[Christopher VaughnStrever]

Great stuff. I am eating all the info up and taking it in 100%

Your kind and helpful suggestions and close scrutiny is not going to waste, I am making the adjustments. and again am extremely thankful!

[James Anderson III]

[Ahmad Tabari]

I think the Arab influence on European knighthood is worthy of mention. In pagan Arabia, chivalry and horsemanship began to be merged together. A horseman in that culture was not only expected to be a skilled fighter, but also had to be brave, generous, and willing to come to the aid of those who could not defend themselves (often for no other reason but reputation). I strongly reccomend that you read some poems for Antarah ibn Shaddad. He was a pagan Arab warrior of very high renown and was as popular for his powerful lance thrusts as he was for his willingliness to aid the weak. This tradition of the chivalrous horseman outlived Arabian paganism and was incorporated into Islamic marital culture. However whereas the motivationfor the pagans behind fighting bravely and aiding the weak was reputation, the Muslim horseman or faris was largely influenced by religious reasons.

After the conquest of Persia, the Muslim Arabs gradually learned the importance of heavy cavalry on the battlefield. And as a result Arab horsemen began wearing heavier armour and using shock tactics to break enemy formations. Such heavy cavalry units were used to great effect in the campaigns conducted by the Muslims in Gaul. The Umayyad governor of Spain Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi placed great importance on his heavy cavalry in his battles against Frankish armies and he won several victories due to this. But as we all know the Franks were eventually able to defeat him at the battle of Tours. Nevertheless, the Franks learned of the effectiveness of heavy cavalry and began incorporating armoured lancers into their armies.

Back in Spain, Arab ideals of horsemanship, chivalry, and even courtly love were influencing Spanish culture. These ideals slowly made their way to Frankish lands and particularly influenced the culture of the Occitan aristocracy, who in turn influenced their counterparts in the northen Frankish lands.

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

This is the next portion, again correct me where i'm wrong.

Becoming A knight early on
-At the age of 20 years one could be “Knighted”
-In the early years of the knights, A knight could dub a warrior a knight for something extraordinary he did on the battle field.
-These “dubbed” Knights had to undergo training in weapons, wearing armor, and the handling of a horse.
-In the 12th century only one of knightly parentage could become a knight.
-In France Louis the VI basically ordered any Knight that did not have proper family heritage to be removed for Knighthood.
-The children of Knights became esquires, in essence they started their apprenticeship of becoming a knight.
-The sons of Knights that were physically unfit of the profession of Knightly service became apart of the priesthood or went into monasteries.
-Yes on special occasions the exclusive knightly heritage was broken and a King could award a man with the Knighting ceremony.
-Many battles early on were decided upon the personal bravery and the abilities of Knights while lightly armored cavalry, foot soldiers, and archers supported the knights.
-Around 1302 we start to see a change in these tactics of knights primarily deciding the outcome of the battles.
-Since the training of Knights were only passed down from the Knight to esquire, we start to see an emergence of a new profession- that of training the sons of knights for the battlefield.

[T. Arndt]

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

I was thinking that exact same thought Arndt, this book I have by H W Koch "Medieval warfare" had mentioned what I typed up earlier, though Some doubts arise and thus I look to the kind folk here to afix the wrong information I've read, thanks

[Matthew Amt]

Ooog, be careful with Koch. I'd take everything he says with a grain of salt, unless he documents his statements. Beyond that, the book itself is terribly organized, with most of it devoted to castles, sieges, and Renaissance warfare. Many nice illustrations, but many bad Victorian ones, too, and don't trust the captions. Basically, it's a very outdated coffee table book.

Matthew

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

Thanks for the tip. I am seeing some instances where he is stating references, and I am checking alot of what he states along with other sources I have found online. and then only after extensive research (as far as I am able) then do I post it up here. So that I am not needlessly wasting peoples time and efforts.

[Sjors B]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought there is no specific age on wich a squire was to be knighted, this depended partially on his age, but also on his skills. The knight teaching the squire decides when the squire is ready and then a knigth of higher rank knights the boy.

upon the change of tactics in using knights you might mention the battle of agincourt. this battle is an important turning point. normally a full scale cavalry charge delivered a decive blow on the enemy ranks that would win you a battle.
Agincourt is considered the first major battle where dismounted men at arms and archers manage to defeat such a full scale charge

[Gregory J. Liebau]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

I'd like to revise one of my earlier statements, Christopher. During the Republican times Romans did have mandatory military service among the landed citizenry, but this trend fell out as a more professional military system began to come into being during the time of the civil wars which led to the establishment of the Empire and a new, full-time service incorporating eager participants into the legions and their new framework.

