Peter Metcalfe replies.
> They were dismounting as early as 891 AD against the Vikings.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. To me the Frankish Armies of 891 are a completely different beast from the Normans of 1066 and again from the French knights of 1346. It's like comparing the tactics of Napoleons armies with the Modern French Army. I was under the impression that the mounted knight with set lance didn't really exist in western Europe before the late 11th century, with the Bayeaux Tapestry being used as evidence that the set lance was still not the standard way of doing things. The knights appear to still be using their lances overhand for the most part.
> To argue from one or two battles that the French had no regard
> for tactics is like using Cannae to argue that the Romans were
> useless with respect to tactics. At Agincourt and Crecy, the
> French did abysmally. In other battles, such as Hastings, they
> did quite well.
Different beasts. Again, much of my argument was that the French did not have good infantry because they disdained them, and I used Crecy as an example. Hastings is not only a different time, it wasn't even the French. The Normans were a completely different breed from the other Franks. And in the following 3 centuries a lot changed.
> Nevertheless this is the conclusion of my sources, based on recent
> scholarship (starting with Verbruggen in the 50's) which go out of
> their way to disprove the myths surrounding the medieval knight. In
> particular, attention has been paid to _all_ the battles fought and not
> those where one side manifestly screwed up.
I have insufficient background to dispute this, though I would be interested if you wanted to suggest a book or two as reading.
> Even your description of Crecy showed that the battle began as a
> result of knights disobeying the King's orders and the infantry
> being thrown in battle ineffectively as a result.
True, but I don't believe that this was isolated. I think it was a symptom of the French knights belief's in chivalry, personal honour and personal glory. When the King said "wait" and a knight at the front said "I'm going to attack - are you lot too chicken" and everyone at the front attacks - it's a symptom of poor discipline, though lots of courage. I contrast this with the English knights who did as they were told and waited in line.
> I do not believe that you can generalize that a gross lapse of
> discipline in one battle to say that the french did not know how to
> use their infantry correctly and then by implication that all
> western armies in glorantha will have ineffective infantry because
> they do not respect them.
I didn't go quite that far. I said "... if the people in charge treat their infantry with disdain, they tend to breed that disdain into their next generation of commanders and eventually the commanders stop using the infantry effectively if at all, and then they stop having decent infantry."
If they take their infantry seriously, then they can use them as useful adjuncts to their cavalry. If they don't then they won't use them properly. That's essentially my position.
> Normandy had the same knightly attitudes yet they used their
> infantry effectively at Hastings.
I'm not sure that this is necessarily correct. I have no evidence for this one way or the other. The Normans were still very close to their Norse origins, and most nobles on the Home Team were still fighting on foot, so there wasn't the same stigma associated with infantry. Once all the nobles were mounted, then all the footmen were lower class, and thus much less important.
England though was particularly unusual, since from early on the peasant were still expected to have and own weapons, while the peasants in France were (I believe) prohibited from same.
Even if we disagree over the reasons for Crecy's French slaughter, (an isolated case of lack of discipline vs a systematic disregard for infantry and discipline) Can we not agree that disdain for a tool or tactic will cause someone to not use that tool or tactic appropriately or to its best use.
If you wish to characterise the Western Armies as viewing their infantry with disdain (I have no idea), then I would suggest the logical follow on is that they don't use their infantry to their best potential. I have no problem with this. From my brief study of history, (and indeed modern management practices) the idea that an organisation works badly, inefficiently and with many mistakes seems much more reasonable and realistic than that an organisation works efficiently (including an army).
I'm happy to take this to email if you'd prefer.
Steve Rennell
Powered by hypermail