posted 06-22-2001 04:06 PM               

However, I rarely hear about who in my opinion were the ones who really toned down kinght's supremacy in Europe: The Swiss pikeman army!!
I am myself Swiss and have always been tought that the swiss were the most fearsome fighers in the middle ages and that we brought the to a halt the knight's dominance of Medieval battlefields. I do admit that archers "during the hundred years war" won some decisive battles but they were extremly intellgently employed against extremly dumb french (at least at Azincourt). Never the less this war wasn't the only one fought during the middle ages, I can mention many others where archers didn't make much difference.

The Swiss and their greek phalanx infantry strategy were never beatten until the battle of Marignan. Even there the reason why the Swiss lost wasn't because their formations couldn't resist the shock of a massive heavy cavalry charge (or infantry) but because Francois 1 's army had so much artillery that the our army got teared to pieces before even being able to engage battle (+many cantons were fooled and returned to Switzerland before the battle so the Swiss weren't at full strength). Besides eventhough we did lost the battle Francois 1 had been so impressed by the Swiss's courage that he said he never wished to fight them again and then began a long tradition for the french (and many others)to engage Swiss as Mercenarises.

Before that battle the Swiss had beaten some Europes best armies:

1)They freed themselves from the Augsburg leading to the famous battle of Morgarten were a bunch of Swiss peasent ambushed and massacred thousands of knights (I do admit or they were a bit ^lucky on this one).

2)Then they fought numerous battles against one of Europe's most innovative military leader of the time Charles the Bold and played the biggest part in destroying his kingdom though we weren't clever enough to exploit this and Louis 11 profited most from it.

3)We fought and won many smaller wars either to expand our territory or to help some kingdoms against money...

Just for general culture though I believe everyone on this forum knows at least as much as me about that:

Believe it or not but Switzerland was a very poor country at that time and a democracy so we couldn't afford knights or any expensive armament or training so most of our army was made up of peasents. Our army was composed at 75% of infantry which fought as a huge square. The 3 first ranks were made up of Pikemen and the rest was made up of halbeirders,doulble or single handed swordsmans. The rest of our army were skirmish troops (mainly crossbows).This was a very disciplined army that could resist about any army (espacially knights) of that time.
I might be wrong on a few points so if see I made a mistake let me know.

The only thing I don't understand is that the Swiss encountered many armies with archers (some had very good ones) but they never lost though to me it looks like such a slow moving force would be an easy prey for archers!??
Anybody has a clue about that?

posted 06-22-2001 09:26 PM            

Actually, I believe that the Swiss pike armies were an improvement on the tactics of the Greek phalanx, which at least until late Hellenistic times was usually employed merely to hold the enemy's army in place until a decisive strike could be made elsewhere, often with a cavalry charge. The Swiss on the other hand somehow managed to be faster and more maneuverable on foot than their opponents were on horseback!

posted 06-23-2001 06:30 AM               

I also strongly second your feelings against Anglocentrism in history. It would indeed be very unfair to talk about the Hundred Years War as the only medieval conflict worth mentioning.

However, I've noticed one particular tendency in your post that makes me worry. You must not allow personal or nationalistic sentiments cloud your understanding of medieval warfare ("I am myself Swiss and have always been tought that the swiss were the most fearsome fighers in the middle ages"). Being overly influenced by pride and nationalism is not very beneficial for any debate, especially not on an international forum.

I'll always be the first to point out the effectiveness of the Swiss pike blocks and their profound impact on European warfare. However, I cannot agree with the image of the Swiss mercenary being a perfect superhero.

Firstly, the Swiss did not invent the pike tactics themselves. They copied that system from the Dutch militiamen who stood up very effectively against the French cavalry at Courtrai in 1302. It's true that the Swiss did improve that concept greatly, but they copied it from the Dutch nevertheless.

Secondly, the Swiss mercenaries - despite their undisputed courage and ferocity in battle - were no angels. They were known for cruelty and rarely, if ever, took prisoners. Their treatment of the civilian population was also quite appaling, which casts a dark shadow on their military achievements.

Thirdly, the early Swiss victories against the Austrian army were not exactly "a bunch of peasants" massacring thousands of knights. The battle of Morgarten was fought in terrain that strongly favoured the Swiss. The Austrian cavalry, unaware of the enemy presence and unprepared for combat, was caught in an ambush and decimated by a highly motivated and well commanded force of pikemen and halberdiers, so the Swiss victory wasn't really such a miracle after all.

