Regarding the battle of Psie Pole (in English Dogs' Field / in German Hundsfeld):
Gallus Anonymus does not mention a battle called like this (although he
claims that Polish forces were constantly attacking retreating German
army and its various detachments, so there surely were many skirmishes,
combats and battles - both small ones and probably also some bigger ones).
If the battle of Psie Pole really took place, then it was probably
somewhere near Wrocław (there is a village called "Hundsfeld / Psie
Pole" near Wrocław, and some scholars suggest, that it was named so
after that battle, during which the hastily retreating Germans left so
many unburied bodies on the field, that wild dogs came and started to
eat dead corpses of German troops... ).
Most likely, the battle of Psie Pole took place, but was a medium scale battle, not a major pitched battle between main
forces of both armies.
- Battle of Psie Pole 1109 (the Poles vs Germans). Part of the Poles
('Slezanie') simulated retreat (a fragment of Wincenty Kadlubek's
chronicle 'Tymczasem z tylu wyskakuje pokazny zastep Slezan, ktorzy
zwracaja ku sobie znaczna liczbe nieprzyjaciol, UMYSLNIE UDAJA UCIECZKE i
odciagajac tamtych od innych oddzialow, zwabiaja ich coraz dalej,
zwracaja sie przeciw zwabionym a gwaltownym uderzeniem oszczepow z ukosa
wystajace ich dlugie wlocznie rownoczesnie potracaja i w nich godza.'
Another chronicler who described the Polish-German war of 1109, was Gallus Anonymus (who actually lived in the same time as events he described, while Kadłubek was born many years after that war).
Description (by chronicler of that time Gallus Anonymus) of the invasion
of Poland by a massive army of the Holy Roman Empire in 1109:
At first, description of German assaults of the burgh of Głogów:
"(...) From all sides the Germans, yelling terribly, assaulted the
stronghold. The Poles were defending. From all sides engines of warfare
are hurling stones, crossbows are clanging, projectiles and arrows are
flying in the air, pierced shields are fracturing, armours are gushing,
helmets are being crushed, corpses are falling, wounded are giving
their ground, and are being replaced by fresh warriors. Germans are
loading their crossbows, and Poles their ballistas. Germans are
shooting arrows and slinging stones, Poles are throwing down millstones
and sharpened wooden poles on German heads. When Germans, protected by
cover made of wooden boards, attempted to approach the rampart, Poles
poured boiling water on them and then showered them with firebrands.
Germans approached towers with iron rams, Poles rolled down spiky
wheels with iron stars and thorns on them. Germans, using siege
ladders, were climbing upwards and Poles, fastening iron hooks to those
ladders, were hurling the attackers into the air. (...)"
After that bloodbath, the Emperor's army failed to capture the town and retreated.
The main Polish army, under duke Bolesław III the Wrymouth, was already harassing the enemy outside - further description:
"(...) Wherever the Emperor marched..., he was followed by Bolesław...
When the Emperor was decamping, Bolesław continued to be his inseparable
companion. Whoever detached from the main column of Emperor's army,
was never finding his way back. If any larger unit, trusting in their
own numbers, drifted away from the camp in search of food or forage,
Bolesław was bursting between them and the Emperor's main army, cutting
off their way back and so those, who attempted to collect war booty,
were themselves becoming war booty of Bolesław. With such methods,
Bolesław brought the huge and qualitative Emperor's army on the verge of
collapse and caused such fear, that... nobody dared to stick out their
noses from the camp. No German squire dared to gather grass for
horses, nobody dared to go beyond the line of watches for the purpose
of defecating. There was great fear of Bolesław at nights and during
daytime, they were warning each other: - Bolesław is not sleeping! -
when they saw some holt or shrubbery, they were calling: - Beware,
Bolesław is lurking there! - There was not a single place, which was not
suspected by them of presence of Bolesław's forces. In this way,
Bolesław was tirelessly harassing them, capturing several at once either
from the front of the marching column, or from the rear, or sometimes
after attacking their flanks. This is why Emperor's warriors had to
march all day long in full armour and with weapons ready for a fight,
constantly and everywhere expecting Bolesław's attacks. During nights
they were also all sleeping in their armours, or standing on their
posts, others were on the guard as watches, some others were encouraging
them: - Watch over!... Beware!... Each day many noble men were dying,
their corpses, after disembowelment, were being filled with salt and
herbs and put on wagons, which were supposed to transport those corpses
back to Bavaria and Saxony, as the only tribute exported of Poland...
