How the heck did medieval war work? And other rambling questions.

[Jorunkun]

Just to add to the many excellent links in this thread, I suggest you watch "1066", a recently broadcast dramatization of the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings by Channel Four (a UK station). It tells the story from the perspective of regular people and while the acting isn't all that great, the setting, equipment and battle-reenactment are all very inspirational.

1066 - Channel 4

 

[Baron Opal]

Jester's storyhour, The Fall of Civilization, depicts a seige It might be inspirational.

 

[Starfox]

Great recommendation. It also reinforces one of your thoughts...wide-spread devastation. Because of poor logistics, an army on the march fed off of the land, consuming entire villages along their path.

This is where the grit comes into medieval warfare. Battles were dangerous affairs that could favor either side. It was much safer, more predictable, and more profitable to spend time plundering enemy civilians. This became kind of a strategic warfare; deny an enemy a large part of his income and he cannot sustain his war effort.

An important aspect of medieval and ancient warfare is that armies are small; there is no way to hold a front line. Thus incursions into enemy territory - generally to raid - are very common. There is no shelter from the war, no safe zone.

 

[Starfox]

Does anybody have any historical examples of a city or fortress that was encapsulated by enemy walls/battlements during a siege?

The Battle of Alesia, Cesars final major battle in the conquest of Gaul (France), is a perfect example of this. It features double encirclements; Romans encircling a city while being encircled by Gauls in turn.

Edit: Ops, this link had already been posted. That's what you get for posting before reading the entire thread. Aw well, great minds think alike, and this battle is a classic - literally.

 

[Tuft]

This is where the grit comes into medieval warfare. Battles were dangerous affairs that could favor either side. It was much safer, more predictable, and more profitable to spend time plundering enemy civilians. This became kind of a strategic warfare; deny an enemy a large part of his income and he cannot sustain his war effort.

You did not just plunder, you went in for deliberately terrorizing civilians and cause widespread starvation.

Chevauchée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

According to historian Kelly DeVries, chevauchée tactics developed into a regular strategy in the Hundred Years' War following the Black Death when Edward III of England no longer had the troops to engage in regular battles. Specific tactics were "a quick cavalry raid through the countryside with the intention of pillaging unfortified villages and towns, destroying crops and houses, stealing livestock, and generally disrupting and terrorizing rural society. Most of troops used in a chevauchée during the Hundred Years' War were made up of light horse or hobelars. The mercenary groups known as the 'Free companies' were also prominent in using the chevauchée."[2] These tactics had been successfully used against the English by the Scots in the Wars of Scottish Independence, especially in the raiding of Northern England by James Douglas, Lord of Douglas.

The idea of the chevauchée had been known in Spain in the Middle Ages long before the Hundred Years' War. The tactic had been perfected over the Reconquista, seven centuries of warfare between Christians and Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula. Abandoning large armies, most of the fighting occurred during a chevauchée and during small sieges. A particularly good example of the chevauchée in Spanish warfare existed in southern Valencia between 1356 and 1379 during the War of the Two Pedros. During this period of near constant warfare, the forces of the Kingdom of Castile continuously destroyed grain, olive trees and vineyards so that nothing remained to be harvested.

 

[rgard]

Edit: Ops, this link had already been posted. That's what you get for posting before reading the entire thread. Aw well, great minds think alike, and this battle is a classic - literally.

No worries! And yes, great minds do think alike...in my humble opinion.

 

[Coldwyn]

I´r recommend taking a look at the Crimean War Crimean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It´s not medieval anymore, but I´d guess a magic-influenced campaign world can´t really be.
This war saw some impressive sieges, multiple campaigns und adaptions of the military and field medical doctrines.

 

[Umbran]

An important aspect of medieval and ancient warfare is that armies are small; there is no way to hold a front line. Thus incursions into enemy territory - generally to raid - are very common. There is no shelter from the war, no safe zone.

Yes. Armies are (by today's standards) small. Standing armies - professional soldiers standing around waiting for a fight to start - are practically nonexistent.

The bulk of the infantry in most medieval wars were normally farmers, called up when the need arose. Often enough, wars were a summer thing - allow the farmers to plant in spring, call them to war for the summer, and then send them back to harvest in the fall. Failure to get enough of your farmers back to their crops could inflict more damage on your homeland than the enemy troops.

Also note, what Starfox mentions also means that wars were not typically won or lost by holding large swaths of territory. There aren't men enough in the field to do that.

 

[Ulrick]

How the heck did medieval war work?

Medieval War, particularly the Hundred Years War, was known for its sieges raids. Pitched battles were few, and often devastating to the French (until late in the war) The English had the rudiments of a professional army not based on vassalage. The French still relied on it is feudal hosts until later on in the war.

Often, when an English army came marching through France (a chevauchee), the French would hole up until they passed by. And the French would harass the English, but avoided pitched battles--particularly after Poitiers.

The English army would lay siege to a few key castles or towns. Capturing these towns were incredibly important to maintain supply chains, so the French could not attack them from behind, and to subdue the local nobles.
The process was often slow. Local nobles who submited often had dual loyalities. Of course, winter slowed things down further. Sieges had to be ended quickly or supplies could become a problem or a relief army sent.

Massive conquests were few and far between.

Ransoming was common. In a fight between nobles and knights, the goal was to capture your opponent, not kill them. They were usually worth more alive.

Again, "Agincourt" by Bernard Cornwell is excellent work of historical fiction.
Alfred H. Burne's works ("The Crecy War" and "The Agincourt War") are a bit dated, but cover lesser known parts of the war (like the succession crisis in Brittany). Finally, read anything by Anne Curry.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It´s not medieval anymore, but I´d guess a magic-influenced campaign world can´t really be.

There was a thread some time ago- probably more than one, actually- that dealt with how using magic in war means that a typical fantasy world with a medieval style social structure wouldn't have medieval style military architecture.

Given the number of hostile flying critters (and those usable as mounts)- both natural and magically enhanced- you couldn't depend on a RW castle design with big courtyards and uncovered battlements for safety. You'd expect fortresses to be squatter, with less open space. More of the design would be covered or subterranean, possibly even the whole thing...just like the trenches, tunnels, pillboxes and other hard points you see in WW1 and beyond.

OTOH, you'd also have to deal with more aquatic and subterranean foes as well... Maybe your termite-like fortress would be proof against dragon attack from the air, but you'd still have to fight off the occasional bulette or purple worm incursion (not that you wouldn't have to with a normal castle, either).