As for the English archers vs. the Swiss pikemen, we've recently discussed the matter in some detail on the Was the sword really a good weapon? thread on the Archaeology of Weapons forum.

posted 06-24-2001 02:33 PM               

Tomaz, I think its normal and good for anyone to be proud of his country espacially when they are strong reasons to be. Your are right however that these things don't necessarily need to be posted. Never the less I don't feel more biased (though maybe in another way than anybody here).

I have read a lot of posts here and keep seing the same subjects or references coming up: THE HUNDRED YEARS'S WAR and many small conflicts that occured in the UK. I can understand many like to speak about these events since being in an english speaking forum many people here are either from the UK or the US and are therefor more interested in wars their ancestors fought (which is not so true for americans but...).
However I find it annoying when people always mention the hundred years war as a reference or counter reference since this war was pretty unique in Europe. I think its like if we kept talking of Samurais to describe how wars were waged in Asia. The HYM was indeed a major European conflict but it wasn't the only one and surely not the most representative of others.

I also hear longbows often seen as the weapon which halted knights dominance of battlefield where I think the pike played a much greater role for this than the longbow: I think longbowmen could in some situations be beaten by kights but I hardly imagine a disciplined force of pikemen in tight formations be swept out by knights alone. I think the fact that most European armies optet for pikemen and not for longbows illustrates that pretty well.

As for the super hero thing. No, I don't consider Swiss fighters as gods, not more than I consider legionairees or mongolian horse archer. I don't admire them for being noble but for their courage and what they have done.. But actually I don't think the Swiss were too bad: in these times life was tough, espacially in Switzerland and being ferocious was the best way to win a battle! I don't think the burgandian knights would have made Swiss prisonners either (they were no swiss knights). As a matter of fact once the Swiss (or allied?) castle of Grançon was besieged by the Duke of Burgandy, the Duke promessed the castles' defenders that if they let him take the catle without fighting he would free them and so they did but instead of freeing them the Duke hanged all of them on the castles' wall. I understand you don't want to take prisonners after that!!!
As for civilians I don't know but the Swiss never completele annihilated a town's population or anything like the mongols or others.

[This message has been edited by Barb (edited 06-24-2001).]

posted 06-25-2001 12:41 PM               

But it would not be wise to go too far in that direction. Patriotism is a good thing, but mythicizing your nation is not. There is only a thin line between patriotism and chauvinism. Any historian should always keep that in mind. You must understand that what you've been taught in school represents only the good side. I don't think you've heard much about the atrocities commited by the Swiss mercenaries. And make no mistake - the Swiss were actually responsible for some pretty gruesome things. They were much feared by the civilian population, and for a good reason.

Please understand that this is not meant as a personal attack nor is it an expression of some latent anti-Swiss sentiments. I'm only trying to say that idealizing the past needs to be avoided. Many nations suffer from some form of superiority complex or another. And nationalism, in its extremity, is perhaps the most common cause of war.

What actually motivated me to write this post is that on this very day, our country is celebrating its 10th anniversary of independence. Our newspapers and TV reports have been full of beautiful stories idealizing the 10-day war of independence back in 1991. As someone who tasted that war personally, I'm a bit dissapointed. No war is ever nice and no war - no matter how rightly it was fought - deserves to be glorified.

posted 06-25-2001 04:29 PM               

All countries have much in their past to be ashamed of, if they would only own up to it. Just as all countries have much to be proud of. But it's only human nature to stress the good and gloss over the bad. Which is dangerous because it can so easily lead to virulent nationalism and all the awful things that can result from that.

So celebrate the good in your country's history, but don't be blind to the bad.

posted 06-25-2001 10:12 PM               

Of course, the square could not have been reinvented without disciplined and motivated troops to compose it. And of course, excellent leadership was an utter necessity, and something the Swiss seem to have been quite fortunate in (which, despite the stereotype of democracy, was often aristocratic).

posted 06-25-2001 11:22 PM               

I would like to amend your post minutely, however. The Swiss used columns rather than hollow squares. The center contained the standards of the forces in each column, and (after the pike became the dominant weapon) a force of shock troops/color guard -- wielding halberds, Zweihanders, and the like. They were not the only spearmen to move in large blocks, the Scots were doing the same thing at Bannockburn in 1314.

posted 06-27-2001 07:42 AM               

However, atrocities are always bad no matter who commits them - David or Goliath. A war crime is always a war crime even if seems justified from David's point of view. But most of all, it would be so very wrong to glorify brutality!