The Emperor realized, that his very large army could no longer sustain
itself, because Bolesław, just like a lioness whose puppies were taken
away, was encircling it from all sides. Horses were starving and dying
of hunger, people were agonized by constant lack of sleep, long time of
the campaign and starvation. Add to this impenetrable thickets of
forests, never drying marshes, stinging flies, sharp arrows of
obstinate peasants - all of this did not allow the Emperor to
accomplish his task (...)"
Map of the joint German-Bohemian invasion of Poland in 1109:
Chant of Polish troops from the times of the reign of Bolesław III, recorded by Gallus Anonymus in his chronicle:
sometimes it can all come down to the leadership and charismatic flare of a good general who can hold his men together, know the terrain and how to use it and good intelligence on enemy strength and formation
"war is delightful to those who have no experience of it"-Erasmus
I suppose that you could regard medieval tactics asrather simple, especially in comparison to professional armies such as that of Rome. Though certainly some required alot of consideration and control, famously the fighting march as used in the crusades.
To answer you question, yes, they did somewhat. Medieval armies did distinguish and define themselves between different roles or perhaps 'units' for want of a better word, and they would be drawn up and positioned as per their suited abilities. The problem with the infantry though is that there a few sources written especially about them, because nobody cared as much about them usually because they just werent important.
Armies would often be given seperate commanders for different sections, usually for the vab guard, main part and rear guard or perhaps over left/right flanks and centre etc. But anything like on the scale of more modern armies or even ancient ones was not the case generally. Certainly not formally.
As far as western european cavalry is concerend then conroi's were the basis of units. Groups of individuals who knew/fought together with their associated hangers on, segeants and others. Ofcourse then you have a situation where an army is composed of lots of little groups, under a feudal structure one cna bind these together under associated feudal overlords for greater control.
As the middle ages go on fuedal based armies begin to make way for paidprofessional mercenary armies and hired free companies. A feudal core often surrounded by individual companies and retinues who have to be contracted etc.
The Military Orders ofocurse are somewhat different because of their very nature and raison d'etre.
Did the medieval lords use the formation / organized military organization just like the Legion in Rome and other? Or just a combination of mob with simple organization?
For example for simple organization : The army is splited into three sub armies. The spearmen, archers, and knights (the lord didn't even need to organize the number of each corp / companies because of it)
If they use a well organized army, then, they should have commanders for each group. So, can someone tell me how the medieval Lord organized their army?
Oh yeah? Only I'm worried that your poor foot soldiers would just end up as hoof fodder for their ginormous destrieres.
Yes. The Anglo-Saxon longbow versus the Norman crossbow. I've heard a little about that. Any good battles with those two weapons playing decisive roles?
Edited by Shield-of-Dardania - 14-Apr-2010 at 18:57
History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.
I thought that the 11th century Norman army, highly dominated by its cavalry, with their huge chargers, of the destrier breed, mounted by heavily armoured warriors wielding massive lances, was the ultimate killing machine of its time. No?
Edited by Shield-of-Dardania - 12-Apr-2010 at 02:06
History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.
Azadi, good post! But you might well do OK, if you had an army made up of 100,000 Pheasants? LAUGH! The opposition army, ususally being very hungry, whould be so interested in fresh roasted pheasant, they would be distracted and easy to defeat! chuckle!
Red, thanks for pointing out something that you and I already knew! chuckle Sometimes I post things and await others pointing out the connections! As you certainly did!
But, in addition maybe you guys might want to consider this?
http://www.answers.com/topic/wain-1
"A wain is a type of horse-drawn, load-carrying vehicle, used for agricultural purposes rather than transporting people, for example a haywain. It normally has four wheels but the term has now acquired slightly poetical connotations so is not always used with technical correctness. However, a two-wheeled 'haywain' would be a hay cart, as opposed to a carriage. "Wain" is also an archaic term for chariot.
Builders of wains were known as wainwrights, just as the builders of carts were known as cartwrights. These trades no longer exist, but the terms survive as the surnames of descendants of those practising these crafts."
Please note the connection to "chariot!"
And a good read is this site, where you will find info also concerning "carts" or "wagons", etc.:
http://www.angelfire.com/md/devere/urse.html
"Castle of the Chariots", or the "castle of Arthur!"