-Gregory

[Kurt Scholz]

On the humour front you might add an idea from the famous cartoonist E.O.Plauen (died during WWI, no copyright). In his father and son stories he has an epic fight with different weapons between father and a burglar. The son drops a pin that works like a caltrop and disables the burglar because he jumps on one leg in pain after stepping into the pin. The same could work for dismounted riders (like Charles Martell's against the Muslims) who use their pointed spurs as an anti-approach-means.

Your history of mounted troops is too Eurocentric. However, Europe is part of Eurasia and whenever opportunity or necessity arose mounted warriors, light and heavy came from the Asian grazing grounds upon Europe. I suggest you explain the general role of heavy cavalry and why it developed, but don't say it were the Persians, the Greeks or else who developed it. Rather talk about how it was used by different people we know about.
Afterwards you can have specific regions and times in the limelight, like Western European knights, heavy cavalry of the Mongols and Manchu, Muslim and Byzantine cataphracts. Concerning the Macedonians, you have to refer also to their Scythian cavalry "teachers". I suggest somehow to show a master pupil relationship between different cultures and how useful concepts were adapted to different settings in other habitats. You may also mention some heavy cavalry killers, like long spears, massed archery, mounted archery and heavy ranged antipersonnel weapons like the carroballistae and zumbooruck camel troops.

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

I see where your going with that thought there in the second paragraph (last two sentences) there Kurt. And I'll follow that

I do have in place two specific points and also general indications through out my presentation that the knights really developed from many cultures and not just one main source.

[Matthew Amt]

Is it really safe to discuss *influence* from Scythia, Macedonia, Parthia, and other distant times and places in the development of European mounted knights? It would seem to me that the development into something recognizably knight-like happened in the post-Roman or early medieval period. Certainly these warriors knew about Rome, but what did they know or care about Scythia or Parthia? If you assume influence from those places, then you have to conclude that without those places, knighthood would not have developed in the same way that it did in Europe, and I don't think that's a logical conclusion. Once you have an upper class (as most cultures do), horses, shields, and weapons, a mounted elite is practically inevitable.

If you're just laying out the general history of mounted troops, that's one thing. Trying to follow direct descent is quite another! I also feel that a Euro-centric analysis is perfectly reasonable, considering the topic is European knights.

Not sure I'm expressing myself clearly, here!

Matthew

[Ahmad Tabari]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Ahmad makes some great points - of course, we can never be certain that the Normans were in fact inspired by their Carolingian ancestors who we cannot be certain were inspired by the Moors who pushed in the continent from Spain... But there is certainly an evolutionary process that took place. There are multiple perspectives that can be argued, but one of the most satisfactory answers comes from a Merovingian/Carolingian background, as first exemplified (in any great detail) by Bernard Bachrach in the 1970s in his works on the armies and tactics of these Frankish peoples. It is certain that the development of their cavalry into the heavily armed forces that probably became the mainstay of the Norman knightly regiments was developed during the time of the Islamic incursions and therefore it is likely that the evolutionary pattern Ahmad pieced together has some weight to it.

As odd as it may seem to trace the lineage of a warrior culture's tactical background back thousands of years, it really isn't. Was the United States not founded entirely through an indirect means on the cultures of ancient Roman civilization and other past kingdoms that championed liberties that have were exemplified as right and proper by the Founding Fathers? There are no more stretches than the imagination wishes to presuppose. Anything is possible - a correlation between Scythian and Norman heavy cavalry tactics is no less realistic than our Republic which stands today because of Roman ideology.