In wars, miracles don't happen. During WWII, your people fought bravely, but lost all hope when the Germans decided to set an example and bombed Rotterdam. As a matter of fact, the Germans tried to indimidate us, too - and even more brutally so because as Slavs, we were considered an inferior race - but fortunately, my country has been blessed by some pretty tough hills, which is why we were able to sustain a strong guerilla army throughout WWII.

During our war of independence in 1991, it was the same old story once again. The army, confident of easy victory, fell easy prey to our nimble defense force. Had those generals in Belgrade planned more realistically, though, the war could easily have turned into a very uneven match where we wouldn't stand a chance.

posted 06-30-2001 03:59 PM            

As for the Swiss in foreign service...

Well, first off, they were known as "The Dirty Swiss" (die schmutzige Schweizer); though this wasn't so much because of poor hygiene, sneaky behaviour or battlefield brutality, as because they honoured their mercenary contracts in a period when this was unusual.

I've mentioned this before somewhere: it was an accepted manoeuvre for one side to try to buy the contracts of the other side's merecenaries, thus changing the odds and perhaps avoiding a battle entirely. The Swiss mercenaries didn't accept this as a legitimate tactic; they also fought hard, rather than observing the usual mercenary practice of "playing nice" (mercenary commanders preferred not to damage each others' "stock" if possible; it wasn't economically sensible, and also left bad feelings between units who might be enemies today but allies next week.) Result: even without committing atrocities - which 450 years ago were often regarded by all sides as standard practice, even before you add the religious-war excuse of "God will sort them out" - the Swiss caused more deaths than other mercenary units.

However, this stubbornness about contracts also had its honourable side. This is the Löwendenkmal in Luzern, a massive sculpture which, if you're in a receptive mood, packs a real emotional punch. (It even worked on Mark Twain, which took some doing; he called it "the saddest and most compassionate piece of stone in the world".)

The shield behind the lion's head carries the Swiss cross, the one under his paw bears the fleur-de-lys of Old France. The sculpture commemorates the contingent of Swiss Guards who defended the Tuileries Palace in 1792, during the French Revolution. The revolutionaries offered them surrender, as foreigners with no interest in French politics; the Guards replied that they had been hired to defend the Royal Family, their contracts had been paid in full, but they hadn't expired or been cancelled by their employer. So defend the Royal Family was what they were going to do.

posted 07-09-2003 05:07 AM            

Barb, we never where surpressed by the Augsburgs, but by the Habsburgs (aka dukes of austria)

in the burgundian war against karl the bold, swiss troops comited severe atrocitys to civilians, especially the bernese troops, they where hated among the population, and the citizens of murten celebrated the burgundians as liberators from the swiss terror.

pikesmen, although famous, never where the mainpart of a swiss army ( and i mean swiss armys, not merc troops) melee fighters, especially the fierce hallberdiers who used their short sempach halberd, lucerne hammers, morning stars or swords where the bigger part (50-60%) the pikesmen where just used to guard the carré against cavalry and somtimes fought in the phalanx style, but even in the later swiss armys they never exeeded 30-40%.

the main tactic of those swiss armys was to close range and get into close combat as fast as possible.

and please notice that after 1515 in marignano no real "swiss" army was found on the european battlefields, the high times of the carré was over anyway due to artillery and missle fire.

oh btw, the early swiss didnt used pikes at the battles of morgaten, sempach, näfels or laupen, mostly polearms, but already back then (early 14 century), they used the carré technique which was their major advantage.

p.s. ffs, cookoo clocks are from south germany!

posted 07-09-2003 08:24 AM            

fighting in this close formations where every soldiers was able to back his neighbor gave them the advantages on heavy cavalry and other light infantry.

this technique was perfectionated in the early 15th century and used in the battles of the burgundian and swabian wars, although it was also used earlier (laupen).

found a pic that may ilustrates it quite good:

posted 07-10-2003 10:40 PM            

Examples being Greeks v. Persia, Republican Romans, Swiss, and in modern times Israel v. Arabs.

Any comments?

Regards,