Perhaps a definition of "chariot" might be appropriate now?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chariot
http://ardictionary.com/Chariot/4167
All in all, it seems that the very word "chariot" which is oft used by historians and writers in general, is usually seen as a manufactured word whose use is to seperate its real meaning I.e. "a cart" or "wagon", etc., into another specifically designated vehicle, only used by Greek or Roman or other famous warriors or knights of antiquity!
Reading an account of an ancient figure of a chariot using warrior/knight like Achilles enter into battle riding in a "wagon" or "cart?"
So we end up with objects like this;
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/885645
And of course Tut's famous wagon found in his tomb, being called "chariots!"
Thus writers, or historians could have easily used the word "cart", or "Wagon" or "Wain" to describe the method of mobility used by the famlous warriors/kinghts of the distant past, but instead chose to use the word "chariot" instead! Maybe because "chariot" more easily described the "antiquity" of the events?
Perhaps the only real use of the word "chariot" would apply in the following format?
Thus, I will propose that the use of "chariots" as presented in the above sources (as fighting vehicles for the use of a single knight or a knight and his driver.), would only be appropriate when their use was played out upon a specially prepared field, with no ditches, mounds, creeks, boulders, holes, bogs, etc.!
Thus we have combat for entertainment purposes and not warfare! Games like these existed well into the Christian era, and supposedly sometimes were fought to the death!
In the days of "chivalry", these "tournements" or maybe "Olympic Games?" were also called "jousts" or "tilts!" Thus the term "Tilting at wind-mills!" You can see the term "tilt" as relative to the "joust" itself. I.e. ""to tilt", closely resembles the act of "tilting" an opponent from his saddle, or "unseating him!"
"Cheval", equals "horse" and "Chevalier" means a mounted knight, or even a knight riding within or upon a fighting wagon, or cart, etc.!
It also seems the "Frankish" rulers of Greece were especially famous for their tournements held during the 12th-14th centuries C.E.!
My army would have consisted of 10 billion peasants. My tactic would be to make cheap and fake weapons and armor for my men, and just watch the enemy tremble when they saw us at distance. In case of an ambush, I'm screwed through... but no big deal, because of the reproduction growth.
I would like to bring up and chose, for myself, the Hussites in their wain-castles, mobile fortresses ready for every battlefield... they defeated European armies from many countries again and again, and mainly failed due to infighting in the end. ;) Horsearchers, while fearsome, are overrated IMO. Those that claim that "horsearchers at XY were only defeated due to terrain" fail to appreciate that you cannot always have your favourite terrain to fight on. If the Mongols had intended to conquer Europe, for example, they could not have just fought battles on open plains without rivers, trees or hills on them. Simply not enough of that available.
I would just like to know your definition of "wain-castles", and or "mobile fortresses/"
Are they but "War Wagons?'
Regards,
In the US they were known as "War Wagons". I'm surprised that Opla didn't realize that, in Europe, they were referred to as, "Mobile Fortresses."
I would like to bring up and chose, for myself, the Hussites in their wain-castles, mobile fortresses ready for every battlefield... they defeated European armies from many countries again and again, and mainly failed due to infighting in the end. ;) Horsearchers, while fearsome, are overrated IMO. Those that claim that "horsearchers at XY were only defeated due to terrain" fail to appreciate that you cannot always have your favourite terrain to fight on. If the Mongols had intended to conquer Europe, for example, they could not have just fought battles on open plains without rivers, trees or hills on them. Simply not enough of that available.
I would just like to know your definition of "wain-castles", and or "mobile fortresses/"
I would like to bring up and chose, for myself, the Hussites in their wain-castles, mobile fortresses ready for every battlefield... they defeated European armies from many countries again and again, and mainly failed due to infighting in the end. ;)
Horsearchers, while fearsome, are overrated IMO. Those that claim that "horsearchers at XY were only defeated due to terrain" fail to appreciate that you cannot always have your favourite terrain to fight on. If the Mongols had intended to conquer Europe, for example, they could not have just fought battles on open plains without rivers, trees or hills on them. Simply not enough of that available.
If it were say 10,000 versus 10,000 and before the common use of firearms then I would have to go with Catalans and Navarrese knights mounted and unmounted! IE, the Catalan Company and the Navaresse Company!
They fought the best of the Frankish / German / Italian / Ottonish knights of their day and soundly defeated them all!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum