posted 03-07-2005 12:12 AM               

But what of the peasants who supplemented the knights in battle? Below the knightly class, were farmers who spent all their time farming the land. If they were recruited for war, what kind of military training would they have? And how common was it for nobles to actually try to recruit their own tenants for War?

posted 03-07-2005 02:15 PM               

After all, every country in Europe differ in terms of menpower, resources and/or military savvy-ness.

In the Battle of Legnica, a large number of German gold miners were called to support the Polish army. These men were so poorly equipped for war that they were given nothing but the tools of their trade for defense.

Likewise, longbow archery was once hailed as England's national sport, obviously for the sake of war-making.

While Freddy II of the Holy Roman Empire nominally had thousands of Saracen crossbow mercenaries working for him.

posted 03-07-2005 11:13 PM               

Before, people were organized into tribes, and everyman was also a warrior, and they engaged in alot of tribal warefare, so almost everyone was experianced. But throughout the rest of the middle ages, commoners were either farmers, or worked some kind of trade in a town.

So simply, does anyone know of any examples of how common soldiers were trained, if at all? Did peasants above the serf level owe military obligation to their lord?

posted 03-08-2005 04:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by celticpagan:
We all know that the Medieval Knight was well-trained and well armed soldier. Being apart of the nobility, he'd have time to spend hours a day in training.

But what of the peasants who supplemented the knights in battle? Below the knightly class, were farmers who spent all their time farming the land. If they were recruited for war, what kind of military training would they have? And how common was it for nobles to actually try to recruit their own tenants for War?

I know that knights sometimes brought warriors with them to battle. Would the knights lease land to men, and also train with them? Does anyone know if there's any evidence that the lower class was involved in any kind of training for war?

---

posted 03-08-2005 10:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curmudgeon:
Once feudalism was well ensconced and serfdom was the rule, it is my understanding that many serfs were forbidden to possess arms other than an axe or other such implement. Yet it seems to be the dominant theory these selfsame serfs were the core of the conscripts called up when some lord needed an army. I would also be interested in further information in their arming and training.

---

I haven't been able to find much information on this at all, despite reading books on Medieval Warfare and Medieval Villagers etc.

I never read that villagers were forbidden to bear arms, but it would make sense that many manorial lords wouldn't want their villagers to bear arms.

In the Middle Ages, you had a wealthy class, that could afford to equip themselves well, and who were expected to either show up for war whenever their over-lords called, or pay scutage instead.

But surely a good portion of the army was from the poor class. We have on record, warriors that were paid a couple of pennies a day, the wage of a common laboror.

It doesn't seem like much information has survived on the level of training for the common foot soldier, and wether or not their service was voluntary or cohearsed.

If you factor in that a big campainge may only have 10,000 common foot soldiers and there were at least a million men of fighting age in Medieval England for example, only about 1 in a 100 would have been needed to fight. So it seems as though a Lord might designate a few villagers for military training if the need arose. It would be better for him than training a whole village how to fight.

posted 03-08-2005 12:34 PM               

Even so, we are not looking at the entire picture. The Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantium), whose centralized bureaucracy would prove to be superior to the rest of Europe for generations to come, allowed the Empire to raise a standing professional army drawn from its peasant class (and not one based on nobility). Superior organization, and brilliant use of their military tacitcs enabled the Eastern Roman Empire to endure countless invasions from the Middle East and elsewhere until the 15th century (and a slight interruption during the Crusades).

Powerful Islamic Empires of the Middle East, such as Persia, and Dynastic Empires of China are all well-known examples where professional fighting men are not concentrated in the hands of a selected few, but rather, drawn from the masses.

Nominally, these powerful bureaucratic entities are the ones capable of training armed men at a widespread level. The war making capacities of these places during the middle-ages are often overlooked.

Bottom line, it all comes down to if you could afford it. After all, money and men are what keeps war going.

posted 03-08-2005 04:04 PM               

From later town records we know that different guilds had responsibility for different parts of the city walls. Cologne and Dresden used a regular competition to keep up the skills of marksmen and Cologne in particular had statues from the C13th IIRC stating that no man could be a citizen if he didn't have a coat of mail and a xbow.

Does anyone have a battle where peasant levies attacked knights? I can only think of things like Falkirk where the levies couldn't keep movement discipline so they were shot to pieces where they stood. At Roosebeke in the C14th the men moved forward by linking arms but this led to them being so cramped that the French defeated them.

Neither of these types of deployment really require group training.

Swiss are a bit different but that is well outside of the time period you're asking about.

posted 03-08-2005 04:19 PM               

Now, as with all things medieval this is probably only part of the story. Surviving records are fragmentary to say the least. There are also records from about the same time listing persons and the arms and armor they own. Some seem fairly well equiped for non-knights and some poorly equiped. Presumably these records list those liable for military service or for providing part of the equipment for a soldier since there are a handful of women recorded.

One prime method was to pay the soldiers. I imagine there were a number who signed up for more than one campaign, becoming semi-professionals. And of course there were the professionals, the mercenaries. Both of these groups would have had some level of training above that of raw levies, even if it was only on-the-job training.

Probably the only thing we can say for certain is that methods varied from time-to-time and place-to-place and that all manner were used.

posted 03-09-2005 12:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brock H:
I have read that during Edward I's reign (and presumably for a period before and after) that when a summons was put out for men for his Welsh and Scottish wars a community was given the number of men it was to supply. The community would decide who would go and was responsible for equipping them.

