[Peter Bosman]

I am a bit puzzled.

Whereas the armament of early frankish (mounted) freemen is surprisingy equal to their eastern, southern and southeastern counterparts all the way to the widespreaduse of firearms, in the west the successors of the frankish warriors seem to carry far less arms but more armour.

Look at the 14th century p.e. A moorish or a mamluk cavalryman would be equiped with
- one extremely long lance
- bow and lóts of arrows
- most times two swords and the hefty curved dagger
- a mace
- a horsewhip foreseen to be used offensively as needed
- shield
furthermore the rider would be trained to offensively and defensively use the cloth of his turban
The lance deserves extra attention as the 'extremely' long polish hussar lance most likely was copied of the turks as the islamic cavalry used bamboo lances up to7½ metres!!!!!!

Now look at the 14th century knight
- lance
- most likely one sword and a dagger
- mace or hammer
- shield

One wonders if these riders were meant to fight eachother. I doubt it. The strange fact that the mamlukes did not consider the crusaders to be a major threat seems to fit in with this.
Especially the lack of long-range arms of the knight strikes me as very odd. The more so as the Frankish freemen most definitely carried bow and arrows ánd several spears.
What happened? Castle based warfare in Europe?


Peter

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, one thing that is certainly worth noting is that the tactical roles of troops in the European armies of the time tended to be more specialized. The average Turkic heavy cavalry--and their Arab and Egyptian copies--had armor, bow, and lance so they were able to handle all three roles of charging, skirmishing, and massed archery, but a European army divided these rules among the men-at-arms (charging), crossbowmen (massed archery), and locally-recruited auxiliaries/Turcopoles (skirmishing).

That's what I think, anyway.

[Peter Bosman]

I was not familiar with the term Turcopoles and the info about them was enlightening. The crusaders indeed had problems with the lighter, more mobile and more flexible cavalry and hired thóse as aids.
This is in line with the islamitic perception of the crusades. Until Saladin they were more occupied with their local interests than with the militairy threat of the 'franji' as they called the crusaders.
The, militairy, objectives of the first crusades were vague anyway.

Makes for very sad reading btw. Só many western civilians in the wake of the armies becoming victims and sold off as slaves.
My school history lessons (in itself quite ancient ) did not include the large numbers of civilians who sought to find a new life in the promised land and who found death or slavery.

Anyway. Question answered. Thanks.

Peter

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Ah. I forgot to mention that Spanish men-at-arms often had bows as well, especially before the Hundred Years' War spread the northern fashions of armor into the peninsula. This is borne out by the fact that Spanish documents about military and militia practices stipulate a bonus pay for mounted men-at-arms who possessed (and were proficient in the use of) the bow. Unfortunately, they don't indicate the proportions of men-at-arms who were competent archers--whether they were the minority (and that the kings were trying to give a financial incentive so that more of them would take up the bow) or the majority. The accounts of battles tend to indicate that the latter is the case and that the Spanish relied heavily on their foot for missile power just like other European armies of the time.

[Russ Ellis]

[Peter Bosman]

[Russ Ellis]

[Taylor Ellis]

[James R]

[Peter Bosman]

I'am sorry guys but could you PLEASE keep the silly political undertow from the forum?!
Firstly there are people with strong opposing views and secondly this forum is not the place.
I strongy suggest you read 'The Travels of Ibn Battuta' to obtain some humane perspective.
Furthermore you are off-topic.

@Russ
The view on 'unknighly' missile weapons may have had an influance on the slow implementation of firearms too, although I guess selfpreservation was a stronger motive and the reason to consider these weapons bád
The way the crossbowmen were treated is a close parallel. They received a solid financial bonus but were sort of social pariahs at the same time because of their 'villanous' weapon.

The Mamluk-handbook is quite informative about the battle-field ethics. HUGELY different from what romantics think of western knightly chivalry.
Personally I think 'chivalry' was something flexible and I find the mamluk-manual refreshingly honest.

The book I looked for is 'The Making of Europe' by Robert Bartlett. Cannot find the islamic view on the crusades but took the Tallhoffer book that litterally illustrates the 'flexibility' of chivalrous behaviour in battle. I want to compair the way he suggests using the lance to the mamluk manual. Interesting.

Peter

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Chad Arnow]

[Russ Ellis]

[Elling Polden]

The franks and mameluks spent conciderably more time fighting each other in their respective homelands than fighting each other.

There also a question of what you are going to use your cavalry for.
European heavy cavalry is used for massed charges, in a field battle environment, in conjunction with infantry formations.

In the east, cavalry is also used for skirmishing, covering ground, and "irregular warfare". This dates all the way back to the parthian and late roman empires, where multipurpose cavalry replaced large ammounts of infantry for the purpose of controlling large amounts of territory.

While the europeans used cavlry for these tasks as well, it was not carried out by the noble heavy cavalry themselves, but franchised out to yeomen and similar.

If you are fighing tribesmen in the mountains, you defintely want more mobility, a bow, and a large arsenal of weapons.
Earlier, less specialiced european heavy cav would also carry more different weapons, including light crossbows.

[Peter Bosman]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Peter Bosman]

I am not aware of an 'intervention' is 'spanish warfare' morover do not see what is has to do with the 100 years war.
For about 700 years the iberian kingdoms were busy with the moors. Obviously that was not all that happened and royalty pretty much a european interbreeding program so the inberian peninsula was far from isolated. I think no 'intervention' was needed to know about the rest of 'europe' and also were the moors a strong selective factor.
Now 'war against the moors' must be treated with care too as during those 700 years grew an intricate and strange web of alliances and interdependancies between moorisch and christian rulers. During moorish ruling the christian knights were still in their own castles by and large.
The story of 'el cid' is illustrative. Both even foúght at echathers sides more often than not. Their relative armaments and techniques will have influance eachother greatly and was probably in several case intentionally complementary. 'Spanish warfare' did not exist as such.

Whatever however. We are talking >7 centuries so huge changes are a certainty.
I just wondered about the marked difference and get it now. Both why the frankish mounted warrior gave the bow up and why the islamic cavalry generally did not.
Thanks.

Peter

[Lafayette C Curtis]