-Gregory

[William P]

another way of looking at it is that as i understand the norse and saxons, while they never had a force like the knights to my knowledge, they did have a feudel-ISH system, there were a series of layers from the king to the larger landholders i think the earls, i title taken from those of viking jarls. the thegns are in there somewhere i think, while these did not as such have that feudel obligations of medieval systems, but these thegns and jarls did maintain small forces of personal household troops i.e the huscarls, for example alot of the numbers of alfred the greats armies were made not of these household troops but a levy from the fyrds of saxon england, and the household troops were the frontline of the shieldwall most of the time,

and while were talking about european knights, it helps understand the thought processes behind moving from a mostly infantry force and nobles on foot to that of a military primarily composed of mounted nobles is the example of japan, though in japans case instead of lancers they developed mounted archers, this trend appeared around the similar time as the european knights i.e 800-1000 AD especially as a result of their efforts to subdue the northern emishi. who fought as mounted archers with guerilla tactics mainly, during this time the main arm was a army of mostly conscripts modelled off the tang chinese utilizing spear wielding infantry etc, after this, and a few other wars between the taira and minamato. which were mainly ground down by the fast emishi but the mounted nobles could somewhat keep pace.

over time, with issues such as the need to keep men at home for farm work, and the effectiveness of these infantry forces against the emishi and in other feuds, the decision was made eventually to move to the model of a nearly full time warriors of the elite class. i.e the samurai.
thats the story in a nutshell, but stephan turnbull goes into it in more detail.

as for the influences of eastern opponents on the west, during roman times the clibinarii and other such troops were developed to help counter the super heavys of the persian parthian and sassanid armies, i.e the cataphracts, though these changes were primarily relegated to the eastern romans,

its also worth remembering that alot of the franks, and their predecessors, the gauls and britons, had nobles pulled by chariots, in gaul however by the time ceaser came along, they had largely removed chariots, and instead were mounted on horses, though some tribes reportedly merely acted like mounted infantry, riding to a spot then dismounting to fight,

but there is something important to remember about the idea of a mounted elite, is that if your a rich landowner, you have two choices on how to fight, either walk or ride, if you have the money youd likely provide horses because riding is faster and probably more comfortable than walking,

[Gregory J. Liebau]

William, the main problem with looking to the English model based on the Anglo-Saxon society is the fact that Norman knighthood was clearly evident and a mainstay in their military structure before they faced the English armies in 1066. William the Conqueror crossed the English channel with a multitude of knights that were derived from over a century old tradition in Normandy which was also evident in other Norman and various French armies that had traveled far south into places such as Sicily and Southern Italy to claim territory or serve as mercenary corps by this time or very soon after - too soon, in fact, to be affected in such a way by the Anglo-Saxon sociology.

Feudalism in general is tossed around extremely loosely, as I've made clear in earlier posts on this thread. There are great British historians who argue both for and against the utility of fiefdom, feudal bondage and ties of vassalage in England in a recognizably "Feudal" sense before the arrival of William the Conqueror and his establishment of a Norman ruling class within the realm of England in the late 11th century. Refer to Elizabeth R. Brown's article entitled "Tyranny of a Construct" just to see how widespread the confusion regarding feudal origins and ideology really is... Particularly, English Feudalism is hotly debated and the correspondence of Norman knighthood to Anglo-Saxon 'feudal' obligations is a very, very shaky foundation from any historical perspective.

Merovingian and Carolingian bonds of fealty and feudal distribution of land during the 8th-10th centuries and the early success (c. 800 CE) in Northern France of being able to raise dominating military forces of mounted warriors with an excellent array of arms belies a very distinguished and successful French system upon which knighthood in the Norman model was build far before any influence from the English system was noted. It's really a lost cause to say that the Anglo-Saxon system did anything more than provide some solidity and structure to the overarching government system established by William and epitomized by the Domesday book in the late 1080s. Knighthood was not among the advances made due to this new wave of regulation, though.

-Gregory

[Kurt Scholz]

The Romans fought the Scythian/Sarmatian (names get mixed) forces, including their heavy cavalry and were so impressed that they hired mercenaries from the region under their influence. During the Migration period Alans, who were under this influence, were also moving around in Europe and settled down in many places, although their name as an ethnic group is only preserved in the joint rule with the Vandals. The Alans were cavalry par excellence, including heavy troops as the Roman soldier-writer Ammianus Marcellinus points out in his writing of an order against the Alans. What we can't be sure about so far is how much Alan fighting know-how survived the migration period.
Military theory on how to fight the Mongols is also a well preserved part of Europe's Middle Age written works and already highlights the future development of heavy cavalry for example. So Europe isn't isolated.

[William P]