Now, as with all things medieval this is probably only part of the story. Surviving records are fragmentary to say the least. There are also records from about the same time listing persons and the arms and armor they own. Some seem fairly well equiped for non-knights and some poorly equiped. Presumably these records list those liable for military service or for providing part of the equipment for a soldier since there are a handful of women recorded.

One prime method was to pay the soldiers. I imagine there were a number who signed up for more than one campaign, becoming semi-professionals. And of course there were the professionals, the mercenaries. Both of these groups would have had some level of training above that of raw levies, even if it was only on-the-job training.

Probably the only thing we can say for certain is that methods varied from time-to-time and place-to-place and that all manner were used.

---

posted 03-09-2005 01:03 AM               

Uh, that is what Brock just said in good detail. Read his post carefully.

posted 03-09-2005 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex:
Does anyone have a battle where peasant levies attacked knights?

---

posted 03-09-2005 02:31 PM            

One thing which has to be mentioned (and if it already has and I missed it, I apologize) is that it wasn't simply a matter of the "professional armored nobility" and "ill-clad peasants"--there were often soldiers drawn from what would be considered something along the lines of the "middle class" of today, like England's yeomen, who provided both longbow archers and billmen for Medieval and Renaissance armies. These yeomen practiced their own substrata of martial arts, which had both military (war) and civilian (hunting and self-defense) applications. Those arts included archery, sword-and-buckler fencing, and the use of the quarterstaff and bill.

posted 03-10-2005 04:54 PM               

The idea of rounding up every able-bodied man and handing them a spear is very uncommon in the medieval period. A lord might conscript everyone handy, but that was usually for labor - i.e. reinforcing a castle or doing digging and hauling for a siege. In most places, the infantrymen who fought were of some middling class - either indpendent yeomen or town burghers, or dependents/servants of a nobleman. A baron going to war didn't usually have to arm his kitchen help or serfs - he had trained and armed men at his disposal (either permanently, or on call). As far as I know, such men were trained in the way all skilled workers were trained in this time - as apprentice/trainees, under the tuteledge of a master/veteran of the craft. Town records in the late medieval period do show signs of regular training sessions, but we can't tell how effective they were.

There are a few cases of peasants (real peasants, not select infantrymen) taking on a knightly army. The Ditmarschers of Northern Germany/Frisia(?) preserved an independent, nonfeudal existence in their swamps, which no knightly army could penetrate. In at least one case, a mass of Wallachian peasants succeeded in ambushing a Hungarian army in a mountain pass and destroy it by rolling boulders down the mountainside. In neither case are we talking about a tactical offensive in clear terrain.

posted 03-10-2005 05:22 PM               

Schiavona mentioned the 'middle class' in the later middle ages; IMO, they played quite an important role in medieval warfare. Instead of poor organized bands of peasants, waving their flails and scythes, there were many well organized, well equipped and well trained bands of militiamen. Not only cities, but rural communities as well had their militias.
There are many surviving documents on city militias. They show an organization consisting of officers, NCO's and enlisted men. They also tell us, that it was mandatory for militiamen to show up at sunday after mass, for their weekly drill. Period illustrations show well equipped infantrymen; kettle helmet, gambesson (occasionally hauberks), side-arm and a spear (or pike, or other pole-arm). Units of archers or crossbowmen are also depicted. Some wealthier citizens had armour which poorer knights could only dream of.
I know, some members of nobility would disregard everyone who was not of noble birth and simply called them peasants, yet, sooner or later they'd suffer a costly defeat. Courtrai (1302) is a notable example; the Flemish city militias, reinforced with (dismounted) knights from Berg and Gulik and Jan van Renesse's cavalry kept in reserve proved to be a formidable force.
Although less spectacular (since Jan van Brabant made very good use of his cavalry), at Woerringen, the Cologne militia (allies to Brabant) did what they were supposed to do; holding their ground and advancing when ordered to do so.

Somewhere in the 1460's, Charles the Bold (Duke of Burgundy) formed his 'Compagnies d'Ordonnances', probably the first professional standing army (in western Europe) after the Romans. The bulk of the men were well trained footsoldiers, who won quite some battles. I know, Charles grossly underestimated the ferocity of the Swiss militias, which eventually led to the downfall of Burgundy.

posted 03-13-2005 06:26 PM               

Even the term 'mercenary' is kind of iffy, as the majority of medieval warriors were recruited as needed, and payed a daily wage. The central question of the post was, how did they recieve training, and what was the degree of arms training of these foot soldiers who were recruited as needed.

I really liked the answer one poster gave of the Yeomen who spent time training with the bill. And they probably had enough money on hand to buy leather armor or chain mail.

posted 03-13-2005 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roel Oosterop:
Somewhere in the 1460's, Charles the Bold (Duke of Burgundy) formed his 'Compagnies d'Ordonnances', probably the first professional standing army (in western Europe) after the Romans. The bulk of the men were well trained footsoldiers, who won quite some battles. I know, Charles grossly underestimated the ferocity of the Swiss militias, which eventually led to the downfall of Burgundy.

Regards, Roel

---

That would be the popular preconception, but in reality, I'd argue that Milan and Venice were the first to create a professional standing army after the Romans. According to Commynes in his Memmoires, the Franco-Burgundian reforms were in imitation of the princes of Italy;.