrück are much more present than more current researchers. Then again, as far as history is concerned, I'm a layperson, too. :P --OliverH 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infantry 

message: In the fourth paragraph of the "Deployment of forces" section, there is the following sentence;"When the wedge came into contact with the infantry line, more often than not it would cave in on itself"What "it" refers to in this line is ambiguous, whether it's the wedge collapsing in on itself, or whether it is the infantry line itself.  I would think that it is referring to the infantry line, but the wording gives the strong impression that it is referring to the wedge.  I think a person who knows which formation is being referred to here should reword it to make it clearer.--Tabun1015 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deployment of forces" ambiguity 

message: "The crossbow lacked the range of the longbow, but packed a bolt of greater penetrating power, and did not require the extended years of training and use demanded by the longbow. A cheap "low class" weapon, considered "unchivalrous" by those unlucky enough to face it, the longbow outperformed the crossbow in the hands of skilled archers, and was to transform several battlefields in Europe."
Structure and punctuation of the closing sentence can be read in such a way as to imply that it's the longbow being described as cheap, low class, unchivalrous. 
I would like to suggest
either: -  "...unlucky enough to face it FULL_STOP  The longbow outperformed...."
Or: -      "...unlucky enough to face it but the longbow outperformed...." EatYerGreens 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crossbow" - ambiguous sentence 

message: It would be interesting to see an exposition of pows, hostages, slavery and population decimations that were also standard military practice of the time added to this page.--Tigeroo 14:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[POW]]s

message: In the article it states that 15000 crossbowmen were at the battlefield, the number was actually roughly 6000. There should more on the battle, as the crossbowmen started to advance, they released that they were outranged. Seeing this disadvantage they retreated, only to be trampled by their own french employers. Another thing is that the longbow didn't fire 20 shots a minute its fire rate was actually 8 to 12 shots a minute.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddmandan (talk • contribs) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers at Crecy and Longbow fire rate

message: On what grounds is the military history of the extra-European peoples and empires discussed here at length? The article falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages and all articles of the Template:Middle Ages wide 2 at the bottom (save one) exclusively deal with European events. Since the other armies and campaigns all have their own article, while the poor European knights and Landsknechts have to share theirs here with all the others, I propose to restore its original scope, and this is medieval = European. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you've been removing non-European things from other medieval articles; is this really a good idea? Medieval Europe did not exist in a vacuum. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is off-topic here, I gave my reasons on your talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra-European scope of article 

message: So, I'm having a little trouble with the entry concerning the rise of infantry tactics and the role of the English longbow... namely, the article boldy states that the combination of pike and longbow lead directly to decline of heavy cavalry (ie, the medieval knight) not only in British Isles (where its nfluence is unquestionable) and France (where supporting evidence is strong) but in Europe as a whole (which seems extremely difficult to support). Given that the longbow essentially saw very little action on the continent, outside of Hundred Year's War, it is difficult to see how it can be held to play a critcal role in the gecline of the knight in such places, say, as the Holy Roman Empire. Free Companies of mercenary longbowmen were used to good effect in Spain and Italy, the longbow never usurped the position of the crossbow in those areas. Even in France, use of the longbow was abandoned not long after the war and the use of the crossbow returned to prominence. Furthermore, it is ultimately gunpowder when combined with the pike that ends the reign of cavalry as the decisive arm, and while the gun and the crossbow share certain critical features which are generally held to be responsible this process, the longbow does not - I am mainly refering here to the ease at which previously untrained persons can be taught to use a handgun or a crossbow effectively, whereas developing the strength and accuracy to wield a longbow is a lifelong endevor with a steep social cost (one which the French could not or would not endure). I know that the role of the longbow in the decline of the knight is a very popular assertion on the part of English historians, so I don't want to rush in and make major edits to this article, but I have to ask what are the sources for the longbow being a critical part of the process outside Britian and France (the latter being something that could use some discussion as well...)? 
Tadatsune (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Longbow and the Decline of Heavy Cavalry

message: This article needs a section on how the church mitigated warfare with it's restriction on how and when their could be fighting. That was a prominent part of medieval warfare.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.30.170 (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Church's Mitigation of Warfare

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Medieval warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124013941/http://www.medievalwarfare.org:80/ to http://www.medievalwarfare.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just reverted an IP's edit from UK to U.S. spelling (changing 'armor' back to 'armour'), but on scanning the article it appears that there's a mix of the two styles, but with UK (Oxford) spelling predominant. For consistency I propose that UK spelling be used throughout. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medieval warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323064005/http://portal.klis.com.hr/povijest-klisa/ to http://portal.klis.com.hr/povijest-klisa/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've just reverted an unattributed copy/paste of a large block of text from Hungarian invasions of Europe, but reinserted the heading and the link to the main article. IMHO this section could be expanded to a short  summary in proportion to the other sections in this article, but with emphasis on their distinctive characteristics in warfare, rather than just a chronology, in keeping with the subject of this article. Bahudhara (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungarians

message: As this article is part of a series of the overall history of warfare the article should take the entire world of the medieval period into account. To flesh out Medieval European Warfare as is fitting a separate article would need to be created, perhaps called Medieval European Warfare.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's Focus 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: El imperio de las rosas es un país donde salen rosas cada ves que sale el sol y a la vez llueve es por eso que también hay muchas rosas en las casas patios y piscinas y gracias a eso es que se llama el imperio de las rosas 2800:BF0:8293:1065:2506:D273:EDE3:2B9 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Que es el imperio de las rosas